D&D (2024) Should +ASI feat be point buy based?

[delericho]

I'd certainly argue they should build the ASIs in to the standard stat generation methods (so more points and an expanded range for point buy, some extra dice when rolling, and a slightly better standard array).

For ASIs that come from levelling, feats, or any other source, I'd be inclined to leave them as-is. Though I do quite like the idea of that proposed "No Weakness" feat.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Right now raising ability scores through feats/ASIs has only sense if you do for your primary/highest ability.

everything else is completely sub-par.

Why does ASI not use present pointbuy formula, with expanded costs for scores 16 to 20.

Because that would make ASI a much more complex feat while doing nothing to help its primary use case - and a lot to encourage characters without weaknesses and CharOp nonsense.

If you want boring but effective feats you can scrawl on your character sheet and forget about start with Resilient. Then there's Lucky followed by feats like Keen Mind that mostly add a single stat point and an expertise.

If you  must have low-stat-only ASI bonuses how about adding

• Flexible. Level 4 feat. Pick two stats, both lower than your highest stat. Add 2 to one and one to the other
• All Rounder. Level 4 feat. Pick three stats, all 13 or below. Add 2 to all three.
• Survivor: Add 4 to all your stats that are 10 or lower.

Or whatever. Far faster to write, simpler, and more thematic in play than point buy. And Survivor is a fun option for those characters with random generation who rolled badly.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That is overly fiddly, but I do think it should be +2 for scores under 14/15. If people want to shore up their weaknesses, let them.

 

[Scott Christian]

Just build it into the standard array or point buy. There is no need to overly complicate this. Make sure everyone gets a 15 (the max) at level one. From there, feats and level can do the rest.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I reject the premise.

Why is it desired to raise up ability scores that the PC doesn't use, except in rare odd cases? Why force them to be sub-par arbitrarily?

I really don't see why you want to encourage a Fighter to improve Intelligence. Is that more fun for players? I don't think so. Wizards and Artificers should do INT type things, and Fighters should do STR (or DEX) type things.

They absolutely should raise their primary ability score to 20 as fast as possible - just about when they are finishing off their Heroes of the Realm tier.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I reject the premise.

Why is it desired to raise up ability scores that the PC doesn't use, except in rare odd cases? Why force them to be sub-par arbitrarily?

I really don't see why you want to encourage a Fighter to improve Intelligence. Is that more fun for players? I don't think so. Wizards and Artificers should do INT type things, and Fighters should do STR (or DEX) type things.

They absolutely should raise their primary ability score to 20 as fast as possible - just about when they are finishing off their Heroes of the Realm tier.

Everything that offers an alternate to just rush to 20 is welcome in my books.
I more and more come to the conclusion that 3e's improving ability scores was a bad idea. At least in 3e it was very slow (but magic items did this faster).
So in 5e I welcomed the idea to have feats and ASI compete for tge same slot.
Maybe the OneDnD of mainly having half feats with certain ability scores attached also helps.

So back to topic: in 2e (way before 3e), we had a houserule in place, which allowed to raise your scores below 10 every 4 or 5 levels, and we liked the idea of characters being able to lessen their weaknesses by learning from other characters. So I find the idea of imoroving the ASI feat for low scores very attractive.
I mean, compared to the new level 4 feats, even +2 to your main stat often can't compete with the former.