Level Up (A5E) Where to put ability bonuses during character creation

[TheSword]

Stats should definitely be separated from Class. People want to take multiple classes, it changes over your career, it definitely shouldn’t affect starting stats. Really class is about the future not the past!

Ideally is keep it based on Race with a +2 to a specific stat and a floating plus +2. Humans get +1 to everything and a floating +2.

If it HAS to be changed split between race and background.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Well, no, it's not strong unless most players see it as strong.

And I don't think most people see 14 as good enough for a main stat, and it's pretty hard without race ASIs to have a starting 16 somewhere and have anything else be good.

I think that conflict is more common than being happy with 3 14s.

I agree there's mentality thing about it.

But at the same time, if its about perception of the score, how about this:

If having a 20 in a stat is the pinnacle of mortal capacity, like, 20 STR is herculean and 20 INT is a super genius, doesnt it feel strange to attain such a feat while being a minor, pretty local hero?

A Veteran (from the MM) as 16 STR, a Warlord (CR 12) has 20 in STR. I know PCs are one step above the common people, but if a character, in-setting, is a powerful warlord, it would be strange to have a local adventurer with more STR than him, no?

At 11+ level, I would make more sense though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And I don't think most people see 14 as good enough for a main stat, and it's pretty hard without race ASIs to have a starting 16 somewhere and have anything else be good.

I think that conflict is more common than being happy with 3 14s.

LOL, you know I was going to address it all, but frankly these things have been done to death. ASI's aren't needed IMO, I told you why, and I am leaving it at that. Obviously, you disagree and that is cool, too.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is just a quick dirty poll. It doesn't replace the survey we'll do later, or the actual playtest packet we'll put out. I just wanted to do a quick straw poll to get the sense of consensus on it.

We're referring to the ability score bonuses currently assigned to races in the existing 5E core rulebooks. Most get +3/+4 in total at present, usually split into a +2 and another +2 or +1, with some exceptions.

Personally I'm long tired of ability score bonuses.

First, there is too much emphasis on ability scores being the most important thing in a RPG, which then causes resentment from anyone who is forced to roll for them and then rolls poorly, while maybe other people at the table are even still stuck with cheating at these rolls like they were still in the 80s.

Second, if you give races or backgrounds any ability score bonuses, you immediately polarize the PC population around gainful combinations, at the detriment of others.

So if you really want to have those bonuses, I would prefer they went to class so that the source of the bonuses is also what uses the bonus. Give an Intelligence bonus to Wizard, a Strength or Dexterity bonus to Fighter, and so on...

However, my preference would be no bonus at all. At the end of the day, they are absolutely not needed. You want a high score in Intelligence for your Wizard? You just put your highest score to Int, or use point-buy to maximize. If the result is not enough, agree on a more generous point-buy budget. There is no fundamental reason why there should be ability score bonuses in the game. They are OK to represent in-born differences between different creatures, but since that appears to be on the waning side these days, I'd rather get rid of them altogether.

 

[Undrave]

I'm done for splitting up the bonuses multiple way, I'm up for floating, and I'm up for just upping the point buy bonus (with 16 being a possible number you can reach).

Maybe just make the standard array 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

Sure, if you want them increased. I don't and don't think they need to be.
With current point buy a character can have three 14's and three 10's. How good do you want them to be?! 14 IS good IMO, so you can have three good stats even without racial ASIs. If you are rolling scores (the default), you can easily have even better scores!

Having higher scores won't "break" anything, of course, but for myself it makes it much less enjoyable because there is less challenge.

If everyone else has STR 8, STR 10 is strong, isn't it?

14 feels pretty mediocre to me. 16 is the base 'primary stat' score, otherwise you miss more often and you get hit more often... it doesn't feel good at all.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Maybe just make the standard array 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

With 7 scores???

14 feels pretty mediocre to me. 16 is the base 'primary stat' score, otherwise you miss more often and you get hit more often... it doesn't feel good at all.

14 feels good to me. 10 feels mediocre. 16 feels great. 18 feels awesome. And 20 feels OMG!!! (FWIW, 12 feels "fair".)

Since the assumed (and calculated average, FYI) hit rate is between 60-65%, lowering it 1 point to 55-60% still makes it so you hit more than you miss.

Then again, I am firmly in the camp that hitting more than missing leads to BORING and less challenging, but that is another issue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I voted to place them in with race. Why have different races if you cannot have them be different.

Oh god. Here we go again.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I forgot to mention "racial ability modifiers' in the BadWrongFun thread.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

I like the three way split between species, culture and background. It probably works out the same as just getting to pick three but enforces a bit of narrative.

I'm tough because orc blood runs in my veins. I'm strong because my people value physical strength and might makes right. I'm charismatic because I was an officer in the army I served in.

 

[Undrave]

With 7 scores???

Oops... 16, 15, 14, 13, 10, 8

I like that there's multiple odd scores so that later ASI can be more interesting.

14 feels good to me. 10 feels mediocre. 16 feels great. 18 feels awesome. And 20 feels OMG!!! (FWIW, 12 feels "fair".)

Since the assumed (and calculated average, FYI) hit rate is between 60-65%, lowering it 1 point to 55-60% still makes it so you hit more than you miss.

Then again, I am firmly in the camp that hitting more than missing leads to BORING and less challenging, but that is another issue.

I think at this point it's just a DnD cultural thing, more people will feel 16 is their goal for a starting stat than 14, and even if in practice you might be right, the FEEL would be off for a lot of folks... if that's enough to torpedo 4e it should be enough to warrant giving players their 16. It's just too ingrained at this point.

And as for your point on hitting more often... if the game still allowed us to nickle and dime for random +X to hit, I would agree with you. It'd be more interesting to constantly have to look for ways to improve your chances to hit (even something as simple as flanking), but at this point the game doesn't quite support it... And you'd need to bring back the 'attacker always rolls' principle from 4e for spells for that kind of system to work IMO, otherwise you run the risk of imbalancing things. It's generally easier to improve your attack roll than your save DC, but attack rolls are cheaper.