D&D 5E (2014) The impact of ASIs

[Undrave]

All feats should be half-feats and we should get more of them.

 

[Irlo]

I like the ASIs when leveling up. It seems appropriate to model increasing abilities of more powerful heroes. It doesn't bother me that the additional bonuses might not have large effects on in-game successes. It's most important to me when the character has class abilities that have limited uses based on ability score modifiers, such as bardic inspiration. It's not the power-up -- it's the ability to do fun things more often that appeals to me.

I would prefer if feats seemed better balanced. Clearly, some have outsized effects on game-play. I admit I haven't looked closely at the feats outside of the PHB.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe it should be a choice between a Feat and +1 ASI (and drop the +1 from hybrid feats). With the goal of making Feats the mechanically better choice, but ASIs for people who really want them.

It would flip the table on who has to suck it up and take the lesser choice to get what they actually want.

 

[Knight_Marshal]

I would like to see either feats or stat improvements tied to character level and the other one tied to class levels. Not too sure which one I would want to be which. If I was to tie stat improvements to class, I might be tempted to limit them to the two stats listed for that class and maybe Con thought that kind of shafts fighters and barbarians.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't mind the concept of a character's stats slowly improving as said character gets better and more practiced at what it does.

What I don't like about the 3e-4e-5e model is a) the frequency and b) the rather boring predictability of when those increases will occur. Give me the 1e Cavalier's percentile system every time, adapted for all classes, where stat increments are both fairly infrequent and somewhat random as to when they will occur.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yes, but it’s important when discussing the average to understand what that actually means. It does not mean you’ll hit one more time out of every 5 encounters, and it does not mean you’ll do 1 more damage every encounter. It means, you will hit slightly more often and do slightly more damage when you hit, which if you spread out that increase evenly across the character’s career, would work out to be about 1 more damage per encounter.

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.

But, again, it won’t actually be one more damage per encounter. What it will actually be is that some encounters it will make no difference at all, and some encounters it will make a significant difference. Where it’s most likely to make the most difference is in encounters against high AC enemies, which is also exactly where such a difference will be most valuable.

It's bupkis.

All data to the contrary.

The long term is not relevant. 20,000 extra damage over 20,000 combats = trivial.

Depends how it’s destributed. 1 damage each in 20,000 encounters would indeed be pretty trivial, but that’s not what actually happens. What actually happens is that you hit slightly more often, especially against harder-to-hit enemies, and when you hit, you do more damage, which compound each other to make your character meaningfully more effective over the course of their career.

It's not going to impact any single combat which is where you measure the impact.

It will impact some single combats. It won’t impact others. But overall, the effect will be meaningful.

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.

Again, this just isn’t how math works.

 

[Maxperson]

It means, you will hit slightly more often and do slightly more damage when you hit, which if you spread out that increase evenly across the character’s career, would work out to be about 1 more damage per encounter.

Which is trivial.

It doesn't matter if it happens in spurts. You're going to do really well in some encounters and whiff completely in others. But then you'd have done really well in those encounters without the +1 and whiffed in the others without it as well. It's very, very unlikely that you are going to repeatedly miss by 1 in a single encounter and wish you had that +1

But, again, it won’t actually be one more damage per encounter. What it will actually be is that some encounters it will make no difference at all, and some encounters it will make a significant difference. Where it’s most likely to make the most difference is in encounters against high AC enemies, which is also exactly where such a difference will be most valuable.

Nah. It's just as likely to make a difference with an AC of 13 as it is with an AC of 19. It only helps if you would have missed by exactly 1, and 12's come up just as often as 18's. Otherwise you miss anyway or would have hit without it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nah. It's just as likely to make a difference with an AC of 13 as it is with an AC of 19.

You’re just incorrect about this.

Going from a 5% chance to hit to a 10% chance to hit doubles you chances of hitting. Going from a 50% chance to a 55% chance only increases your chances by a tenth. The less likely you are to hit, the more impactful a boost to your accuracy is.

 

[Maxperson]

You’re just incorrect about this.

Going from a 5% chance to hit to a 10% chance to hit doubles you chances of hitting. Going from a 50% chance to a 55% chance only increases your chances by a tenth. The less likely you are to hit, the more impactful a boost to your accuracy is.

Doubles your chances of hitting = useless for all numbers but 18. You hit on a 19 or 20 anyway and miss on a 17 and lower despite the +1. I'm not wrong. You're just blinded by the "doubling" of your chances to hit, which still means there is only one useful number you can roll for that +1 to matter, just like when hitting that AC of 13 there's only one useful number(12). And you're as likely to roll that 12 as you are the 18, which makes that +1 equally useful in both cases. The percentage increase is misleading you and causing you to overestimate the usefulness of the +1.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You’re just incorrect about this.

If I may offer unsolicited advice: just disengage. It’s not worth it.