D&D 5E Should D&D go away from ASIs?

[Blue]

I'm pro-ASI. This doesn't need to be in the 5e method of ASI vs. feat choice, just the general "able to reliably advance ability scores" way.

1. If you don't have accessible ways to advance your ability scores, you are locked in to the results of your rolls with no room for improvement. That party member with the higher strength will always hit more often and do more damage per hit. It's, frankly disheartening.

2. Because ability scores are static after character creation, if strongly encourages going for the highest meaningful score in your priamry abilities, which basically locks in certain race/class combonations. If dwarf doesn't give a bonus to INT but other races gives bonus INT, you'll find almost all wizard of the +2 INT races, some of the +1 INT races (because odd numbers don't help), and the no-INT-bonus races will almost never take it. Instead of any race/class combo being viable (even fi not optimal), many will become seriously sub-optimal and never get played.

3. It really cuts out character changes due to developing situations. Right now you can multiclass because of how the campaign has led your character. Make that pact to save your friends, take a few levels of warlock. Get healed and maybe find religion and take a level of cleric or paladin to represent. But if you can't help shape your ability scores to what you are doing now, that becomes a much bigger hit on the character, encouraging only planed-from-level-one advances.

All of that said, I wouldn't mind if ASIs were limited to raising an ability to +3 from where it started - you can lift weights to gain STR, train up your endurance for CON, and so forth - but it still keeps you a reflection of your base potential from when you were a neophyte, just trained and refined. (Yes, this would be an 18 cap in 5e for point buy/standard array if you didn't have racial mods - maybe it would need to be +5 (and still with a 20 cap) considering the assumptions of 5e math.)

 

[Blue]

My #1 complaint about ASIs is that it's either them or Feats. I want to take the Feats, but my innner optimizer makes me take the ASIs. Boring.

While I like the opportunity costs / faustian bargain of ASI vs. feat, I hear you. A friend back in 3.5 used to hate to take the "feat tax" feats or anything like them because "math feats are boring". Which is true, even if they are the best mechanical choice at the time. I'd rather go the path of maximizing fun, btu that comes with the realization that falling behind everyone else in the combat numbers game is not fun for a lot of players.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

My biggest complaint with regular ability score increases is that it removes one common way of imagining a character. Its no longer possible to characterize your hero as the "strongest man alive" and have that define your character throughout play. Even if you start off maximizing your Strength, any melee fighter will eventually catch up and your "schtick" is diluted. The same can be said for Intelligence or any other stat. So, yes. I would like to see ASI's go away (perhaps replaced by a single feat that grants the same +2, but can only be taken once per score).

Despite this preference, I do not want to see bounded accuracy go away. I prefer that expertise in fighting be mostly represented by the number of attacks opportunities instead of a large disparity in accuracy.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

I always spend my ASIs on feats. I don't care if my highest score is a 14 and never increases.

I wish I had your self-discipline.

 

[Guest 6801328]

One solution to the odd-numbered-score problem would be to have just a couple ASIs, one point each, and you can't choose the same ability twice. So you can "round up" two odd-numbered scores over the course of your 20-level career.

 

[Blue]

While you have a very thoughtful post, a fair amount of it is predicated on the idea that changing the system wouldn't work, because of the system we have now. But if you change the system, then that's no longer an issue.

I think it's more of "changing just this in a vacuum will have these effects I find undesirable". If you're willing to adjust the system more then just banning ASIs those can definitely be worked around.

And if you don't agree with me, my gnomish paladin will prick you with his rapier.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think it is not bad how it is implemented. I just wish it was reversed. The standard should be taking a feat. Not great weapon mastery or so. I liked the weapon style feats. I would like feats that improve certain casting styles or something interesting. And I would like to not gain 2 ASI´s but instead giving build points. Raising a skill up to 13 should be easier thn raising it to 20. The thinking behind that is that I don´t want all fighters running around with 20 strength and instead have it as an option to raise a stat to 13 to qualify for multiclassing or increase very low stats.
Actually in ADnD we had a house rule that allowed us to increase one stat below 10 by 1 every level. The thinking was that while you got more experienced, you maybe can´t become the world´s strongest man, but you may be able to train to become average.

 

[snickersnax]

Not a fan of ASIs. My current solution is E6. That way each character only gets 1 ASI (except fighters which get 2). That makes it work perfect (in my mind). 18-19 becomes the normal high and 20 is attainable but really special, 16 is a common high stat as well. It does leave a slight yearning for slightly more proficiency progression ( I go from +1 to +3 in 6 levels).

 

[Li Shenron]

ASI are boring but they should stay.

5e is better than all previous editions because it offers ASI but doesn't force them.

If anything, it would be good to get more feats so that there are more alternatives, but ASI is a good alternative by itself.