Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 7263566" data-attributes="member: 7635">While in theory, I could get behind removing ASI, in practice it would take a HUGE decoupling of ability scores from the game to do properly.Back in AD&amp;D, despite comments to the contrary, super-high ability scores were a practical necessity. A fighter got little-to-no benefit from his strength score unless it was an 18 (%); since a +1 to damage came at 16 and a +1 to hit came at 17. Wizards needed and 18 Int to use 9th level spells (and Int controlled your spells known per level and % chance to learn them), while priests needed an 18 to use 7th level spells. Rogues gained nearly 50 free skill points to their thief skills with an 18 Dex (25 for 17, 5 for a 16). Oh, and you got 10% bonus XP if you had a 16 in your prime score. So in game which clearly prioritized 16+ scores and provided no way of raising them outside of DM-controlled magical effects, I found an uncanny ability in most of the players I played with to roll an 17 or 18 once of every 6 rolls on 4d6/drop lowest. (That is, I cannot recall more than a handful of PCs not starting with a 17 or 18 in prime out of hundreds of AD&amp;D PCs rolled up). There were a lot of prodigal demi-gods adventuring in those days. After several failed implementations of ASI's, I think 5e finally hit the right note. Its far more possible to start with a 14, 15 or 16 and &quot;grow&quot; into those 18s and higher over the campaign rather than start the game with those &quot;rolled&quot; 18s needed for when your are high level. If want to get ride of them, unless you are willing to return to the halcyon days of &quot;epic rolled PCs&quot;, you'd have to divorce ability score modifiers from things like hitting, damaging, AC, HP, Saves, and Skills so that the PCs don't feel that not having a 18 (now or later) is going to gimp their character. That would require a lot of rethinking on the relationship between ability scores, classes, and combat. And its something I don't see happening.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 7263566, member: 7635"] While in theory, I could get behind removing ASI, in practice it would take a HUGE decoupling of ability scores from the game to do properly. Back in AD&D, despite comments to the contrary, super-high ability scores were a practical necessity. A fighter got little-to-no benefit from his strength score unless it was an 18 (%); since a +1 to damage came at 16 and a +1 to hit came at 17. Wizards needed and 18 Int to use 9th level spells (and Int controlled your spells known per level and % chance to learn them), while priests needed an 18 to use 7th level spells. Rogues gained nearly 50 free skill points to their thief skills with an 18 Dex (25 for 17, 5 for a 16). Oh, and you got 10% bonus XP if you had a 16 in your prime score. So in game which clearly prioritized 16+ scores and provided no way of raising them outside of DM-controlled magical effects, I found an uncanny ability in most of the players I played with to roll an 17 or 18 once of every 6 rolls on 4d6/drop lowest. (That is, I cannot recall more than a handful of PCs not starting with a 17 or 18 in prime out of hundreds of AD&D PCs rolled up). There were a lot of prodigal demi-gods adventuring in those days. After several failed implementations of ASI's, I think 5e finally hit the right note. Its far more possible to start with a 14, 15 or 16 and "grow" into those 18s and higher over the campaign rather than start the game with those "rolled" 18s needed for when your are high level. If want to get ride of them, unless you are willing to return to the halcyon days of "epic rolled PCs", you'd have to divorce ability score modifiers from things like hitting, damaging, AC, HP, Saves, and Skills so that the PCs don't feel that not having a 18 (now or later) is going to gimp their character. That would require a lot of rethinking on the relationship between ability scores, classes, and combat. And its something I don't see happening. [/QUOTE]

Verification