D&D 5E (2024) The impact of reducing Ability Scores?

[TwoSix]

2. Using a stat draft array that makes sure no one can have an 18 to start without using their 1st level ASI.

I always upvote stat draft!

 

[TheSword]

I would be fine with it as long as the max cap for stats is at 16, not 20.

The problem with starting at lower stats is that it puts more pressure on you to take ASIs because of mechanical need instead of fun feats, and I’m a big proponent of players taking fun feats and getting them earlier.

Do you think the mechanical bonuses granted by feats are as good as that extra +1 for taking a +2 ASI Instead?

 

[aiouh]

5.5 is criticized as being the most powerful edition of the game so far. Which might be challenge if you want to play in something like a Ravenloft campaign, where unbridled heroic power might limit the options for interesting encounters.

I feel like this whole exercise of meddling with a big and well oiled machine and interlocking systems can be avoided by simply turning the knob named "Encounter Difficulty", unless the express purpose is to take tools away from the players.

 

[TwoSix]

Do you think the mechanical bonuses granted by feats are as good as that extra +1 for taking a +2 ASI Instead?

In general, I think maxing out the ability score for your primary class stat is the mechanically optimal choice, outside of certain niche situations and character concepts.

I wish that wasn't the case; I enjoy seeing mechanical build diversity and concept diversity, and I would rather my players (or myself when I'm a player) be able to pick feats that enhance their concept without feeling the tug of pressure to mechanically optimize by raising stats.

In my perfect version of 5e, the "+2 ASI" option wouldn't exist; either stats would raise automatically with level or the only way to raise stats is through the feats that give "+1 to stat" plus other bonuses.

That's why in my normal games of 5e, I always let the players start with at least one 17 or 18, so that starting point plus racial bonus gives them a starting 19 or 20 and doesn't give pressure to spend the level 4 feat on a "boring" +2 ASI.

 

[TheSword]

I feel like this whole exercise of meddling with a big and well oiled machine and interlocking systems can be avoided by simply turning the knob named "Encounter Difficulty", unless the express purpose is to take tools away from the players.

I agree to an extent and obviously play that way in my regular D&D games up to this point. However in some games that can become an unsatisfying arms race. Regular horrors become irrelevant or insignificant. Sure I can fine tune enemies to a 110% to match the PCs. But you could also dial back the PCs

Surely ability points are a scalable resource by design otherwise there would be an expectation that every PC starts with max primary stat. That might be how a lot of people play but I don’t think it’s a given. If it’s possible for the max stat to be lower and the game still work then why can’t secondary stats also be lower.

A game where players get +2 to their hp at every level will play differently to a game where most PCs get their base roll or, god forbid, -1 to a roll.

I guess I’d refer back to my original question, what is this meddling with and what unintentional consequences are there? Or maybe there is a more fundamental question - does a PC have to have 18 to 20 in a primary stat to feel fun?

 

[TwoSix]

I guess I’d refer back to my original question, what is this meddling with and what unintentional consequences are there? Or maybe there is a more fundamental question - does a PC have to have 18 to 20 in a primary stat to feel fun?

I would frame it as most players don't want their PCs to feel inadequate, and what feels inadequate is usually determined by what their ceiling for growth is. It isn't relative to their encounters, because players understand that NPCs are malleable and dictated by the GM. Their feeling of strength is directly related to how close they are to their boundaries.

 

[TheSword]

I would frame it as most players don't want their PCs to feel inadequate, and what feels inadequate is usually determined by what their ceiling for growth is. It isn't relative to their encounters, because players understand that NPCs are malleable and dictated by the GM. Their feeling of strength is directly related to how close they are to their boundaries.

That is an interesting idea. But by extension you could resolve that if you simultaneously limited stats to 18? I find it hard to believe that this would fix the problem.

Surely adequacy is relative to the challenges the PCs are pitched against and the people around them? It’s possible for PCs to still feel inadequate if the foes they face have AC 30 and +10 saves. Irrespective of their own personal scores?

 

[TwoSix]

That is an interesting idea. But by extension you could resolve that if you simultaneously limited stats to 18? I find it hard to believe that this would fix the problem.

Above, I said that I would limit stat growth to 16 in the point-buy environment you presented. As a player, I would have no problem with a lower point-buy start if I could only get to a 16 anyway. 16 and 20 are both ultimately artificial caps introduced for gameplay purposes.

Surely adequacy is relative to the challenges the PCs are pitched against and the people around them? It’s possible for PCs to still feel inadequate if the foes they face have AC 30 and +10 saves. Irrespective of their own personal scores?

If the monsters crush us because their stats are super-high, I don't feel like my PC is weak; I feel like my GM doesn't know how to balance monsters and frame encounters very well.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My favorite character, my avatar Fitz, has a highest ability score if 13 and a low 7. His mate, Callahan had an envious 17, but also ran around with a 5 dexterity (described as his "club foot" from birth).

They were awesome, and we legit rolled their scores with no cheating and played the spit out of what we got.

 

[TheSword]

Above, I said that I would limit stat growth to 16 in the point-buy environment you presented. As a player, I would have no problem with a lower point-buy start if I could only get to a 16 anyway. 16 and 20 are both ultimately artificial caps introduced for gameplay purposes.

So you’re saying that if the max starting ability score was 16 you would feel adequate if your character’s point allowed you to get to 16 in one stat?

What about if the max starting ability score was 14? Would you feel the same way.

Does the lifetime cap on the stat have any bearing on this?