D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Vince_Snetterton]

Let's try a real world example. Give me one stat and one minimum you would like to see in place under this system and I will see if I can come up with a viable reasonable character concept that will fall under the threshold that you set.

It can't be done with a Real World example. D&D does not have sick kids hospitals, vaccines, programs for Dyslexic and Autistic kids, etc...

But if you going to use some example of some Hill Dwarf grew up congenitally weak, but brilliant, and his family shielded him from the brutal winters, chill night airs, and dangerous animals until he was an adult.....nope, not going there either. I am sure that we all can handwave a backstory to justify any statblock for any species. I can create a backstory justifying my char starting with 20's across the board. But that does not fly in any game.

There must be genetic differences in the species that are reflected in base stats, one way or another.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I also don't like that kind of ASI.

Just sayin'

I'm with you on this.

I use rolled stats and I prefer if my scores dont change beyond magical items or boons. Maybe if Proficiency bonus was up to +8 or 10, maybe half-level? That way your character skills still grows, but its more in relation with adventuring (advancing in levels) rather than regular ability increases.

My idea for a future game would be to remove all ASIs and instead grant the UA Racial feats at level 4 and 12, and have the characters either gain 1 skills, 1 language or 1 tools or a UA Skill feats at 8-16-19. Fighters would either gain a Skill feat or a new Fighting style at level 6 and 14. Then my job as a DM would be to be generous with magic items and consumables. My players are huge fans of shiny loot.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It can't be done with a Real World example. D&D does not have sick kids hospitals, vaccines, programs for Dyslexic and Autistic kids, etc...

But if you going to use some example of some Hill Dwarf grew up congenitally weak, but brilliant, and his family shielded him from the brutal winters, chill night airs, and dangerous animals until he was an adult.....nope, not going there either. I am sure that we all can handwave a backstory to justify any statblock for any species. I can create a backstory justifying my char starting with 20's across the board. But that does not fly in any game.

There must be genetic differences in the species that are reflected in base stats, one way or another.

I meant real world example as in you give me a combo and I would create a character, as opposed to discussing theoretically.

However you then went on to say that character backstory can be used to justify any stat for any character choice which is essentially exactly what I am saying I'm going to do.

Apparently we both agree it can be done, you just don't like the players at your table being allowed to do it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

And without ASIs that half-orc is not stronger than a strong halfling.


Ok. But why does this super exceptionalism only apply to ASIs? If I feel my dhampir should have fear resistance of halflings and charm resistance of elves because they are completely emotionally dead inside, why I can't have that? If I feel that it would be cool that my fire geneasi can breathe fire like a dragonborn, why can't I have that? If I want my halfling to have drunk a super serum that gives him wings, why can't I have that?

Like sure, I get the 'PCs are unique superheroes' angle, but then lets at least be logically consistent with it and apply it to traits too.

If you were a player in my game and wanted your vampire to have fear and charm resistance then I'd let you do so by giving up some other feature or taking some other downside as a balance.

This poll is just about ASI though, not every character creation option.

Would you not let a player at your table do it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you were a player in my game and wanted your vampire to have fear and charm resistance then I'd let you do so by giving up some other feature or taking some other downside as a balance.

This poll is just about ASI though, not every character creation option.

Would you not let a player at your table do it?

ASIs are (or were) a character creation option. Their presence was used to differentiate races just as other racial traits are. You have to look at the whole package.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I am seeing some similar arguments popping up from the same posters from other threads that have been shut down because of those arguments...

I challenge folks in this thread to NOT post the same arguments they've made before.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

I meant real world example as in you give me a combo and I would create a character, as opposed to discussing theoretically.

However you then went on to say that character backstory can be used to justify any stat for any character choice which is essentially exactly what I am saying I'm going to do.

Apparently we both agree it can be done, you just don't like the players at your table being allowed to do it.

In a word, yes.
It ruins the integrity of the game.
So bottom line, if minimum stats are not enforced on each species, then fixed ASI must stay.
I grow tired of players rolling stats (which is statistically superior to 27 PB or Std Arr), and then applying floating ASI's, and saying "Oh, cool, I start at level 1 with a pair of 18's".
I don't allow it at my table as a DM, but have played at tables where the DM does allow it, and the game becomes a farce.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Now that WotC has divorced Ability Score Bonuses from Race, I could see just totally getting rid of them.

Though I think another fun option could be:

No Ability Score Improvement at 1st Level
+1 to an Ability at 2nd Level
+1 to an Ability at 3rd Level
+1 to an Ability at 4th Level, and your first Feat
Only Feats, no ASIs at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th levels

It would be fun to see characters grow into themselves in those first few levels!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you were a player in my game and wanted your vampire to have fear and charm resistance then I'd let you do so by giving up some other feature or taking some other downside as a balance.

This poll is just about ASI though, not every character creation option.

Right. But you could also allow players at your table float ASIs without WoTC approval. Yet people wanted WotC to change the rules.
Ultimately I really don't think "PCs are unique and don't need to conform to limits of the rest of their species" is logically compatible with race as a mechanics package. So if that's the logic, then races need to go altogether. They can exist as fluff, but having race mechanics for characters that do not need to conform to their race is a totally incoherent concept. This again is about one of my two important questions regarding this: what is the purpose of the races in the game?

Would you not let a player at your table do it?

Depended. I might. I would probably prefer to make unique character qualities into feats, so that they could be applied on top of the species without the character weirdly losing some qualities of their species. Though Dhampirs are weird case, as they're not a proper species to begin with.

 

[Azzy]

People don't make enough characters in their lifetime to see rolling hit that average. It takes a LOT of rolls for that average to show up.

We're not just looking at one person's rolling, though, so this is kinda moot.

A lot of characters will be higher or lower than the average.

And when we average those higher and lower results, what do we have?

The array is lower most likely because there is no randomness. You get the safety of guaranteed numbers, but in doing so you are giving up a very little bit.

Your conclusion does not follow.

If you raise the arrays and point buy, rolling needs to increase to keep it a bit ahead.

No, no it doesn't.