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

[JonnyP71]

I'm strongly against ASIs as they tend to result in characters looking very similar in mechanical terms - so many will have 20 in their main stat and thus be capped in a ridiculously short amount of time in adventuring terms.

The 1E Cavalier was called out earlier in the thread as the class that initially begin the trend of improving stats - that is true, but when the numbers are crunched, on average a Cavalier would gain 1 point in each of Str/Dex/Con over the course of about 10 levels. In 1E this would take ages, with levels 7-10 require massive amounts of experience - potentially 20+ lengthy sessions (or more) per level. Add to this the highly perilous life of a low-level Cavalier - a character that cannot retreat from battle, must always directly engage the strongest opponent in melee (no missiles allowed), and who must answer directly to a patron's orders.

This is very different to the modern, faster levelling approach, with 2 stat points being available every 4 levels, and it typically taking about 5 sessions per level, with that rate speeding up after level 10 if exp is handled by the book (a party of mine went through level 11 in about 8 hours of fairly combat heavy play, contrast that with my 1E group, currently level 4, and gaining exp at the rate of about 1k per 6 hour session - that's 50-60 hours of play to go from 4 to 5).

I much prefer the *old ways*, tie stat gains into the ageing process, with a few rare magical enhancements - otherwise they are pretty much fixed. Let characters gain power through improved level/class based abilities, and better magic items at higher levels. I Like the loss of Con due to being raised from the dead, I like the risk of System Shock/Resurrection failure being based on Con, and as that dwindles with every lowering Con, so the threat of death increases.

But then I'm just an old grognard who is out of touch with today's "wham bam I want it now" gaming circles.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I like the idea that feats grant improvements to stats and other abilities. I think the idea of just ability score improvements are lacking, but like that your character can improve/hone their base attributes. Perhaps extending the stat improvements to all feats in some form. Maybe each feat is tied to one or multiple attributes, so when you take it you either get a fixed improvement, or can chose between one or two. You can keep the spacing on how often the feats are doled out, and allow for character improvement.
Personal taste here, but I do kinda like a cap on attributes at 18, even with racial abilities, so in my homebrew it leads to more varied options for play. But that's personal preference. Magic items can improve things above that, as can class abilities ( I think the barbarian is the only one that can boost stats).

 

[Azzy]

The percentile-increment idea from the 1e Cavalier is brilliant

That "brilliant" was used to unironically describe anything about the 1e cavalier is a new low for these boards.

 

[Quartz]

I've skipped 9 pages, but I think the OP has ignored that opportunities to increase stats during adventures were actually not uncommon: magic fountains, magic fruits, magic items, Wishes, etc etc. And - importantly - they were there at the whim of the DM.

 

[Sunseeker]

I much prefer the *old ways*, tie stat gains into the ageing process, with a few rare magical enhancements - otherwise they are pretty much fixed.

You mean the aging process that did nothing for fighter-types and actually made them worse with age?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shiroiken]

All fine except take off the hard-cap so if someone with an 18 finds an item or pulls a Deck card that jumps that stat up it can go there. 19 gives +4.

The hard cap is for non-magic, so Deck, Gauntlets, etc., can take you above the limit. The 18 cap would be for normal means.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

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

Ok, fair enough, based on what I actually wrote.

I was responding, with irony, to the suggestion that ASIs are needed for "customization", given that ability scores are just a minute piece of everything that makes up a character, and that everybody pretty much just puts ASIs into their prime state anyway (kind of the exact opposite of customization if everybody does the same thing.)

But if we are just talking about just the ability score aspect of character customization, you don't need ASIs to do it; you can "customize" when initially choosing yours scores, and with far more flexibility.

 

[Sunseeker]

I was responding, with irony, to the suggestion that ASIs are needed for "customization", given that ability scores are just a minute piece of everything that makes up a character, and that everybody pretty much just puts ASIs into their prime state anyway (kind of the exact opposite of customization if everybody does the same thing.)

Every little piece counts. Like Backgrounds. Totally unnecessary. Mechanical garbage that exists for no purpose other than to give players a couple more proficiences. They could be replaced by simply giving each class two "open" proficiencies.

I don't think ASI's are needed for customization. They do add to the overall picture of what is available to customize your character. Just like backgrounds. Just like subraces. People choosing not to customize just means the game expects certain roles to be filled in a non-flexible manner. But some people do customize.

On the customization front, the only counter-argument I have is that taking away ASIs takes away the ability for players to customize/build for simplicity. It enforces expanding complexity. Unless you just remove feats and ASIs from the game, but then the Fighter really gets the pointy end of the poker.

But if we are just talking about just the ability score aspect of character customization, you don't need ASIs to do it; you can "customize" when initially choosing yours scores, and with far more flexibility.

Maybe. My beef with the suggestion of their removal still rests on the fact that people can improve physically and mentally as the game goes on. I mean if noone's stats could ever improve from the moment they joined a class...what would the point of boot camp be?

 

[Lanefan]

That "brilliant" was used to unironically describe anything about the 1e cavalier is a new low for these boards.

Hmmm...not sure whether I should be taking offense at my post being highlighted as a new low for these boards, but whatever...

And the percentile stat increment system really is excellent. The only thing I don't understand is why they didn't tack it on to every class rather than just Cavalier.

The rest of the 1e US Cavalier class as written isn't that great; but there's more than enough in it that after some bashing around one can squeeze a perfectly reasonable knight class out of it, for those who like their knights in shining armour not to come pre-equipped with the religious baggage borne by Paladins.

Lanefan