Replacing ASIs with an expanded point buy as you level up

[Greywander]

I kind of don't care for how ability scores are currently handled. It's way too easy to start with a high score (you can start with an 18), and the ASI progression encourages lopsided growth where you max out your primary stat as soon as possible. This makes you inordinately strong early on, but then you plateau and don't really get much stronger as you focus on boosting secondary or tertiary stats. The ASI system also makes it awkward to work feats into your build, as often your first priority is to max out your primary stat first.

So what I have in mind is mostly a modification of point buy. Things are mostly the same at character creation, with the exception that you don't get racial ASIs. This means your max stat starting out is a 15. In return, you get 1 point to spend per level (possibly including 1st level, so that your total budget is simply your character creation budget + level), though this number probably needs some tweaking. After character creation, you can use point buy to buy a stat up to 20 using the following costs:

• For stats 16 and 17, each bump costs 2 points, just like for 14 and 15.
• For stats 18, 19, and 20, each bump costs 3 points.

This means it costs 21 points to raise a stat from 8 to 20. For reference, it costs 30 points to raise all stats to 13. To raise a stat from 15 to 20 costs 13 points. These values might need to be tweaked (for example, it seems like it's not possible to get two stats to 20, which will hurt MAD classes like monk and paladin), but this is the general idea, at least.

This gives you a much more even increase to your ability scores, instead of just pumping them to max early on, you have to do it gradually all the way to later levels. This also encourages you to spread out your stats a bit more. In vanilla, a +1 was just as costly no matter if you were putting it in an 8 or a 19, but now it's much cheaper to bump up a low stat than a high stat. This will probably see MAD classes increasing both primary and secondary stats roughly evenly instead of maxing out the primary first. This also makes generalist builds with a more balanced ability score distribution a bit stronger, which is good because they were previously weaker than specialist builds who only focused on the stats they used the most.

Again, these numbers will likely need to be ironed out, so don't focus too heavily on the exact values listed here. I'm open to suggestions on better values, getting 1 point per level just seemed like the simplest option.

Now, this does beg the question of what to do with ASIs. The easiest and least impactful thing to do would be to turn them all into feats. This is nice for builds that like to get a lot of feats, but I don't know that every fighter really needs 7 feats. I'm also not sure what to do with half feats. The easiest thing would be to simply take two half feats and drop the +1 ASI, but I feel like that would be stronger than most full feats. Alternatively, maybe a half feat would simply give you 1 more point toward buying ability scores.

There is another interesting option, though. We could simply remove ASIs from the game, compressing each class down. For example, if you are a 3rd level fighter, and you level up fighter again, you would skip straight to 5th level. This means that most classes would max out at 15th level, while rogue only goes to 14th level and fighter to 13th level. HP/hit dice would scale with character level (so skipping an ASI level would give the class features of both levels, but you'd only get one hit die). Spell slots would also scale with your overall caster level, so that e.g. a 15th level wizard has all the features of a vanilla 20th level wizard, and can know 9th level spells, but only has 8th level spell slots. Any remaining levels can be used for multiclassing. This opens up a lot of potential new build options, and allows for builds that require a dip without sacrificing anything from your main class.

Though if we go with this second option, that does leave the question of how we get feats.

[Saelethil]

Interesting idea. I’m not sure that I like removing ASI levels though. Maybe +2 points or a feat with half feats giving 1 point? Maybe just 1 additional point with the option of buying a feat with both of the points you get at that level?

[GameJerk75]

I like what you're going for. I have no love for ASIs, but that harkens back to my roots from playing 2nd ed. I think it's beyond boring that every character basically maxes out their primary as it really undermines the old school stat boosting items. Boosting INT to 19 used to be epic as most wizards were functional with scores well below that.

I might suggest a scale where the increase after character generation is equal to the bonus of the new score. So raising from 14 to 15 is 2 points, 15 to 16 is 3 points, and so on until maxing out 20 is 5 points.

[Jervis]

It would give room in the budget to make feats core instead of a either or choice but honestly it probably just creates more complication than it adds in depth. Remember the first rule of game design, K.I.S.S., Keep It Simple Stanly (forum rules alright). If a change increases complexity more than it increases depth of choices in the game then it's probably worth reworking. FWIW I do recommend making ASIs tied to character level and feats tied to class level, makes multiclassing in 5E less of a trap.

[olskool]

We just use an old homebrew from AD&D that we came up with. At EVERY LEVEL you can attempt to improve a chosen Characteristic score by 1 point. To do this, you pick the Characteristic you want to improve and then roll OVER the current score on 1D20, adding any racial bonuses and subtracting any racial penalties from the roll. If you roll over the current score successfully, the score improves by 1 point.

[Anonymouswizard]

You could also just get rid of ability score scaling entirely, and at ASI levels give the choice of either a Feat or like three Proficiencies. You'd probably want to rework ability score generation so it averages a little higher, but putting number scaling entirely in the hands of your Proficiency Bonus isn't an inherently bad thing.

[Greywander]

Interesting idea. I’m not sure that I like removing ASI levels though.

You're probably right. I just really want to be able to dip into another class without sacrificing main class progression, but that's probably a topic better suited to its own homebrew discussion. This one is about ASIs, and should remain about ASIs.

So we can just replace ASIs with feats. We can either rework all half feats into full feats, or have them simply give you an extra point (or two) towards ability scores.

I might suggest a scale where the increase after character generation is equal to the bonus of the new score. So raising from 14 to 15 is 2 points, 15 to 16 is 3 points, and so on until maxing out 20 is 5 points.

This is actually what I was going to do initially, the problem is that the difference in cost between high ability scores and low ability scores was too much. By not taking a stat to 20 and leaving it at 18, you could significantly boost all your low stats. I also considered going the other way, and making everything above 13 only cost 2 points, but that swung too far in the other direction, making it just as costly to boost a stat from 19 to 20 as to boost it from 13 to 14. I think the costs I have strike the right balance, where the cost of high stats makes you at least think about boosting a lower stat first without making it ridiculous to do so.

For reference, the costs you propose and I initially considered would leave you with 9 extra points (enough to raise one stat from 8 to 15) if you leave a stat at 18 instead of taking it to 20, whereas the costs proposed in the OP only leave you with 6 extra points, which is still a far chunk of change (enough to boost one dump stat from 8 to 13, or raise three dump stats from 8 to 10).

Remember the first rule of game design, K.I.S.S., Keep It Simple Stanly (forum rules alright). If a change increases complexity more than it increases depth of choices in the game then it's probably worth reworking.

Agreed. Sometimes we like to tinker for the sake of tinkering, but the results are often inelegant and only make the game more complex. An actual solution to a problem should be easier than just dealing with the problem, and certainly shouldn't create more problems.

We just use an old homebrew from AD&D that we came up with. At EVERY LEVEL you can attempt to improve a chosen Characteristic score by 1 point. To do this, you pick the Characteristic you want to improve and then roll OVER the current score on 1D20, adding any racial bonuses and subtracting any racial penalties from the roll. If you roll over the current score successfully, the score improves by 1 point.

I like this. If you opt to roll stats instead of using point buy, then this method is probably an equivalent alternative to what I'm proposing here. I'm curious what it would look like if you crunch the math, though, and how it compares.

You could also just get rid of ability score scaling entirely, and at ASI levels give the choice of either a Feat or like three Proficiencies. You'd probably want to rework ability score generation so it averages a little higher, but putting number scaling entirely in the hands of your Proficiency Bonus isn't an inherently bad thing.

Fixed ability scores that don't improve after character creation is definitely an idea I've considered. I'm not sure how well that works with D&D, since typically a fixed attribute system has you putting points into skills instead, and 5e just uses a binary proficiency system. I think it's worth exploring the idea, but that would be a different homebrew. Fixed attributes vs. growing attributes makes for different styles of gameplay that will appeal to different people and even change the tone of the campaign and the system as a whole. I might want fixed ability scores in one campaign, but growing ability scores in a different campaign, so I think both ideas are worth fleshing out.

---

I've considered this a bit more. First, I made a mistake in the OP; it's actually 22 points to raise one stat from 8 to 20. 5 points to go from 8 to 13, 8 points (13 total) to go from 13 to 17, and 9 points (22 total) to go from 17 to 20.

I did some number crunching, and if we assume an optimized build that starts with, say, +1/+1/+1 racial bonuses and uses them to start with three 16s and three 8s, then uses four ASIs to boost two stats to 20 and the remaining ASI to boost the last 16 to 18, that comes out to a total point budget of 60 points. 22 + 22 + 16 = 60. And we probably should assume an optimized build. Ability scores give diminishing returns; your secondary stat gives less value than your primary stat, and your tertiary stat less value than your secondary. Most builds only really need three stats, though many like to at least not dump their other stats. So I think it's fine to use an optimized ability score allocation as your baseline, as the optimized build remains mostly the same while the less optimized builds will benefit slightly. For contrast, the worst stat allocation would be to start with straight 13s, and then distribute your ASIs out so you end up with, say, two 16s and four 14s. In this case, the budget is 50 points, so the difference isn't even as great as you might expect.

I do like the budget of 60 points. It's a nice, round number. It's enough (as mentioned) to boost two stats to 20 and one stat to 18, which is good news for MAD builds. It's also enough to get five 16s and a 13, if you're more interested in a jack-of-all-trades type of character, which is nice because those kinds of builds tend to be weaker than more specialized and focused builds.

The question then is how to split the point budget between character creation and leveling. Normal character creation budget is 27 points, plus your racials. It's probably best to discard that value rather than trying to create some weird level scaling that somehow gets you 33 points. Instead, lets consider three possible options that all end up with 60 points:

• Heroic Fantasy. 40 points base, plus your level.
• Standard. 30 points base, plus one and a half times your level. (So ever other level you gain 2 points instead of 1.)
• Zero to Hero. 20 points base, plus twice your level.

The Standard option is still fairly close to the vanilla 27 point buy, particularly when you factor in racial bonuses (which we are removing). You'd start with either 31 or 32 points at 1st level (depending on if you're rounding down or up), so 4 or 5 points above 27. Putting racial ASIs in stats that are 13 or higher is equivalent to 6 points worth, so it checks out.

We should also consider that players may start at levels above 1st. If we're capping our ability scores at 15 when starting at 1st level, we should also include caps for higher levels. At 2nd level, if you're rounding down, you would be able to boost one stat to 16, but if you're rounding up then you'd have to wait until 3rd level. So maybe 3rd level is when you can start with a 16. Following that trend, 5th level is max of 17, 8th level is max of 18, 11th level is max of 19, and 14th level is the lowest we would be able to start with a 20. Note, this would only apply to character creation when starting at higher levels, leveling up during play wouldn't have a cap (other than the default cap of 20). These numbers would also be different if you're using the Heroic Fantasy or Zero to Hero options, which should probably have their caps adjusted.

So I think this actually works pretty well. It does mean PCs would end up stronger, since they're essentially getting their ASIs and feats, but honestly I like that. I always feel like I never have enough feats, or that I need to delay my feats until T3 or T4, and that isn't fun. This way, you can actually get build-critical feats without delaying your ability score progression, and this is particularly felt by MAD builds such as monks and paladins. As long as all players are getting it, it should be fine. It might make balancing encounters more difficult, as the players will be stronger, but encounter balancing is already kind of a crapshoot.

[olskool]

I like this. If you opt to roll stats instead of using point buy, then this method is probably an equivalent alternative to what I'm proposing here. I'm curious what it would look like if you crunch the math, though, and how it compares.

There really isn't a good way to calculate that. One of the things that frequently happens though is that the player decides to work on weaker stats because it is easier to roll over a low stat than a high one and they don't want to "waste" their roll. They justify this by saying "I'll just use next Level's roll to improve my [insert high stat here]." This results in a general increase in stats across the board instead of a "concentration of stat X" like you get in RAW 5e. On average, you see around 4 to 5 successful rolls spread across an average of 3 stats up to the 10th level (the highest we've pushed in 5e).

[Kane0]

Disconnect from ASIs and gain extra ability point buy equal to Prof bonus when it increases? ie +2 points at level 1, another +3 at level 5, another +4 at level 9, another +5 at level 13 and another +6 at level 17.

Which is incidentally 20 total, just distributed differently.

[Greywander]

Disconnect from ASIs and gain extra ability point buy equal to Prof bonus when it increases? ie +2 points at level 1, another +3 at level 5, another +4 at level 9, another +5 at level 13 and another +6 at level 17.

Which is incidentally 20 total, just distributed differently.

But is there a benefit to having the points come in a big chunk every 4 levels, versus getting a trickle of points every level? How is this meaningfully different from vanilla behavior? How is this better than vanilla behavior? I guess I just don't get the point of doing it this way.

Also, I've determined 20 points isn't enough. With the costs I've chosen (and you could choose different costs, I think I've found a nice middle ground), the budget on a vanilla character with an optimized build is 60 points exactly: enough to get two 20s and an 18 (but everything else is 8). Also, the most unoptimized ability score distribution has a point buy budget of 50 points. Standard point buy at character creation is 27 points, so if you only get 20 more points you're only at 47 total, which is less than the least optimized build.

In order to mimic as closely as possible the vanilla behavior, what makes sense to me is to change standard point buy to 30 points, and you get more points equal to one and a half times your level. If you round up (so 2 points on odd levels), then you actually start character creation with 32 points (30 points base + 2 points from level). This actually correlates pretty closely with 27 point buy with racial bonuses. So if we remove racial ASIs and just use 30 + 1.5x level, you should look pretty similar at levels 1 and 20 (not sure about in between). This assumes a game with no feats, which we kind of have to do in order to insure MAD builds are viable. Secondary and tertiary stats give less value, so I don't think it would actually cause too much trouble for players to get a few extra ability points.

ASIs are then just converted into feats. This means this is functionally similar to allowing players to get both an ASI and a feat, and gives a similar power boost. Personally, I'd like to decouple feats as well, but I'm not sure how to give them to players otherwise. You could make them quest rewards or make them acquired through downtime training, or you just spend XP directly on feats, with the cost escalating for each feat you buy. If you did decouple feats, then you'd need to do something about the now-dead levels on every class.

[Kane0]

So to summarize, and make sure i understand correctly:
- Chargen doesnt have racial stat mods, but a point buy increase from 27 to 30
- every level you get 1 extra point buy, plus another every odd level (3/2 rounded up). This actually means 32 point buy at level 1. These can be saved up between levels for higher cost increases.
- ASIs stay the same but are usable only for feats (which can be half feats)

So its obviously a power boost, but its applied equally so easy to compensate for.
It also obviously runs into compatibility problems with array and rolled stats.
Half feats are also an interesting complication to address.

My greatest concern is the added complexity for the return you get. You have to track any points not spent (easy done, just note on the character sheet) but you also might want to track when you spent points, what you spent on them and how much that cost (especially if you arent starting a game at level 1) because half feats (and whatever else takes place during play) mess with the costings.

I wonder if its worth the effort. It feels like most of the same effect can be achieved by doubling ASIs so you get the stat increase and a feat, or making ASIs only usable on feats and splitting away the stat increases at any other interval you desire (eg +1 per two levels) which would work better with other methods of stat generation and require less bookwork.