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

[squibbles]

The more I think on this, I do think that perhaps a middle-ground solution could be to simply remove the +2 ASI, but leave the rest as is. To wit: Feats either offer Something, or +1 and something. The alternative is +1/+1. With this method, gaining +2 to a stat demands two ASI opportunities, whether by taking a +1/+1 or by taking a +1/something. Using standard array (because it's easy) with your top two stats being 15/14, then if you completely dedicated all five of the ASI from 1st-20th lvl. (discounting fighters/rogues and their bonus ASI) you wouldn't have 20/19 until 19th level. Since 19th level is pretty stout, cool. But at 8th level, for example, you'd only have 17/16 at best. That's manageable. Non-human characters have an edge on this, since they have stat mods, but most (not all, obviously) people I know prefer the human variant over the base human, and so would have an additional feat. Comparing feats to straight ASI, and I also fall into the crowd of thinking I'd rather have a Feat than an ASI in most cases.

I love this idea and may have to steal it.

The change is elegant, since it's a minor one that only removes one rule. It's also elegant because it makes 13s and other odd numbers from char creation less egregiously sub-optimal; getting a 17 from standard array+race mod would be way better. Finally, it's elegant because it works with or without allowing feats--though, if you did allow feats, SS and GWM would be even stronger than normal.

On an unrelated note, I would like to express anti-paladin, anti-gnome, and anti-rapier solidarity with the OP. (not sorcerers, though, that's a bridge too far)

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

I also started with 1e, in 1986 or so?
I played through all editions, the worst for me and my gang was 4e.
2e was a big jump towards player friendliness in terms of character building,
3e really good for streamlining some stuff (does really anybody miss thAC0 and saving throw tables? I don't),
3e5 repaired some of 3e.
4e - let us not talk about that horrid construct. "Encounter powers", no thanks, what a crap.
Pathfinder = 3e75: best in complexity and possibilities and power level (as ridiculous as 3e/3e5)

And now 5e - and I really like it!
Reduced "power level", but they kept the streamlined "d20 vs DC", and the ability improvements by level.

So about the original complaint: ASIs

Yes, if you roll your character stats, it might happen that characters become too powerful.
I see the ASIs more for the point-buy character building - which is in a way the most fair
one when comparing characters.

Another thing:
Why shouldn't a fighter become stronger?
If you start boxing now, I guess that not only your technical boxing skills (or level) will improve,
but that you will probably be stronger in a few months (and con, and dex, okay int might suffer ).

I have no problems at all with ASIs, quite the opposite, I really like it as an on-going character-
building/development tool.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

One more thing:
You really think high level characters are weak in 5e?
Come on, remember the non-spellcasters in 1e? They were pretty useless compared
to the cleric and the wizard and the druid at high level.

Compared to 1e, 5e spellcasters are more powerful, and even more so the non-spellcasters
(which are not too many, which is my complaint about 5e: everybody can do magic).
I'd say there is still a little gap between high-level spellcasters and the rest, but it is getting
smaller with the editions. In 5e, I'd almost say it's perfect.

 

[Krachek]

I think it make an honest game if you can only roll stat and there no ASI but only feats.
Problem solve, next call.

 

[Azzy]

Actually, not being able to raise ability scores without magic (unless you were a cavalier in 1e AD&D--assuming you allowed that broken thing in your games) really irritated me during pre-3e D&D.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You really think high level characters are weak in 5e?

It's all relative. In AD&D, a fighter could one-shot an ogre, and even an adult dragon would take no more than a few rounds (as long as you survived).

In subsequent editions, fighter stats have not increased nearly to the same degree that monster stats have. They are much weaker than they used to be, relative to what they were supposed to be fighting.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think it's up for debate that in terms of bang for your buck, ASIs in your primary stat are better than feats.

Having said that, if your DM runs encounters using the CR system as presented (especially with the modifiers for additional creatures), you won't miss the extra plusses that come from the ASI. In this, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] s assertion that D&D is too easy can be made to work for the game; go ahead and take Keen Mind or Actor, it won't affect the math in combat and skills overmuch. There are corner cases, of course, but a game where no ASIs existed wouldn't need to be tweaked at all as far as things like encounter-building are concerned, I suspect.

Why was I summoned to this thread? I'm not advocating a "since the game is too easy, you don't need to minmax" argument. I'm not saying that line of reasoning is false, just unsatisfying. I'm much more interested in us fans applying pressure on WotC to improve the game so a) the game is not too easy when feats and multiclassing is used, and b) minmaxing doesn't provide fundamentally broken advantages.

I agree that in terms of bang for your buck, ASIs in your primary stat are better than average feats. It is certainly not up for debate, however, that in terms of bang for your buck, the best feats for your (martial) character are better than ASIs.

Have a nice day!

 

[jasper]

Why was I summoned to this thread? I'm not advocating a "since the game is too easy, you don't need to minmax" argument. I'm not saying that line of reasoning is false, just unsatisfying. I'm much more interested in us fans applying pressure on WotC to improve the game so a) the game is not too easy when feats and multiclassing is used, and b) minmaxing doesn't provide fundamentally broken advantages.

I agree that in terms of bang for your buck, ASIs in your primary stat are better than average feats. It is certainly not up for debate, however, that in terms of bang for your buck, the best feats for your (martial) character are better than ASIs.

Have a nice day!

By the power of Gygax I banish thee
By the power of Trampier I banish thee
By the power of my smelly arm pits I banish thee

 

[Slit518]

You could just drop ASI advancement from your game?

Or use it to give the players a +1 bonus to attack rolls, saving throws, or a skill check of their choice.

So for example the fighter could add a +1 to their attack rolls permanently.

In that case, the max a player could raise any specific ONE thing would be by +5 for the most case, or +6 for Fighters & Rogues, or a +6/+7 if you're a Variant Human.

I'd say that is a decent trade-off.

It would help a player strengthen a weaker save or skill check, but at the same time, not increase all skills, saves, attack rolls, etc, by a +1 due to a +2 ASI.

 

[Satyrn]

I have actually considered removing the ASI, requiring everyone to take a feat instead. The half-feats that provide a +1 are still available, so improvement is possible, but at a rate that won't allow many 20 values.

The downside to this is that my group likes rolling, and this would make rolling high super-important. I would much rather allow a choice of arrays, as we all hate point buy, but they'd never go for it.

It's a shame your players wouldn't go for it. Using just the standard array has made the game run smoother at my table for the DM (he's no longer pumping up monsters).

It has also curtailed my desire to powergame my characters - it's sorta weird, but because I can't start with an 18 I stopped caring about ever having an 18. My druid has a 16 Wis, and that's after an ASI I took only because no feat appealed to me.

And previously, my battlemaster's dexterity was 16 when he croaked, because that's where it started by chance (It was a nice surprise that forest gnomes get +1 to Dex); and the feat I had taken for him was Martial Adept just to add a couple maneuver choices. The next planned feat was gonna be Magic Initiate, with the cantrips reflavored as throwing alchemist's fire and acid.

I really do think that switching to the standard array has made making characters more fun for me.