D&D 5E (2014) What if applying ASIs to worse abilities gave greater bonuses?

[koga305]

Just keep in mind that however you change stat allocation it won't stop optimization, it will just lead to different optimal patterns.

Point taken, but I have no problem with optimization here. I'm just worried that my players will have to choose between an optimal path and a path that they would otherwise prefer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mercule]

Just keep in mind that however you change stat allocation it won't stop optimization, it will just lead to different optimal patterns.

This. It's been years (like on the 2E dnd-l listserve, IIRC), but I was part of a conversation about optimizations. There was one guy who was extremely good at it and he made a distinction between what he called "min-max" and "max-min". I may get them backwards, but his definition was something like this:

Min-Max: Minimize your maximums such that you put a laser focus on what you do well. Sacrifice everything to be the best at one thing. Once you're the perfect hammer play as if everything is a nail. Yes, you may end up with some ridiculous weaknesses, but your strategy is to do everything in your power to beat nails -- then rely on your team to cover for screws, etc. At a certain point, you may decide to diversify, but do so judiciously; the more you water down your strengths, the more those weaknesses matter.

Max-Min: Maximize your minimums such that your weaknesses are covered. This is, essentially, defensive optimizations. You may not solve problems as well as the Min-Maxer, but you also don't have to worry as much about your flank. Once you're comfortable that your weaknesses are sufficiently dealt with, you may start to better develop a couple of tools.

I've never seen that distinction made, since, but it stuck with me. Most optimizers in D&D are min-max. D&D is a team sport and you get more bang for your buck by having the Fighter be stronger, the Wizard smarter, etc. The more PCs are in the group, the higher the rewards of this style play. Such things as the 3E spiked-chain master are clear, but effective, one-trick ponies.

If you're in a small group, especially a solo game, the max-min style makes sense. Save-or-suck is indistinguishable from save-or-die. Also, "fifth player" characters, like the Bard, have a certain amount of max-min flavor. Also, some kinds of heavy RP games, like a group of Sharn inquisitors, might be well suited to max-min because you're likely to be able to work towards slow success, but also more likely to be able to be isolated from the safety of your team.

The idea of making ASIs favor low stats tends to nudge people in the direction of max-min play. If you're in a standard D&D game, I'm not sure that sort of play is strategically beneficial. If you're in a high RP game, you might actually end up making the problem worse. About the only time I think it would be beneficial is if you have a group that's heavy into the min-max mindset but you're playing a campaign where a max-min might be better. Even then, once they shift their gears, it'll probably do more harm than good.

 

[Mad_Jack]

Perhaps introduce a house rule that whenever you gain an ASI, you can increase one of your three lowest ability scores by one point (to a maximum of 14) as well?

 

[CapnZapp]

What if the Ability Score Improvement gave +4 to a score if it was from 8-10, or +2 to two scores in that range []? Would that break anything?

Heck no.

You could probably extend that to 8-12 with few problems.

The reason I'm so certain is precisely because what you observe: maximizing your strengths is definitely the path of the minmaxer, especially in a group where somebody can cover your weaknesses.

A party is definitely better off with each member expressing a top-of-the-line strength even if that means they all have a weakness, since that weakness is somebody else's strength.

In real life you seldom act in so close and continous concert with a tightly knit group of people, as does a member of an adventuring party.

But really, any competitive team is always better off with a team of specialists than a team of generalists, be it football, acrobatics or a science project. The fact somebody in the team has a 20 in any given ability or skill is relevant much more often, than the fact that everybody else might have only a 16 or 12 (or, in the extreme case that is D&D, an 8)

 

[mpwylie]

I guess my question is...Why? Characters should be spending time overcoming weaknesses. I don't give out participation trophies in my games. You wanna place your points in the spots that make you awesome at A, well then you suffer at B. This is the whole point picking where you put your stats and not just giving everyone 18's across the board. A lot of the fun in the game comes from finding ways to use your strengths while avoiding your deficits. It also makes the game fun because this is a team game full of classes that have different things they are and are not good at. This encourages people to work together to win. Making changes that let players be good at everything just ruins the game imo.

 

[Horwath]

If you really want to do this then make it so that if you use +1 from ASI it raises ability by 1 or sets it to 10. If you use +2 from ASI it gives +2 to a ability or sets it to 12. what ever is higher.

I.E.

raising 8 and 15 by +1 each would give 10 and 16.

raising 8 by +2 would give 12

raising 8 and 8 by 1 would give 10 and 10.

 

[Xeviat]

Easiest way: hand out point buy points. I would give 4 of them and have stats above 15 also cost 2 per increase. So no point buy abuse.

I was going to come in and say this. Good job.

 

[Xeviat]

I guess my question is...Why? Characters should be spending time overcoming weaknesses. I don't give out participation trophies in my games. You wanna place your points in the spots that make you awesome at A, well then you suffer at B. This is the whole point picking where you put your stats and not just giving everyone 18's across the board. A lot of the fun in the game comes from finding ways to use your strengths while avoiding your deficits. It also makes the game fun because this is a team game full of classes that have different things they are and are not good at. This encourages people to work together to win. Making changes that let players be good at everything just ruins the game imo.

Ugh ... how did we go from some suggestions which would allow a character tired of having that 8 work on it (over 4 levels mind you) and pop it up to a 12 suddenly become "18's in everything". I'd welcome someone wondering "should I increase my 18 Str to a 20, or should I up my 8 Cha to a 12? I'm kind of tired of not being able to convince people of anything ...".

 

[Horwath]

I was going to come in and say this. Good job.

I would also add more points to point buy. 32 is pathfinder society power level.

But I would keep the limit on max starting score of 15.

That way there would not be starting 20's and again two dumps of 8's.

with 32 pts a human can buy 15,13,13,13,13,11 for starting 16,14,14,14,14,12. Now that is a well rounded character.

 

[Xeviat]

I would also add more points to point buy. 32 is pathfinder society power level.

But I would keep the limit on max starting score of 15.

That way there would not be starting 20's and again two dumps of 8's.

with 32 pts a human can buy 15,13,13,13,13,11 for starting 16,14,14,14,14,12. Now that is a well rounded character.

I've been using 30 points, with a max of 16, to allow Race/Class combinations that don't give +1 to a primary stat.

Though ... I've been really considering removing offensive ability score contribution entirely and just applying double proficiency bonus to Attack and Saves and proficiency bonus to weapon damage (and any time someone earns +primary stat to damage). I'd have to go and add a lot more side ability scores to stuff, and change Consitution, but this way ability scores could be changed to be more about describing your character rather than being their power.