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

[Chaosmancer]

I can't say I know exactly how to pull it off with as little mechanical disruption as possible, but one thing I did like in 4e was that players added 1/2 their level to everything they did.

Sure, it led to bloat and massive numbers that were nearly meaningless, but it also gave a feel that a scrub just starting out was constantly going to be worse than the guy who had been adventuring for thirty years, and that guy picked up all kinds of tricks and was inured to simple magical effects.

A level 20 character was simply mathematically superior to a 2nd leve character, without taking into account any other factor than level bonus.


But, the biggest thing it led to that I hated was leveled challenges. Every door in a dungeon meant for level 20 characters had to be bound in adamantium and bolted into the floor , because it had to have a minimum difficulty if it was to be a challenge for the characters to open it.

So now, we are less concered with level, and more concerned with limited ability scores. That means that a 20 strength is always strong, whether you are level 2 or 20, and therefore doors are always consistently made. A stone door is always just as hard to breakdown and gives the players a real sense of progression and solidity in the world. The only glaring problem with it is expertise, which even by mid-levels makes me want to tear my hair out in frustration. ("I want to sneak by the guards, I have a +13 and use magical secrets for pass without trace for another +10, crap, I rolled a 3, I only have a result of 26." "The guards only have a +3, their best result is a 23, they can't possibly see you. Do whatever you like." [I had an all dex party with Pass without Trace at-will in a staff I rolled for them randomly. I stopped having them make stealth checks. The lowest was always above a twenty])

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Allow me to rip the rose-tinted glasses of your eyes for a minute...

AD&D had far more mechanics tied to ability scores than you might think.

Sure, but all of it was optional. Having high stats opened up different classes and different races. High stats were necessary for a high-level spellcaster to cast their best spells. You needed high stats to dual-class.

But if you rolled all 10s, then your human fighter was pretty much as good as the next human fighter, who rolled significantly better but fell one point short of the Charisma requirement to be a paladin. And as long as you could keep your character alive for a couple of levels, you would wind up so much more powerful than a starting character that the bonuses from high stats were negligible.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What this discussion is revealing is that the REAL problem with D&D (and many other RPGs, and for that matter MMOs as well) is the ridiculous scaling in power that occurs with leveling. "Zero to Hero" is just not a defensible fictional conceit.

 

[Gradine]

What this discussion is revealing is that the REAL problem with D&D (and many other RPGs, and for that matter MMOs as well) is the ridiculous scaling in power that occurs with leveling. "Zero to Hero" is just not a defensible fictional conceit.

It isn't, no, but it also happens to be one with such a long-standing tradition within the genre that it seems to have little to no impact on most players' suspension of disbelief.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It isn't, no, but it also happens to be one with such a long-standing tradition within the genre that it seems to have little to no impact on most players' suspension of disbelief.

The size of the impact also depends on the length of the journey. At least in 2E, there was an assumption that great periods of time might pass between adventures, which was the only time you could train and level up. It's less damaging to suspension of disbelief if someone is an unstoppable juggernaut after having gone on thirty adventures and saved the world half-a-dozen times, than if they gain that same power over the course of a single adventure that takes two months to complete.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

One method I like is to randomly roll stats, but make sure they all add up to the same absolute point value (ie, a 10 equals 10 points and an 18 equals 18 points). You just set a total value up front, and then after initially rolling, for arrays that exceed or fall short of that, do something like roll a 1d6 to target a stat, and then a 1d4 (or something else) to raise/lower the stat. Just keep rolling until the numbers add up.

To make it even more fun, have everyone roll when the group gets together, and then you pick which array you use--it doesn't have to be the one you rolled. I did this for my current game, but also allowed players to choose to do a normal point buy if they didn't want to use any of the arrays. It's done a great job of giving variance amongst the characters. We have characters with low Wisdom (makes sense for adventurers really--not the wisest profession to pursue), and we even have one 5 Strength and one 6 Intelligence.

Anyway, that's one way to get what both your and your players like--random rolls, but arrays that all add up to an equal value, and you can set what that value is.

 

[Quartz]

It's ASIs, and level advancement.

Hell, I'd like the option of doing without racial stat mods.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To make it even more fun, have everyone roll when the group gets together, and then you pick which array you use--it doesn't have to be the one you rolled.

I've never done this, but have always wanted to.

 

[GreyLord]

The difficulty I see of halving the bonuses of Ability Score modifiers, or ASI's is that you need something to counter balance this.

I've already mentioned my idea of doubling the Prof. bonus for Fighters with a weapon, but halving the ASI's for everyone also impacts the games in otherways (saving throws, etc) that one probably should consider. 5e I think is balanced in accordance with certain numbers (the average prof bonus when used with your prime stat at level 10 should be +8 or +9, and +11 at level 20 for example). If you don't have a way to balance that out, I think the players may find the game tougher and deadlier than it is meant to be.

I suppose that's fine if you want such a game, but if you want to play 5e, but with more emphasis on experience and training but still balanced, that may not be what your players want.

Expertise for Rogues and an Expertise thing like Wpn Specialization for Fighters may work for them but then you may also want to account what to do about the Clerics, Wizards, Warlocks, and others that rely on spellcasting and DCs against saves.

 

[bid]

Okay, other than ASIs, Paladins, Gnomes, and Rapiers, what else could I possibly hate on from 5e?

Nobody expects the lowkey inquisition. His chief weapon is nonsense... and meaningful observation.

Well, you know the drill.


But yeah, stats as fluff seems nice. Proficiency as base stat mods works ok except to attribute checks. I mean, I can understand a +12 (trained) arcana check for a wizard, but giving him a +6 Str check is kinda weird.