The Only Thing I Don't Like About 5e! (Hint- ASIs)

[TwoSix]

If you want stat-independent, level-dependent 5e, make the following simple changes.

1) Every check that normally adds a stat modifier doesn't. You add double your proficiency bonus instead. Whenever you would use your stat modifier as a bonus to damage rolls, or for determining uses per day, use your proficiency bonus instead.

2) Your stat modifier is now purely a freeform descriptor. High Charisma means people like you, strong people can lift open doors easily. Resolution is squarely on the DM, where a 1e DM likes it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I don't like the sameiness that ASIs can create (Though I don't see much of that in my group--we tend to focus our optimizing on the parts of our characters that we aren't already making non-optimal for role-playing. Ie, if my fighter mage has a high Charisma, because I want him too, I'm pretty careful about where the other stats go, but I don't dump Charisma in order to optimize.)

However, they need to mean something. There needs to be a big difference between someone with a 10 and someone with an 18. Now, one way of adjusting it to be more old-school would be to half ability modifiers for most purposes, but use some method where every point counts for skill-like checks. Like the old roll under your attribute method. In 5e, it might be easier to just give double the listed ability modifier. So half them for attacks, saves, initiative, spell DCs, double them for ability and skill checks, and then figure out how to deal with outliers like opposed Strength (Athletics) for grappling. It's too messy for my taste, but if I were playing with a group that wanted to devalue the combat effects of ability scores, I would absolutely argue for something boosting the ability and skill check parts of them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The point is that ability scores were great, but not necessary (needing ASIs).

A lot of it comes down to expectations. Without any way to increase your stats over time, nobody could assume that your fighter would end up with 18/00 Strength; so it was great if you were lucky enough to roll it, but you weren't missing out on anything if you didn't. There was nothing you could do about it, so it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect it of you.

With the ability to increase your stats over time, the expectation has shifted. If your fighter ends up with Strength 20, then that's entirely normal. If your fighter doesn't end up with Strength 20, then everyone knows that you had plenty of opportunities to make it happen, so they can blame you for not meeting expectations.

 

[Gradine]

My biggest sadness is the death knell of Intelligence as a meaningful stat. Charisma's always been the "traditional" dump stat, but I feel like CHA is a whole lot more meaningful than INT, which is really only relevant to Wizards, Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters. I wish that it had some kind of outside relevance (other than maybe being used for illusion/psionic saving throws, if the designer is feeling like it at that particular moment).

 

[Mistwell]

I came to the thread thinking, "OK what is this rando wrongly alleging.."

And came away nodding my head and thinking, "Yup, make sense. It's a fair argument."*

*Not the paladins, gnomes, rapiers, and sorcerers part though. But that's OK. You're allowed to be oh so wrong on those. So says my Dexadin gnome rapier wielding paladin/sorcerer who rides a mastiff into battle.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Prakriti]

Totally crazy idea that may or may not be relevant to this thread:

* Roll stats instead of using standard array or point-buy, as in the old days.
* When you get an ASI, roll for it. Yes, roll 1d6, where each number corresponds to a particular ability, and whatever ability you roll gets a +2.*

Yes, your fighter might get +2 Intelligence, your wizard might get +2 Strength, but why the hell not? There's no telling how a person will develop and mature over the years.

* If you want to leave the option for a +1/+1 split open, then have the player pre-roll to decide whether the character gets a +2 or +1/+1, using whatever odds you think are fair. Maybe 1d100, where 1-80 = +1/+1, and 81-100 = +2.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I'll always take a feat over an ASI as my first choice. A plus one at somethings everytime is not as useful as a re-roll three times a day IMHO, or getting bonus action attacks or reaction attacks.

I suppose If I played more casters I might feel different, but getting PAM and/or GWM and or sentinel will up my contributions far more than a +1 or even +2 to attack rolls, damage, rolls, strength checks, and saves.

 

[Wrathamon]

How about for your game when they get an ASI ... make them take a FEAT.

See how it plays