So wait... Feats OR attribute increase?

[Easy_Lee]

I'm really curious if anyone has an opinion on +1 all ability scores at 5, 10, and 15 and removing an ASI or two.

I have a mixed opinion on this.

One the one hand, I would prefer that 5e had done something like this from the start. Attributes automatically increase with each tier, and instead of ASIs characters just get feats like they always have. The feats would have to be revised, of course. Most likely, half feats would lose their +1, and many other feats would be split into two so as to keep all feats at close to the same power level.

Which leads me to my issue. I've written up an entire 80-page book of homebrew before, and only one of my players read it. A lot of players don't want to familiarize themselves with new rules. Just look at how many groups never moved past 3.5e.

For that reason, I believe homebrew should be kept as simple as possible. +1 ability scores and the necessity of revised feats would involve a big change. If all of your players are on board, go for it. If not, or if you're unsure, i wouldn't try it.

[Kryx]

My houserules aren't small so it's not a big issue for my group.

It's more a question of design. I already split feats to be half the power like you mention. Perhaps I'll explore auto increasing ability scores.

[Theodoxus]

I'm really curious if anyone has an opinion on +1 all ability scores at 5, 10, and 15 and removing an ASI or two.

Only +1? (I wasn't sure what you were promoting in your original post...)

So, PB, you're maxing at 20 if you're playing a race that has a +2 to a stat, and it's something you want maxed. Half-elf charisma casters steal the show. Halfling and elf rogues, mountain dwarf barbarians, gmome wizards... and everyone who wants to play a cleric is begging to be able to play a firbolg...

Non-traditional combinations dry up - and standard array is poopoo'd as not having enough odd numbers to be "worth it" (unless you're starting standard human).

For a low powered game, I could see it working. It would definitely promote more half feats, just for the extra +1 to a stat...

I think a slightly better option would be 4 points to spread across stats, not more than +2 to any single stat, and you can't raise the same stat by +2 two consecutive times.

So, for 4D6L1, keep +1 to all at 5, 10, 15
For PB/SA, use 4 points, max +2 at 5, 10, 15

[Kryx]

Only +1? (I wasn't sure what you were promoting in your original post...)

So, PB, you're maxing at 20 if you're playing a race that has a +2 to a stat, and it's something you want maxed. Half-elf charisma casters steal the show. Halfling and elf rogues, mountain dwarf barbarians, gmome wizards... and everyone who wants to play a cleric is begging to be able to play a firbolg...

I'm not the OP, just asking for feedback on an idea.

My ASIs already provide +1 (feats are half sized) and races allow much more freedom where pluses go. So races that dedicate 15 point buy and +2 to one stat end up with 17 to start and that'd naturally increase to 20 at 15th level, or they could "waste points" to do it earlier.
Standard array and rolling will never be considerations for my group.

The point of giving +1 to all abilities is to force the flavor of characters growing in more than one dimension. D&D favors SAD advancement and this helps bring a bit more robustness to characters as they gain experience.

[Theodoxus]

well, with that additional tidbit of information, it'd probably work well. Implemented as an across the board variant for any table to consider, I still feel would be quite underpowered.

[djreynolds]

I'm really curious if anyone has an opinion on +1 all ability scores at 5, 10, and 15 and removing an ASI or two.

I like this idea

I'm just amazed how any PC going from 1st level to 20th level.... hasn't gotten any smarter.

Say a barbarian starts the game at level 1 with an intelligence of 8, and at 20th level still has that same intelligence of 8.

To go from private to sergeant major to general.... you must have become wiser, smarter, and more charismatic

I understand this is what proficiency bonus is all about, but to say you got better at intimidation because you are proficient in it... but you're ability to deceive and persuade is the same as it was at level 1.... kinda silly

But with an incremental upgrade of some many abilities... it shows growth in all areas

[SharkForce]

I like this idea

I'm just amazed how any PC going from 1st level to 20th level.... hasn't gotten any smarter.

Say a barbarian starts the game at level 1 with an intelligence of 8, and at 20th level still has that same intelligence of 8.

To go from private to sergeant major to general.... you must have become wiser, smarter, and more charismatic

I understand this is what proficiency bonus is all about, but to say you got better at intimidation because you are proficient in it... but you're ability to deceive and persuade is the same as it was at level 1.... kinda silly

But with an incremental upgrade of some many abilities... it shows growth in all areas

you'd be surprised.

there are an awful lot of officers that managed to never really learn from their mistakes, in spite of having plenty of them. the ones that did learn from their mistakes are generally the ones we recognize as being extremely good officers.

that said, D&D is not the game you play to be an average joe, so improving in every way probably fits better than not improving in every way :P

[djreynolds]

Right we are not average joes but we have 1st level PCs with the same skills as 20th level PCs

I mean my 20th level wizard after years of walking around and adventuring and hardened battles.... still cannot climb the gym rope. I mean the wizard not me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right we are not average joes but we have 1st level PCs with the same skills as 20th level PCs

I mean my 20th level wizard after years of walking around and adventuring and hardened battles.... still cannot climb the gym rope. I mean the wizard not me.

As pedantic point (but one of my pet peeves): anyone can climb a gym rope in 5e. Climbing generally costs double movement, but no ability check. Only particularly slick or difficult surfaces may take a check.

This gets at a philosophical difference between 5e and some previous editions--adventurers are presumed to be competent at adventuring tasks (like climbing, jumping, and swimming). Only particularly difficult instances call for checks. Even when they do require checks, many DCs can be met even with a negative modifier: few DCs should be 20+.

[Pex]

As pedantic point (but one of my pet peeves): anyone can climb a gym rope in 5e. Climbing generally costs double movement, but no ability check. Only particularly slick or difficult surfaces may take a check.

This gets at a philosophical difference between 5e and some previous editions--adventurers are presumed to be competent at adventuring tasks (like climbing, jumping, and swimming). Only particularly difficult instances call for checks. Even when they do require checks, many DCs can be met even with a negative modifier: few DCs should be 20+.

Depends on the DM. Some DMs will require a roll to climb a rope.

"It depends on who is DM that day." (tm)

[DanyBallon]

Depends on the DM. Some DMs will require a roll to climb a rope.

"It depends on who is DM that day." (tm)

It's always good to know before hand if a DM use houserule in his game


On a more serious note, the 20th level wizard did get better in the stuff he was proficient. In 3.P it is done by investing skill points while in 5e it's done by being proficient in a skill. The number and range have change but the end result is the same. I'd even say that in 3.P if you didn't invest a single skill point in a skill then by 20th level you had close to zero chance to succeed (a nat 20 still was possible), while in 5e, due to BA you could manage to pull it out, not as often as someone who is proficient, yet it is still possible to succeed on an unproficient skill check.

What 3.P had over 5e, is granularity, as you could decide to max out one skill, invest half as much in another and may be 1/4th in a 3rd one (but doing so would be a waste of skill points.)

[Tanarii]

an unproficient skill check.

Ability Check. That's kind of a nitpick, but IMO part of making the difference between 5e clear to players is to always refer to them as ability checks, and always refence the abilit score being used. If a skill proficiency also applies, use the PHB format and name & emphasize the ability score first. Not the skill. This helps encourage players to realize they shouldn't be afraid to make 'untrained skill checks'.

Unless you as a DM are constantly calling for checks for things that shouldn't require checks at all and setting wildly high DCs. In that case, the DM is the one stuck in old edition thinking.

Edit: to be clear, I know this, yet I still fall into this 'trap' regularly, both in my posts on the boards and in game. It's not an easy thing to change a pattern of thinking that's long ingrained. Moving from "everything is a skill check, some get ability mods" to "everything is an ability check, some get skill mods" is a fairly huge difference. But it's still hard to break the habit of of (as a DM) forcing every check into a skill or (as a player) only trying things that you have a high ability score and are proficient in.

[DanyBallon]

Ability Check. That's kind of a nitpick, but IMO part of making the difference between 5e clear to players is to always refer to them as ability checks, and always refence the abilit score being used. If a skill proficiency also applies, use the PHB format and name & emphasize the ability score first. Not the skill. This helps encourage players to realize they shouldn't be afraid to make 'untrained skill checks'.

Unless you as a DM are constantly calling for checks for things that shouldn't require checks at all and setting wildly high DCs. In that case, the DM is the one stuck in old edition thinking.

Edit: to be clear, I know this, yet I still fall into this 'trap' regularly, both in my posts on the boards and in game. It's not an easy thing to change a pattern of thinking that's long ingrained. Moving from "everything is a skill check, some get ability mods" to "everything is an ability check, some get skill mods" is a fairly huge difference. But it's still hard to break the habit of of (as a DM) forcing every check into a skill or (as a player) only trying things that you have a high ability score and are proficient in.

Your right!

I have that same problem as you

Also, for players and DMs that have played a long time in 3.P and 4e, where you needed a skill check for everything, it take some time to get use to the philosophy of calling skill Ability check only when there is a chance for failure, and only if the character have a reason to be able to succeed.
i.e.: an illiterate character shouldn't be allowed an Ability check to decipher an ancient scroll, even if he have a high Int score
Yet I always allow the players to try and convince me otherwise. It may get them the chance to roll, or if their story is good, but I still believe they are not allowed an Ability check, then I give them an Inspiration point for their effort.

[Kurald Galain]

In 3.P it is done by investing skill points while in 5e it's done by being proficient in a skill. The number and range have change but the end result is the same.

The obvious difference is that in 3.P you automatically get skills every time you level up, whereas in 5E you never become proficient in skills except at first level (or by spending one of your preciously few feats).

[Theodoxus]

I think that's why people get confused between investigation and perception checks. Perception uses Wisdom normally - it's intuiting how someone decided to hide something (like a trap in door or chest), or if the thing approaching your camp sounds like a tiger or a horse... Investigation uses Intelligence normally - it's deducing through reason that because the rug has a slight upward bulge on the edge, that it's covering up something routinely moved, thus allowing the character to find the secret crawl space.

Calling out for Wisdom checks or Intelligence checks (or "players choice" and let them describe what they're doing) is a much better way of searching for traps/locks/hidden alcoves, etc.

[DanyBallon]

The obvious difference is that in 3.P you automatically get skills every time you level up, whereas in 5E you never become proficient in skills except at first level (or by spending one of your preciously few feats).

True, but if you want to be good at what you are doing due to the constant increase of DC, you will put the skill points you get every level in the few skills you picked at 1st level, which is pretty much the same as selecting proficiency at 1st level. Don't you think?

[Kurald Galain]

True, but if you want to be good at what you are doing due to the constant increase of DC, you will put the skill points you get every level in the few skills you picked at 1st level, which is pretty much the same as selecting proficiency at 1st level. Don't you think?

Constantly increasing DCs are a 4E invention; 3E has static DCs for most skills.

[DanyBallon]

Constantly increasing DCs are a 4E invention; 3E has static DCs for most skills.

I might remember wrong, but I recall seeing skill DC in the 30+ in published adventure for level 10+

They had to do so, otherwise by level 10 a character that maxed out a skill would succeed most of the time on a DC 20 check (3 skill point at 1st level + 9 more for level 2-10 + ability score mod bonus, +3 is reasonable by level 10= +15 on you skill roll!!!)

[Kurald Galain]

They had to do so, otherwise by level 10 a character that maxed out a skill would succeed most of the time on a DC 20 check (3 skill point at 1st level + 9 more for level 2-10 + ability score mod bonus, +3 is reasonable by level 10= +15 on you skill roll!!!)

Why is it a problem for a level 10 character that has maxed out a skill to succeed most of the time?

[Lombra]

I hope that this doesn't shock anyone, but quest rewards can be something different than loot. There's a section in the DMG about it, feats as rewards are an option, ASIs are an option. I know that DMs are not really taken in consideration during these theorycrafts, but the game does take them in consideration, hence most of the divergencies on the forums, because DMs can't be generalized, they are taken away from the equations, giving altered results.

[DanyBallon]

Why is it a problem for a level 10 character that has maxed out a skill to succeed most of the time?

Because they wanted to keep the PCs challenged. Why bother go up to 20th level if since 10th you overcome easily overcome every challenge?

It's like you're suggesting that a 10th level character will not see it as a problem if all he fight are rats and kobolds? It's quite unsatisfying, hence the why, as far as I remember, 3.P had DC being higher and higher as characters level up. Just to keep them challenged. The same as you have higher CR creatures that follows the characters progression.

5e on the other hand don't have scaling DCs as the modifiers are relatively kept in check. A proficient 20th level character with a maxed out related ability will only have +11, which still leave place for failure. Only characters with expertise will succeed almost every time.

[Tanarii]

I think that's why people get confused between investigation and perception checks. Perception uses Wisdom normally - it's intuiting how someone decided to hide something (like a trap in door or chest), or if the thing approaching your camp sounds like a tiger or a horse... Investigation uses Intelligence normally - it's deducing through reason that because the rug has a slight upward bulge on the edge, that it's covering up something routinely moved, thus allowing the character to find the secret crawl space.

Calling out for Wisdom checks or Intelligence checks (or "players choice" and let them describe what they're doing) is a much better way of searching for traps/locks/hidden alcoves, etc.

Wisdom isn't just intuition, it's also awareness of the world around you. As in not living inside your own head.

But yeah, that means Wisdom (Perception) is for noticing something. Depending on your DM might be a detail that's off requiring further thinking on the part of the player, to just finding things.

And Intelligence (Investigation) is figuring out things based on available information. Explicitly, it's deduction.

I agree it should depend on what the player says they're doing. But it's an irritatingly fine line sometimes. As soon as you try to make hard cases without knowing PC approach, you can run into issues. Let alone dealing with the difference

Constantly increasing DCs are a 4E invention; 3E has static DCs for most skills.

3e still had a tendency to assume challenges scaled with level. That's not a bad thing in itself, but it does lead to specialization, and a tendency not to try and do things due to a low chance of success. That was exacerbated by the rather large difference in success between highly skilled and unskilled.

That's fine if that's what you want. It doesn't work so well if you prefer to assume that most adventurers should have some chance of succeeding on most things they'll run into while adventuring. Just as everyone can contribute in combat due, there (generally, not always) should be some chance to contribute to a variety of chance out of combat.

Obviously there's some exceptions even in 5e. If the party is arguing about the meaning of an Arcane symbol (group check), the Int 8 character with no proficiency might want to stay out of the discussion. If the party is planning an Ambush, the Dex 8 Heavy Armor characters might need to volunteer to be the obviously loud distraction coming from another direction, or let the stealthy folks hit and run and pull the enemy back to them.

[Kurald Galain]

Because they wanted to keep the PCs challenged. Why bother go up to 20th level if since 10th you overcome easily overcome every challenge?

Because the challenge isn't "make a skill check". The challenge is something like "save the kingdom from the evil foozle", and if one particular character is an expert at one particular skill that doesn't make it any less of a challenge. Think of challenges as complex multi-part problems, not as rolling a 6+ on 1d20.

[DanyBallon]

Because the challenge isn't "make a skill check". The challenge is something like "save the kingdom from the evil foozle", and if one particular character is an expert at one particular skill that doesn't make it any less of a challenge. Think of challenges as complex multi-part problems, not as rolling a 6+ on 1d20.

So you're saying that the fighting specialist will be fine facing low CR creatures all the way until they save the country, because, because being expert at one particular "skill" (fighting) doesn't make it less a challenge?
I'm pretty sure that most of us would find this boring as hell, hence why there are tons of books on monsters ranging from low to high CR. Skill checks are all the same, and it's why that in 3.P, the skill DCs increase when you level up. Sure a wooden lock door might be a DC 17 to unlock or break at level 1 and still will be at level 20, but high level adventures will through you a dwarven masterwork adamentine door which would be DC 34 instead, that's how the DC follow the skills progressions in 3.P

In 5e, you don't need to more and more complex contraption so the character feel challenged, the same door can be used over and over, same as facing a group ok goblins at 20th level will still poses a threath, a lesser one, but still a threath if you are not careful.

This is the big difference between both systems, while at the same time managing to let the character feel challenged at all level.

[thereaper]

It's only punishment if you have a huge sense of entitlement. Balanced games mean 'I have to give up *this cool thing* to get *the other cool thing*.'

When the choices are agonizing, because this other thing over there is so tempting that you feel like you have to have it, but then this thing you have right now is just as good but has other limitations...

THAT IS A GOOD GAME.

The game is PERFECTLY BALANCED as is.

This is impossible, unless the party literally never levels up. Spellcasters scale faster than martials, so if the game is perfectly balanced at level X, then it is unbalanced at levels X+y or X-y.

The rest of your post, however, is spot on. Being forced to choose between two good options is good game design.

[Zalabim]

This is impossible, unless the party literally never levels up. Spellcasters scale faster than martials, so if the game is perfectly balanced at level X, then it is unbalanced at levels X+y or X-y.

That sounds a lot like a bare assertion with no support.

[thereaper]

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But seriously, look at the dpr charts. It's the only thing most martials are particularly good at (Rogue and Paladin being exceptions), and there is a clear plateau in the teens. Meanwhile, casters are only just getting their really good stuff.

But I did probably come off unnecessarily hostile. The game isn't really intended to be played at the levels where the imbalances start to become particularly noticeable (as can be seen from the lack of appropriate challenges at those levels, the increasing lack of thought put into the implications of spells at higher levels, and the breakdown of the saving throw math). Perfect balance isn't necessary. As long as one ends their campaign at level 11 or so, things are probably "close enough".

[Easy_Lee]

As far as casters vs martials, consider this. A level 20 fighter can action surge one more time than a level 5 fighter per short rest. A level 20 monk can stunning strike four times as often per rest as a level 5 monk. But a wizard at level 20 probably doesn't bother with most of the spells he used to cast at level 5. He can still cast spells like hypnotic pattern, but he can also do much more powerful things. And he can do so many more times per day.

The issue between casters and martials is that casters continue getting lots of new capabilities at later levels, while most martials don't. Monks actually have some of the best scaling out of any martial, but even they can't make themselves immortal.

[Zalabim]

Compared to a level 5 fighter, the level 20 fighter is Action Surging all the time. Then they can actually Action Surge twice on top of their doubled attacks. A lot of the spells a wizard used at level 5 are still good at level 20. Hypnotic Pattern doesn't become bad. Mirror Image, Misty Step, Blink, and the like are still defensive spells. Mage armor and Shield are likely to stick around. The wizard actually particularly highlights this phenomenon by getting Signature Spells and Spell Mastery.

There's a common perception that having five different levers is the only thing that's worthwhile, but you can only use them each once. Meanwhile, the rogue or fighter are standing over here with a lever that's twice as long and they can use it again and again.

I also don't think people believe that casters only get to use their really good stuff once per day. Their lower level spells don't get much better, just higher DCs, and they only get a handful of higher level spells. At level 5, 3rd-level spells are clearly a cut above and you get 2 or 3. At level 10, 3rd-5th level spells are mostly in the same tier, and you have 8 or 9 uses. For the spells of higher levels, no one ever gets more than 6. Everyone has slower progression after level 10. Casters aren't even getting one more spell slot each level anymore.

[Easy_Lee]

Compared to a level 5 fighter, the level 20 fighter is Action Surging all the time. Then they can actually Action Surge twice on top of their doubled attacks. A lot of the spells a wizard used at level 5 are still good at level 20. Hypnotic Pattern doesn't become bad. Mirror Image, Misty Step, Blink, and the like are still defensive spells. Mage armor and Shield are likely to stick around. The wizard actually particularly highlights this phenomenon by getting Signature Spells and Spell Mastery.

There's a common perception that having five different levers is the only thing that's worthwhile, but you can only use them each once. Meanwhile, the rogue or fighter are standing over here with a lever that's twice as long and they can use it again and again.

I also don't think people believe that casters only get to use their really good stuff once per day. Their lower level spells don't get much better, just higher DCs, and they only get a handful of higher level spells. At level 5, 3rd-level spells are clearly a cut above and you get 2 or 3. At level 10, 3rd-5th level spells are mostly in the same tier, and you have 8 or 9 uses. For the spells of higher levels, no one ever gets more than 6. Everyone has slower progression after level 10. Casters aren't even getting one more spell slot each level anymore.

I don't think you understand that monster HP scales with player damage. A fighter at level 20 doesn't get four times as much attack power as a level 1 fighter. You'd think he does, since he has four attacks. But those four attacks take off the same percentage of an appropriate CR enemy's health that one attack used to.

Conditions, meanwhile, are equally useful at every level. If you can paralyze an enemy, that's just as good at level 20 as at level 5. A level 20 monk can paralyze more targets per rest than a level 5 monk, and can also flurry more often for more damage. This is why monk scaling is better than fighter scaling. They actually get better at what they do, rather than staying the same.

To your lever analogy, rogues and fighters don't get longer levers. Their levers stay the same length relative monsters. So do most wizard levers. But wizards get more levers. And some of those levers inflict conditions on multiple targets, or a single target for multiple rounds. As I said, those conditions are equally useful at every level. Inflicting a condition on multiple targets is better than inflicting it on just one. And that's the kind of capability that wizards get.

In conclusion, fighters scale exactly with the game, but wizards get new capabilities. That means that if a wizard is balanced at level 5, wizards are by definition overpowered at later levels. I'm just making observations about game mechanics, here.