D&D 5E The impact of ASIs

[EzekielRaiden]

Your timing is very appropriate considering my thread here that I just posted:

D&D 5E - Spending Downtime/ Training for ASIs (+)

Disclaimer: Like much of what I do, I don't expect widespread acceptance of this idea. However, if you feel compelled to tell me you don't like the idea, feel free to do so, but since this is a (+) thread, please do not argue against the concept beyond your initial response. Thank you...

www.enworld.org

Which is a direct result of a conversation I had a couple days ago with another player about the very idea of not increasing ability scores via ASIs.

IME ASIs are there just to increase the PCs' chances / bonuses. The compete with feats which makes them a poor design implementation IMO since 90+% of games use feats.

So, I prefer moving them to a downtime activity, which makes more sense to me and removes the competition with feats.

Another route I would prefer would be expanding the proficiency bonus progression from +2 to +6 to something like +2 to +10, then the ASIs for number bumping would be unnecessary for the most part.

So...you want 5e to offer a half-level (or larger) bonus, and you want to go back to ASIs being separate from ability scores, so people can advance their ability scores and also have feats.

Why not just play 4e? I'm absolutely serious here. 4e offers exactly that (a half-level bonus), a clean ASI schedule (which you could easily add a "please do downtime to justify what you spend them on" house rule), and feats that can be relatively chunky and don't compete for the same schedule as ASIs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I really wonder if D&D can take a page from modern video game design and allow for simple choosable increases of class features over blanket stat boosts and external feature acquisition.

Second Wind Rank 2: regain hit points equal to 2d10 + twice your fighter level.

Second Wind Rank 3: regain hit points equal to 4d10 + four times your fighter level.

Too complicated for WotC's design paradigm, unfortunately.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That’s not how math works.

1 point of damage on every attack that hits. A 60% chance to hit for 1d8+3 is an average of 4.5 damage per round. Increasing that to a 65% chance to hit for 1d8+4 brings you up to an average of 5.525 damage per round. That’s an increase of 1.025 damage per round - 4.1 damage per encounter with your assumption of 4 rounds per encounter, or 28.7 damage per 6-8 encounter adventuring day. That’s a pretty sizable increase to damage output, and that’s with fairly conservative assumptions. The difference gets even greater if you’re making more than 1 attack per round (which an optimized character should be, even at low levels), or against higher AC enemies. And that’s before considering what else they ability adds to, such as ability checks and saves, and derived stats like AC for Dex or carrying capacity for Strength.

+1 to the modifier of your primary stat is one of the most impactful things you can get at level up.

IME, it’s only a highly significant boost on paper. In play, many feats are more impactful than hitting a couple more times per day, and dealing 10 more damage over the course of 2-3 fights.

 

[Charlaquin]

IME, it’s only a highly significant boost on paper. In play, many feats are more impactful than hitting a couple more times per day, and dealing 10 more damage over the course of 2-3 fights.

Some definitely are, and they tend to be my favorite feats.

 

[Maxperson]

I think @Charlaquin has the right of it here: the +1 to damage might be relatively trivial but the +1 to hit makes, in the long run, a significant difference; because each time that extra +1 turns a miss into a hit* you get to do your normal amount of damage with the +1 on top.

Yes, but it only happens on average 1 time per 5 encounters with 1 attack or 1 time per 2.5 encounters with 2 attacks. That one extra hit is a very small amount of extra damage.

I find it truly amazing sometimes just how much difference a +1 or a -1 can make to things.

Because you notice as the DM when the player would have missed by 1 without it, but it only happens 1 time in 20 attacks on average. There is only one number you can roll on the d20 for that +1 to make a difference. The other 19 times out of 20 the +1 to hit is worthless.

which, regardless of the foe's AC unless it's extreme, will on average be 5% of your to-hit rolls.

Yes. In 5e that amounts to once every 2.5 to 5 encounters and is on one creature out of X number in the encounter you get lucky in. It's really a trivial amount of extra damage.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I prefer the old days when stats were not that important. Now everyone grubs for that extra +1.

 

[Maxperson]

There is a small damage increase- the difference between a greatsword fighter at level 1 with 16 Strength and a bless spell vs. the same fighter with 20 Strength is noticeable, but small, something like 1.05 damage per turn. A pretty small increase either way.

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here. It's calculable, but small. You can calculate that you do 1 extra damage, but in game play where the rolls are more variable you aren't going to notice where those extra +1s happen. Further, given the higher number of hit points that monsters have, the player won't see that 1 point of damage make a difference in the fight. The only way the player can ever know if the 1 damage made a difference is if the DM tells the player that he dropped the creature to exactly 0 with an attack, and that particular player dropping a monster to 0 doesn't happen very often.

 

[Maxperson]

If all you are doing in a combat is "a few hits", then you aren't doing your job right - that +1 damage to every hit is a big deal. And your skills will be higher. If you are a DEX fighter it is also giving you +1 AC and +1 Initiative.

Many classes have riders off their primary or secondary ability score. Bardic Inspiration uses for CHR for instance.

Basically, it depends on the ability and the class - for some between skills and other advantages it's a huge deal during an adventure. For some classes it's not as big a deal.

When I first started playing 5e I probably would have agreed with you. Years later, though, I've noticed that it's just too easy to hit for 1 more AC to matter much and participants on both sides have too many hit points for initiative to matter in most instances, and the extra +1s around are small.

A feat is still going to be more useful. You can heal for +1 point of damage with that wisdom bonus and get +1 to saves which won't make a difference 19 times out of 20, or you can get a feat where you can do something useful that is new to your character, opening up entire new options.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I prefer the old days when stats were not that important. Now every grubs for that extra +1.

That's what you get when the design team decides math is terrifying.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Some definitely are, and they tend to be my favorite feats.

These also tend to be the feats that make people complain about feats!