ASI Pyramid Variant (brainstorming)

[Nifft]

Consider the following variant.

Feats: Where the class tables list ASI, you instead gain a feat.

ASI Bonus: At every level, your PC gains +1 to an ability score. However, you can only increase the ASI Bonus for an ability score if the new total is +1, or if there is already another ability score with an ASI Bonus one point less than the new total.

You must effectively build a pyramid where every ASI Bonus is "supported" by another ability score with an ASI Bonus one less.


For example, at 1st level you would have +1 to one ability score.

At 2nd level, you would have +1/+1. You can't get a +2 yet, because no other ability score has a +1 yet, and you need another +1 to support the +2.

At 3rd level, you could have +2/+1, or +1/+1/+1.

At 4th level, you might have +2/+1/+1.

At 5th level, you might have +2/+2/+1.

At 6th level, +3/+2/+1.

At 10th level, +4/+3/+2/+1.

At 15th level, +5/+4/+3/+2/+1.

At 20th level, +5/+5/+4/+3/+2/+1, or +5/+4/+4/+3/+2/+2, or +4/+4/+4/+3/+3/+2, or +4/+4/+3/+3/+3/+3.


This fits pretty nicely with a point-buy that limits you to an initial starting ability score of 15.

I'm not sure what to do about half-feats which give a point. I don't think they should be counted in the pyramid requirement, but breaking the 20 ceiling might be bad. (Or it might be okay.) Same deal with racial ability increases: should they increase the 20 ceiling? If they did, that actually helps the half-feat situation, since there would be nice niche created by the +1 racial perks.

Thoughts?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It's neat, but too complicated, and gaining +20 across six stats is a bit much IMO. I'd do +1 at every even-numbered level instead regardless of multiclassing, and just stick to the standard max 20 per ability score.

[heavyfuel]

It's neat, but too complicated, and gaining +20 across six stats is a bit much IMO. I'd do +1 at every even-numbered level instead regardless of multiclassing, and just stick to the standard max 20 per ability score.

I think it's a lot less complicated when you make a drawing, though I agree that 20 points is probably too much if you are doing it in addition to feats.

As it is, you'd have 19 17 15 13 10 8 (before racials and feats) by level 10, compared to a regular game where you can get 19 14 13 12 10 8 (with NO feats). It's really too much.

Still, nice idea

[Nifft]

What would the initial stat spread need to look like for this to be balanced?

Might be good for a zeros-to-heroes type campaign if the stat spread is low enough.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

What would the initial stat spread need to look like for this to be balanced?

Might be good for a zeros-to-heroes type campaign if the stat spread is low enough.

Maybe if you change the standard array from 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 to something like 15, 14, 12, 9, 8, 8, and make 21 point buy the baseline. Or do 3d6 six times for stats, 2e style.

[Friv]

I think it's a lot less complicated when you make a drawing, though I agree that 20 points is probably too much if you are doing it in addition to feats.

As it is, you'd have 19 17 15 13 10 8 (before racials and feats) by level 10, compared to a regular game where you can get 19 14 13 12 10 8 (with NO feats). It's really too much.

Still, nice idea

I don't think the difference is that massive, honestly. Comparing those two spreads, the first one gets an extra +1 in their second-highest and third-highest stats by Level 10. Now, the two feats are going to make a difference, absolutely, but people roll random stats that are higher than that on a regular basis. If someone rolls for stats and starts the game with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 they're going to be at 20, 18, 14, 12, 10, 8 by Level 10, which puts them ahead of the first spread in both of their highest stats, and I've seen people take that as just a straight-up array.

I think the real problem would be the potential for feats that provide a +1 and a minor benefit to become a serious power-tilt. You would want a way to deal with that issue.

[Friv]

I think it's a lot less complicated when you make a drawing, though I agree that 20 points is probably too much if you are doing it in addition to feats.

As it is, you'd have 19 17 15 13 10 8 (before racials and feats) by level 10, compared to a regular game where you can get 19 14 13 12 10 8 (with NO feats). It's really too much.

Still, nice idea

I don't think the difference is that massive, honestly. Comparing those two spreads, the first one gets an extra +1 in their second-highest and third-highest stats by Level 10. Now, the two feats are going to make a difference, absolutely, but people roll random stats that are higher than that on a regular basis. If someone rolls for stats and starts the game with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 they're going to be at 20, 18, 14, 12, 10, 8 by Level 10, which puts them ahead of the first spread in both of their highest stats, and I've seen people take that as just a straight-up array.

I think the real problem would be the potential for feats that provide a +1 and a minor benefit to become a serious power-tilt. You would want a way to deal with that issue.

*EDIT* Oh, wait, I read the OP properly, and Nifft, I can't tell if you want to give people +1 to an ability score, or +1 to an ability modifier? You started by saying score, but all of your examples are direct modifier boosts. You also haven't explained how racial bonuses fit into this, if at all?

If your pyramid is accurate to your intent, this is going to be a serious problem for several levels, on several fronts. We just had a big thread arguing about whether a character was reasonably viable with a prime stat at +2, provided that the rest of their stats were solid, and the consensus was that it is technically viable as long as you push to +3 at Level 4, but it's going to be a bit of a pain. Your system not only won't allow a prime stat to reach +3 until Level 6, it will absolutely devastate characters who rely on two stats for their growth. Characters won't reach the Level 1 standard array until Level 5-6, which is going to make those intro levels a really rough ride. If you aren't allowing racial modifiers, it's going to be even worse.

[Nifft]

*EDIT* Oh, wait, I read the OP properly, and Nifft, I can't tell if you want to give people +1 to an ability score, or +1 to an ability modifier? You started by saying score, but all of your examples are direct modifier boosts. You also haven't explained how racial bonuses fit into this, if at all?

Ability score always.

You'd track it separately from your base ability score because you need to justify the pyramid every level, but when you see +2/+1 what that means is you'd increase one ability score by +2 and another ability score by +1.

I talk about racials a little in the last paragraph of the OP.

[OldTrees1]

Interesting and it would apply to the entire party so prima facie it would be fine.

Doing the math without racial bonuses.

MAD6
13,13,13,12,12,12
3rd: 14,14,14,12,12,12
9th: 14,14,14,14,14,14
21st: 16,16,16,16,16,16
+3/+3/+3/+4/+4/+4

MAD3
14,14,14,10,10,10
7th: 16,16,16,11,10,10
18th: 18,18,18,13,12,11
+4/+4/+4/+3/+2/+1

MAD2
15,15,11,10,10,10
2nd: 16,16,11,10,10,10
9th: 18,18,12,12,10,10
20th: 20,20,14,14,12,11
+5/+5/+3/+4/+2/+1

So 2 20s, 3 18s, or 6 16s. That is kinda the expected outcome before racial bonuses. In contrast the current system would have something like +5/+5, +4/+4/+2, or +1/+1/+2/+2/+2/+2 (minus any feats).

So you will have stronger PCs but it buffs the less specialized side of each character. The person with 2 20s, now has 2 14s as well. The person with 18/18/16 now has a 3rd 18 and 2 12s. The person with 6 14s now has 6 16s.

[Sjappo]

ASI Bonus: At every level, your PC gains +1 to an ability score. However, you can only increase the ASI Bonus for an ability score if there is already another ability score with an ASI Bonus greater, equal, or one point less than the new total.

I think you need to reformulate your logic statement. Because I think you can do this:

lvl 1: +1
lvl 2: +1 +1
lvl 3: +2 +1
lvl 4: +2 +2 (because when I raise the +1 to +2 it's equal to another ASI bonus, namely the other +2)
lvl 5: +3 +2 (because when I raise a +2 to +3 it's one greater than another ASI bonus, namely the +2)
lvl 6: +3 +3 ((because when I raise the +2 to +3 it's equal to another ASI bonus, namely the other +3)
Etc.

Not sure how to formulate it then, but hé, logic is logic.

Edit: Maybe something like you're new total can only be +1 higher than the next lower score. But if you count the unaltered scores as +0 the best you can do is +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 +0 at lvl 15. Which is not so good.

[Nifft]

I think you need to reformulate your logic statement.

Good point, I'll re-write that.

Any thoughts on the pyramid progression as a mechanic?

[Sjappo]

Good point, I'll re-write that.

Any thoughts on the pyramid progression as a mechanic?
I like it. I'm not overly concerned about the speed of progression. It might even be slower than regular. Using ASI's for feats adds to the game I think. It is of course a power bump for most characters. It does invalidated the fighter's extra ASI's a bit.
I like that starting with odd stats is a viable strategy now. And I like that it makes you bump all stats.

[Nifft]

I like it. I'm not overly concerned about the speed of progression. It might even be slower than regular. Using ASI's for feats adds to the game I think. It is of course a power bump for most characters. It does invalidated the fighter's extra ASI's a bit.
I like that starting with odd stats is a viable strategy now. And I like that it makes you bump all stats.

Thanks!

I re-wrote the text, the flaw is hopefully fixed, and it even reads a bit more like 5e to me.

[OldTrees1]

Thanks!

I re-wrote the text, the flaw is hopefully fixed, and it even reads a bit more like 5e to me.

Current wording maxes at L15 with 5/4/3/2/1

Increase is valid if:
There is another bonus 1 less than the new bonus (+0 is 1 less than +1)
OR
It is a +1 bonus
OR
It is the 6th lowest bonus (aka lowest including +0s) So +2/+2/+2/+2/+2/+1 can go to +2/+2/+2/+2/+2/+2

Wording that last condition is hard but would unlock L16-20

If you find a great way to word it, you might only need the 1st and 3rd conditions. As long as the 2nd condition can be derived from the 1st and 3rd.

[Nifft]

Current wording maxes at L15 with 5/4/3/2/1

Increase is valid if:
There is another bonus 1 less than the new bonus (+0 is 1 less than +1)
OR
It is a +1 bonus
OR
It is the 6th lowest bonus (aka lowest including +0s) So +2/+2/+2/+2/+2/+1 can go to +2/+2/+2/+2/+2/+2

Wording that last condition is hard but would unlock L16-20

If you find a great way to word it, you might only need the 1st and 3rd conditions. As long as the 2nd condition can be derived from the 1st and 3rd.

At level 15, you have +5/+4/+3/+2/+1/+0.

At level 16, you can raise the +0 to +1 because the new value is +1, which is explicitly allowed.

At level 17, you can raise either +1 to +2 because no matter which you increase, you will have a +1 left afterwards.

And so on until +5/+5/+4/+3/+2/+1 at level 20.

Did I miss something?

Thanks!

[Yukito01]

If your pyramid is accurate to your intent, this is going to be a serious problem for several levels, on several fronts. We just had a big thread arguing about whether a character was reasonably viable with a prime stat at +2, provided that the rest of their stats were solid, and the consensus was that it is technically viable as long as you push to +3 at Level 4, but it's going to be a bit of a pain. Your system not only won't allow a prime stat to reach +3 until Level 6, it will absolutely devastate characters who rely on two stats for their growth. Characters won't reach the Level 1 standard array until Level 5-6, which is going to make those intro levels a really rough ride. If you aren't allowing racial modifiers, it's going to be even worse.

Hey, if it's not too much to ask, could you please link me to that thread? I was thinking about asking the same, because in light of the decision to allow races to change their bonuses, I can't see why a +1 would break or make some classes, considering that it's only a 5% change on a d20. It'd be helpful to see other people's pov.

About the pyramid scheme, I like it, but as someone else said, it may be a bit too complicated in its implementation, especially with those players that already struggle with the numbers.

[OldTrees1]

And so on until +5/+5/+4/+3/+2/+1 at level 20.

Did I miss something?

Thanks!

No, you are good. I had a math error.

Your example of +5/+4/+4/+3/+2/+2 doesn't work anymore since there is no +1 to allow the +2.

[Nifft]

If your pyramid is accurate to your intent, this is going to be a serious problem for several levels, on several fronts. We just had a big thread arguing about whether a character was reasonably viable with a prime stat at +2, provided that the rest of their stats were solid, and the consensus was that it is technically viable as long as you push to +3 at Level 4, but it's going to be a bit of a pain. Your system not only won't allow a prime stat to reach +3 until Level 6, it will absolutely devastate characters who rely on two stats for their growth. Characters won't reach the Level 1 standard array until Level 5-6, which is going to make those intro levels a really rough ride. If you aren't allowing racial modifiers, it's going to be even worse.

So, by now I hope it's clear that you get +1 to a stat at level 1, which could push a 15 (+2) -> 16 (+3) immediately.

You can get +2 to your favorite stat at level 3.

You'd get +3 to a stat at level 6, which could push a 15 (+2) -> 18 (+4), which is better than most classes can get by starting with a 15.


Hey, if it's not too much to ask, could you please link me to that thread? I was thinking about asking the same, because in light of the decision to allow races to change their bonuses, I can't see why a +1 would break or make some classes, considering that it's only a 5% change on a d20. It'd be helpful to see other people's pov.

About the pyramid scheme, I like it, but as someone else said, it may be a bit too complicated in its implementation, especially with those players that already struggle with the numbers. Hmm. It could be turned into a template progression, since the choices are so narrow. Just put the stats in order of importance, and get a fixed bonus at specific levels.


No, you are good. I had a math error.

Your example of +5/+4/+4/+3/+2/+2 doesn't work anymore since there is no +1 to allow the +2. Good point, those others don't work.

The only one which actually works is the +5/+5/.../+1, not sure if that's acceptable. Hmm.

[Hytheter]

What would the initial stat spread need to look like for this to be balanced?

Might be good for a zeros-to-heroes type campaign if the stat spread is low enough.

Going purely in terms of summing all ability scores, the standard array begins with 72 and ends with 80 (barring Rogues and Fighters). If you wanted to end on par with that you'd need to start with an array with an average of 10 to total 60 at "level 0", which totals 80 at level 20. Obviously you start at level 1 so you're really starting with 61 - so perhaps an array like 12, 12, 11, 10, 10, 8, 8. You could account for feats and start lower but the stats would look a bit anemic and I think a late game boost is a reasonable offset for the early-game deficit.

If you slow down the pace to every second level you could just about just use the standard array, maybe minus a couple of points somewhere if you want to be pedantic about it. Again, feats will make it more powerful in the end... I don't know if it's a terrible thing though, especially again considering the starting deficit. I could see Standard Array -5 (14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 8) or something to that effect being a decent compromise, but anywhere in that ballpark should be fine I'd say. Standard Array -9 (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8) has a nice even feel to it and might work well for ASI-per-level, though ending 2 points ahead before feats.

If it was me, I think it'd come down to:
Standard (15 14 13 12 10 8) or Standard -5 (14 13 12 11 9 8) at half pace
Standard -9 (13 12 11 10 9 8) or Standard -12 (12, 11, 10, 10, 9, 8) at full pace

I started with the mathematical argument but in the end I'm going by feel. :P

[OldTrees1]

Good point, those others don't work.

The only one which actually works is the +5/+5/.../+1, not sure if that's acceptable. Hmm.

If you are modeling a pyramid like one created by falling sand, then +2/+2/+2/+2/+2/+2 should be allowed at 12th.

[heavyfuel]

Honestly, all this logic is just too complex.

Say you get 1 ASI every X level, and that the maximum ASI for a single Ability cannot be higher than 1/4 of your level (rounded up). A pyramid will form naturally (I hope)

[OldTrees1]

Honestly, all this logic is just too complex.

Say you get 1 ASI every X level, and that the maximum ASI for a single Ability cannot be higher than 1/4 of your level (rounded up). A pyramid will form naturally (I hope)

Testing: Trying to get taller than a pyramid using your suggestion. (Included 4n levels, triangle levels, and the level after them 15/20 levels)

3rd+1/+1/+1+2/+1(diff +1 vs +2)
4th+1/+1/+1/+1+2/+1/+1(diff +1/+1 vs +2)
5th+2/+1/+1/+1+2/+2/+1(diff +1/+1 vs +2)
6th+2/+2/+1/+1+3/+2/+1(diff +2/+1 vs +3)
7th+2/+2/+2/+1+3/+2/+1/+1(diff +2/+2 vs +3/+1)
8th+2/+2/+2/+2+3/+2/+2/+1(diff +2/+2 vs +3/+1)
9th+3/+2/+2/+2+3/+3/+2/+1(diff +2/+2 vs +3/+1)
10th+3/+3/+2/+2+4/+3/+2/+1(diff +3/+2 vs +4/+1)
11th+3/+3/+3/+2+4/+3/+2/+1/+1(diff +3/+3 vs +4/+1/+1)
12th+3/+3/+3/+3+4/+3/+2/+2/+1(diff +3/+3/+3 vs +4/+2/+2/+1)
13th+4/+3/+3/+3+4/+3/+3/+2/+1(diff +3 vs +2/+1)
15th+4/+4/+4/+3+5/+4/+3/+2/+1(diff +4/+4 vs +5/+2/+1)
16th+4/+4/+4/+4+5/+4/+3/+2/+1/+1(diff +4/+4/+4 vs +5/+3/+2/+1/+1)
17th+5/+4/+4/+4+5/+4/+3/+2/+2/+1(diff +4/+4 vs +5/+3/+2/+2/+1)
20th+5/+5/+5/+5+5/+5/+4/+3/+2/+1(diff +5/+5 vs +4/+3/+2/+1)

Your logic has a similar height but avoids the sloping the pyramid logic creates.

[Nifft]

Testing: Trying to get taller than a pyramid using your suggestion.
4th: +1/+1/+1/+1 vs +2/+1/+1 (diff +1/+1 vs +2)
4th: +2/+1/+1/+1 vs +2/+2/+1 (diff +1/+1 vs +2)
8th: +2/+2/+2/+2 vs +3/+2/+2/+1 (diff +2/+2 vs +3/+1)
9th: +3/+2/+2/+2 vs +3/+3/+2/+1 (diff +2/+2 vs +3/+1)
12th: +3/+3/+3/+3 vs +4/+3/+2/+2/+1 (diff +3/+3/+3 vs +4/+2/+2/+1)
13th: +4/+3/+3/+3 vs +4/+3/+3/+2/+1 (diff +3 vs +2/+1)
16th: +4/+4/+4/+4 vs +5/+4/+3/+2/+1/+1 (diff +4/+4/+4 vs +5/+3/+2/+1/+1)
17th: +5/+4/+4/+4 vs +5/+4/+3/+2/+2/+1 (diff +4/+4 vs +5/+3/+2/+2/+1)
20th: +5/+5/+5/+5 vs +5/+5/+4/+3/+2/+1 (diff +5/+5 vs +4/+3/+2/+1)

Your logic has a similar height but avoids the sloping the pyramid logic creates.

I think I'm okay with 5/5/5/5

4/4/4/4/4 is also possible, which might be nice if the stat-generation rules allow you to start with a 16 for example.


The problem is that I want the player to have at least +2 to a stat by level 4, to maintain parity with the 5e baseline... though I guess point-buy giving you a 15 to start is reasonable.

Also, spitballing... if you get 1/1/1/1 from levels and +1 from a half-feat at level 4, that's a total bonus of +2/1/1/1 at level 4. Not sure I like making half-feats so needful, but it might be workable.

[OldTrees1]

The problem is that I want the player to have at least +2 to a stat by level 4, to maintain parity with the 5e baseline

Not sure I like making half-feats so needful, but it might be workable.

Don't worry about it. Getting a +2 at level 4 is not required. It is at best a vocal plurality.
+1/+1 is common, and you handle that.
Feat is common, and you handle that.
+1/Half feat is common, and you handle that.


I think I prefer the pyramid over the level/4 version. The pyramid allows early game specialization but forces some breadth in late game.