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

[Satyrn]

Likely not - I too was being a bit sarcastic - but I think you'd be hard put to deny the trend in focus towards character build (gads I hate that term!) over time.

I think you pegged the start of that trend wrong though. I mean, assuming it didn't start at the start of D&D, it was definitely a real thing with the invention of kits and was fully underway with those Players Options book.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you pegged the start of that trend wrong though. I mean, assuming it didn't start at the start of D&D, it was definitely a real thing with the invention of kits and was fully underway with those Players Options book.

Could be. I jumped straight from 1e to 3e, never played 2e and didn't buy many of its books (the core three and a few later splats) so I managed to miss what late 2e turned into.

 

[Satyrn]

Could be. I jumped straight from 1e to 3e, never played 2e and didn't buy many of its books (the core three and a few later splats) so I managed to miss what late 2e turned into.

That would explain why you pegged it where you did

 

[Ratskinner]

But that 'baking in' would make those things more fixed, instead of more fluid. I'm saying ASIs make the 'bonuses' and development you get as you level more about the person than the race or the class, and it allows you more customization.

Right now, by putting my ASI's and feats in different spots, I can build significantly different characters in the same class. Like, with my Druid, (with 17 WIS and 16 CON) I can go all in on Wis+1/Con+1, Resilient Con+1, Wis+2, Warcaster, Con+2, and make his spellcasting unstoppable - maximum possible spell DCs, hit points, and Concentration checks.

Or, what I'm doing instead, because the party is shaping up to be less power-gamey and more character driven, is Spell Sniper (Thorn Whip), Observant Wis+1, Resilient Con+1, Magic Initiate (Sorcerer), and Alert. So, instead of putting all my focus on spells, I'm taking all the feats that puts him on a progression of shedding objects (i.e who needs a scimitar or armor when you have Thorn Whip and Mage Armor?) and becoming more and more in touch with his surroundings (Observant and Alert).

Now, maybe you *want* a game that's more rigid, less flexible, more predicated on racial characteristics and class roles. That's fine, but I don't want it, and I think the genie is out of the bottle - RPGs have been customizable in paper and video game form for longer than not, and there's no reason to go back now.

I submit that the differences you will note during the characters' lifetime that are due to a difference of 1 or 2 in a stat or another are not that great, at least under the current system. (That isn't a universal of attribute systems, by any means.) Certainly we easily convince ourselves of that, and we've been trained to hunt for each bonus. But the actual number of rolls made for a given character (possible exception for attack rolls for melee classes) is really fairly low.

Consider two characters who are identical in all ways except one, they have two "side" stats different by one each direction...like two fighters, one with a 12 Int and 13 Cha and the other with a 13 Int and 12 Cha. Are they really differentiated so much? I don't think so.

I'm also not suggesting with my theoretical system that there couldn't be some kind of advancement option where you get different or improved traits.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, yes; even a completely static game still needs rules of some sort in order to be playable.

Does it? I mean, it's level 1. It's not terribly complicated.

Not sure what you're getting at here. My take is that having feats in the game at all still represent more complexity than I'd like to see, and ASI's as 5e has them are far too generous.

But feats are already optional, with their replacement being ASIs. I mean...what else is there? Class features? Isn't that just more feats? If the end result is dead levels, those levels should simply be removed from the game.

Yeah, that's always been one of those game aspects that makes less and less sense the closer it's looked at.

When all the overlying gype is peeled off, it comes down to why each person plays the game. Do they play primarily for the story and at-the-time events with levelling-up and ability improvements both infrequent and seen as a side-effect of play, or do they play primarily for the frequent level-ups and to watch their powers increase while the story goes by as no more than a distraction. The first type need a good creative DM and whatever system, while the second type need a good solid system and whatever as a DM.

I mean I guess there are extremes on both ends, but I suspect the vast majority (I'd wager 80%) can't enjoy a good system without a good story, and likewise can't enjoy a good story without a good system. But beyond that, even without "levels" games naturally increase in stakes over time, I mean you don't just save kittens from trees all day. It escalates over time. How quickly and where it escalates to it up to the DM (and to some degree the players). It's one of the reasons I don't use XP. it's too easy to lose control of the game too quickly.

I've seen (and played with, and DMed) both these types of players. I far prefer the story-first type, and am mostly such myself.

I want a solid system. I don't want to have to solve complex equations to make an attack and I want that simple math to work (it's why I love 4E, it's both simple AND stable). But I have no interest in just punching numbers into a chart (during game time, I freely admit I love to crunch numbers at home). I want to be engaged in an interesting and unique story.

Lan-"and a slow- or no-advancement game also means you can have an open-ended story and-or campaign without having to worry about getting to levels higher than the system was designed to handle"-efan

Eh, I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I think games can only go so far with "open-ended" stories. Good stories should have a beginning, a middle and an end. Your campaign world may contain many campaigns and there should be things to do between the campaigns, but finality is good in a game and in a story.

As for being "higher than the system was designed to handle" that's always been a peeve of mine. If the levels are in the PHB, the game should be able to handle them. Outside of that, it's up to the DM to manage instability. But if the PHB comes with levels 1-20, the game should be able to handle 1-20. If it can't, then the game doesn't actually include levels 1-20. It's false advertising. Like saying your car can go 0-120, but if you ever drive 120, the wheels fall off. The car can't actually do 120 then.

 

[Lanefan]

But feats are already optional, with their replacement being ASIs. I mean...what else is there? Class features? Isn't that just more feats? If the end result is dead levels, those levels should simply be removed from the game.

What defines a dead level? Every level gives more hit points; fighter-types get better at fighting every level (in 3e terms, their BAB goes up); other classes see jumps here at various times while also gaining spells, or sneaking/thieving skills, or whatever; and everybody's saving throws/resistances improve along the way as well.

I mean I guess there are extremes on both ends, but I suspect the vast majority (I'd wager 80%) can't enjoy a good system without a good story, and likewise can't enjoy a good story without a good system. But beyond that, even without "levels" games naturally increase in stakes over time, I mean you don't just save kittens from trees all day. It escalates over time. How quickly and where it escalates to it up to the DM (and to some degree the players).

All true.

It's one of the reasons I don't use XP. it's too easy to lose control of the game too quickly.

But here you lose me. Lose control of the game via xp? Explain.

I want a solid system. I don't want to have to solve complex equations to make an attack and I want that simple math to work (it's why I love 4E, it's both simple AND stable). But I have no interest in just punching numbers into a chart (during game time, I freely admit I love to crunch numbers at home). I want to be engaged in an interesting and unique story.

Same here. I'll crunch numbers and stats at home all week, but during the game I want them out of the way so I can stay engaged in the story and-or what my character's doing in character.

In 3e I constantly forgot what martial feats my warrior-types had or even thay they had any at all; in part because I'd be too busy recalculating my to-hit and damage bonuses every single swing - buffs, debuffs, penalty 'cause it's not my first attack in the round, etc. etc. - I could never just write it down once and leave it alone even if only for that one combat.

Eh, I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I think games can only go so far with "open-ended" stories. Good stories should have a beginning, a middle and an end. Your campaign world may contain many campaigns and there should be things to do between the campaigns, but finality is good in a game and in a story.

Finality in a story arc doesn't have to mean finality in the game...says he whose average game length is north of 10 years...

As for being "higher than the system was designed to handle" that's always been a peeve of mine. If the levels are in the PHB, the game should be able to handle them. Outside of that, it's up to the DM to manage instability. But if the PHB comes with levels 1-20, the game should be able to handle 1-20. If it can't, then the game doesn't actually include levels 1-20.

My concern is more about when the game in theory goes 1-20 and in practice maybe goes 1-15 but you've got enough story and adventures in mind to go 1-33...

Lanefan

 

[Thurmas]

I will add, one huge point towards ASIs: Every pregen character I make uses them. I've never given a feat to a pregen. I do one shots often for new players and hand them a stack of options to choose from to play, all pretty basic and stereotypical characters. The ASIs just make the whole learning process that much simpler. Not even having to say you get +1 Int modifier is way easier then trying to explain Warcaster to someone that wants to play a wizard and is already trying to wrap their head around basic spell casting.

 

[Sunseeker]

What defines a dead level? Every level gives more hit points; fighter-types get better at fighting every level (in 3e terms, their BAB goes up); other classes see jumps here at various times while also gaining spells, or sneaking/thieving skills, or whatever; and everybody's saving throws/resistances improve along the way as well.

I would call an "automated" a "dead level" as well. Sure, a level could give nothing, but a level that only gives HP, proficiency increases, it doesn't serve a purpose other than stretching out the game. Like for example, most proficiency last over multiple levels. So you don't even gain that in some levels, you just get HP. Why not increase the base HP given out to compensate and subtract those levels from the maximum total.

It's not that other games don't do this either. There are plenty of "tighter" D&D variants that range from 1-5 or 1-10 or 1-15 because they've simply removed the "spacer" levels. Progression is steeper, but the solution there is just higher XP requirements per level.

But here you lose me. Lose control of the game via xp? Explain.

If you follow the adventures-per-day guidelines, it hands out a lot of XP fairly quickly, and the low XP requirements of 5E cause you to blow through the early levels really fast. Especially if you award XP for non-combat encounters (which I did as habit from 4E encounter design, and I feel it encourages players to put more energy into non-combat encounters). Doubly so if you want to up the ante and run harder fights.

Same here. I'll crunch numbers and stats at home all week, but during the game I want them out of the way so I can stay engaged in the story and-or what my character's doing in character.

In 3e I constantly forgot what martial feats my warrior-types had or even thay they had any at all; in part because I'd be too busy recalculating my to-hit and damage bonuses every single swing - buffs, debuffs, penalty 'cause it's not my first attack in the round, etc. etc. - I could never just write it down once and leave it alone even if only for that one combat.

Yeah I hear that.

Finality in a story arc doesn't have to mean finality in the game...says he whose average game length is north of 10 years...

Meh. IRL-decade long campaigns don't interest me. They never have. I'm firmly in the boat that WotC did the right thing with making all their campaigns designed to be completed within a year. I think that's a good amount of time for a campaign. Sure, if you want to revisit the same gameworld and have more campaigns, that's cool too, but ending games also gives time to play other games, for other people to DM and if there's an "end" every year or so, that's a good time to switch out.

My concern is more about when the game in theory goes 1-20 and in practice maybe goes 1-15 but you've got enough story and adventures in mind to go 1-33...

Yeah, that's part of it too. I wouldn't mind a return of epic "levels" I think what I'd like to see is a system similar to Star Trek Online. Once you hit level cap, you're done, no more levels. But each time you earn enough XP to have gotten from the 2nd to last level to the max level again, you get a specialization point. I mean, I guess that's kinda the way E6 does it, but it's be E20? I guess the "boons" can provide this service too, but once you run out of base levels, I think any continued growth should be largely story-based.

I mean...you could go dual-class? If every PC was two classes and leveled up in them every other level it'd stretch the game out over another 20 levels...but with a dramatic power increase I think.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because that's the whole game. Just creating characters.

That was a bizarre logical leap.

Unless, of course, one believed that the only "customizing" that matters is allocating ability points. That developing your character's personality and history and all those other non-mechanical bits don't matter.

 

[Sunseeker]

That was a bizarre logical leap.

Was I wrong to think you were saying there was no customization after level 1?

Unless, of course, one believed that the only "customizing" that matters is allocating ability points. That developing your character's personality and history and all those other non-mechanical bits don't matter.

Doesn't all that take place at or before level 1?