D&D 5E The impact of ASIs

[Kobold Avenger]

I wish they were separate things like in 3e, but maybe not +1 to something every 4 levels because I felt that was too little. Of course 3e and 4e had the thing where you needed to have a stat boosting item if you were relevant.

As for someone else I know with a birthday around that time, well I don't know about the presents he got, but he insisted that his friends call him "our lord and saviour".

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Yeah, my mother-in-law is like that STILL, with grown children. She both counts the number of gifts and the total $ amount. Ridiculous, imo. All that accomplished was to teach the kids that they should care about the comparison.

Yes. Well that way lies madness. Sadly the quantity diminishes the impact and appreciation.

But I had a friend who clearly got the shaft on his December birthday compared to his sibling. I certainly want to avoid doing that to the kid!

 

[dave2008]

In the old days ya got what ya got. Unless you found a wish or a precious few items your ability scores were pretty static.

I am curious about what others think the effect ASIs have on the game.

Does it increase the importance of magic items? How does it effect the level of challenge and danger?

If these were gone, you would also take more feats.

What do you think the end result would be?

For 5e they are not needed. We don't allow them in our game, we are feats only and it works really well.

 

[Charlaquin]

That +1 is almost entirely irrelevant. At an average of 4 rounds per combat, even with two attacks it will take you 2.5 entire combats to hit one additional time. 5 combats if you only have 1 attack.

That’s not how math works.

And for the few hits you do get during the combat, you are doing 1 piddly point of extra damage. The +1 is very rarely going to impact a combat. And given that the vast majority of campaigns will never see 3 attacks...

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.

 

[Maxperson]

That’s not how math works.

It is how math works. You are hitting 5% better with +1, so you will hit 1 time more often every 20 swings. 20 swings typically happens over five 4 rounds combats with 1 attack, or 2.5 combats if you have 2 attacks. So one extra hit every 2.5 to 5 combats and +1 damage for the few hits each individual combat.

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

Ooooooh! +1 damage a round for 4 rounds! That's going to be impactful

- 4.1 damage per encounter with your assumption of 4 rounds per encounter, or 28.7 damage per 6-8 encounter adventuring day.

It doesn't work that way. Damage doesn't carry over from combat to combat. Each encounter is its own microcosm. 28 damage divided over 6-8 encounters = not being impactful in any individual encounter. If you got to save it up and hit for +28.7 damage in the last fight, that would be much more useful.

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

Except not. Virtually no individual encounter sees any impact at all. That +4 damage spread over 4 rounds and usually multiple creatures just isn't going to be noticed.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is how math works. You are hitting 5% better with +1, so you will hit 1 time more often every 20 swings. 20 swings typically happens over five 4 rounds combats with 1 attack, or 2.5 combats if you have 2 attacks. So one extra hit every 2.5 to 5 combats and +1 damage for the few hits each individual combat.

Except, no, you don’t hit 1 more time every 20 attacks. Sometimes you hit 5 attacks in a row that you would have missed otherwise. Sometimes, you make 100 attacks without any of them being hits that would have been misses. Over the course of a campaign, it averages out to hitting one more time out of 20.

Ooooooh! +1 damage a round for 4 rounds! That's going to be impactful

It is, quite a bit.

It doesn't work that way. Damage doesn't carry over from combat to combat. Each encounter is its own microcosm. 28 damage divided over 6-8 encounters = not being impactful in any individual encounter. If you got to save it up and hit for +28.7 damage in the last fight, that would be much more useful.

You don’t save it up, you hit slightly more often for slightly more damage. The effects occur over the long-term, so tracking the difference in damage over many encounters is how you can use math to get a sense of how much more effective that bonus makes your character overall.

Except not. Virtually no individual encounter sees any impact at all. That +4 damage spread over 4 rounds and usually multiple creatures just isn't going to be noticed.

No, it probably won’t be noticed in an individual encounter. Again, the effect expresses itself over many trials (attacks). But, the effect is very real and meaningful.

 

[Baron Opal II]

If there is one thing this board has taught me is that ASIs are vitally important, preventing certain builds, until they are irrelevant, and don't matter for builds.

 

[Maxperson]

Except, no, you don’t hit 1 more time every 20 attacks. Sometimes you hit 5 attacks in a row that you would have missed otherwise. Sometimes, you make 100 attacks without any of them being hits that would have been misses. Over the course of a campaign, it averages out to hitting one more time out of 20.

And sometimes you will hit 0 times. So what. When discussing math in these discussions, you have to use the average or the discussion is worthless.

It is, quite a bit.

You won't even notice an impact. Maaaaaaaaaybe, pooooooooosibly, a monster will be exactly where you need for that 1 hit point to kill it. It's 1) extremely rare, and 2) nothing the player will be able to see in any case. It's bupkis.

You don’t save it up, you hit slightly more often for slightly more damage. The effects occur over the long-term, so tracking the difference in damage over many encounters is how you can use math to get a sense of how much more effective that bonus makes your character overall.

The long term is not relevant. 20,000 extra damage over 20,000 combats = trivial. It's not going to impact any single combat which is where you measure the impact.

No, it probably won’t be noticed in an individual encounter.

Right, and individual encounters are where you measure it. 20,000 encounters with no impact in any encounter = trivial extra damage. The 20,000 over a campaign just serves to falsely impress and mislead those who think it matters.

 

[Maxperson]

If there is one thing this board has taught me is that ASIs are vitally important, preventing certain builds, until they are irrelevant, and don't matter for builds.

I guess if you need the +1 or +2 to the stat in order to multiclass, then it matters. Or to hit the proper strength number for armor. In encounters, though, they just don't matter enough to make them any kind of priority.

 

[Stoutstien]

The impact of certain ability scores aren't evenly distributed among the PC options. Some have practically zero regard(moon druids) while others are all in(artificer). Most falls somewhere in the middle meaning as long as you are somewhere in the curve for relative scores you'll be ok one way or the other.