Making ability scores more about the character concept.

[The Crimson Binome]

Something seems off with the way that every fighter ends up with 20 Str, every wizard has 20 Int, every cleric has 20 Wis, and every warlock 20 Cha.

Counter-argument: Something seems off when a fighter has no reason to care about Strength, and a wizard has no reason to care about Intelligence.

If a strong fighter doesn't hit harder than a weak one, then Strength doesn't actually measure strength, and we're left struggling to explain what it is.

Edit: Counter-counter-argument: If you're using a Dex-based weapon, a strong fighter doesn't hit harder than a weak one, so maybe this is a line which has already been crossed (and further crossing doesn't cause any new issues).

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

As much as I love 5E, the whole "there are no restrictions or requirements for anything you want to make, so congratulations, here is your gold star for participating" BS annoys me. Yes, some of the restrictions and requirements from previous editions were too strict, but having none at all is just as bad. I find it amazing that they even put in the multiclassing minimums for stats.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why not intelligent fighters? Charismatic clerics? Strong wizards? Or preceptive Warlocks?
Not to mention all the races. How many people avoid making a Dragonborn rogue just because they don't have +2 Dex?

I think that one of the reasons why they put a cap of 20 to ability scores in 5e is exactly because they didn't want PCs to always increase their single primary stat (the other major reason is bounded accuracy).

A primary-stat hungry player will first of all put their higher score there at 1st level, so she'll start presumably already at 14 minimum, probably 16+. So after 2-3 ASI, she'll top at 20, and any additional increase will have to go to a secondary stat. That's not the same as a Fighter whose primary stat is not Str, or a Wizard whose primary stat is not Int, but at least it's better than just always invest in a single ability.

Then, it is to be expected that most players will boost the no-brainer ability. IMHO the problem is not necessarily that there is too much to gain from that, but rather that there is too little to gain from other stats, at least two of them: Int and Cha. At least in 3e a higher Int would always give you more skill points, so anyone would benefit from increasing Int. In addition, you'd get that extra skill point whether you increased from 11 to 12 or from 19 to 20, so the idea didn't just work when your stat was already very high.

Maybe try to remove ASI. Only allow feats.

That was my thought too, although it doesn't exactly removes the problem, it only prevents the effect.

 

[Coroc]

Making Attribute scores even more meaningless than they already are? Not the best idea. I am far more concerned that by raw you are allowed to make a wizard dumb as bread who still can cast the highest Level spells, a cleric with the wisdom of a new Born who still can cast 9th Level spells, ok the in later case you can easier explain it with being a miracle or such but still this is not my way of D&D.

If you like the way RAW does it for casters, just play a fighter with 8 Str and GWM for the lols. If he hits occasionally he still dishes out some damage with a greatsword. You don't like that? Well why do you accept a wizard with a meager int of 12 then?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

If you like the way RAW does it for casters, just play a fighter with 8 Str and GWM for the lols. If he hits occasionally he still dishes out some damage with a greatsword. You don't like that? Well why do you accept a wizard with a meager int of 12 then?

I am actually fine with a wizard with 12 INT because a 12 gives a positive modifier and it is the minimum primary class stat score for my homebrew house rules.

 

[Coroc]

Well my houserule for casters is 10+ spellevel required in casting Attribute to cast a spell of this Level. Like back in 3.5.

 

[Yaarel]

Something seems off with the way that every fighter ends up with 20 Str, every wizard has 20 Int, every cleric has 20 Wis, and every warlock 20 Cha.

It seems to me, the problem is the ability scores themselves. They are in need of rethinking.

A four ability system is more helpful:

• Empathy (social skills, willpower, people reading, charm, intimidation, esthetics)
• Perceptiveness (senses, memory, reasoning, deception, manual dexterity, stealth, shooting attack rolls)
• Athleticism (reflex, gymnastics, speed, jump, climb, tumble, balance, fall, swim, melee attack rolls)
• Toughness (size, fighting weightclass, melee damage, fortitude, hit points, heavy armor, heavy weapons)

In the case here, it is plausible for a fighter to invest in Toughness for size, damage, armor, and hit points, or alternatively invest in Athleticism for accuracy and mobility − or invest in both equally! It is also beneficial for a fighter to invest in Perceptiveness for stealth and shooting attacks such as an archer with a bow, along with the possibility of smart warrior tropes.

A well thought out ability score system allows for more real choices and diverse flavor.

In the case above, classic Strength splits into Dexterity to form Athleticism, and into Constitution to form Toughness. Meanwhile Wisdom splits into Intelligence to form Perceptiveness and into Charisma to form Empathy. The resulting four are a more powerful system, with more useful clusters of tropes.

 

[5ekyu]

It seems to me, the problem is the ability scores themselves. They are in need of rethinking.

A four ability system is more helpful:

• Empathy (social skills, willpower, people reading, charm, intimidation, esthetics)
• Perceptiveness (senses, memory, reasoning, deception, manual dexterity, stealth, shooting attacks)
• Athleticism (reflex, gymnastics, speed, jump, climb, tumble, balance, fall, swim, melee attacks)
• Toughness (size, fighting weightclass, melee damage, fortitude, hit points, heavy armor, heavy weapons)

In the case here, it is plausible for a fighter to invest in Toughness for size, damage, armor, and hit points, or alternatively invest in Athleticism for accuracy and mobility − or invest in both equally! It is also beneficial for a fighter to invest in Perceptiveness for stealth and shooting attacks such as an archer with a bow, along with the possibility of smart warrior tropes.

A well thought out ability score system allows for more real choices and diverse flavor.

In the case above, classic Strength splits into Dexterity to form Athleticism, and into Constitution to form Toughness. Meanwhile Wisdom splits into Intelligence to form Perceptiveness and into Charisma to form Empathy. The resulting four are a more powerful system, with more useful clusters of tropes.

I am in favor of 9 stats... Three each for brawn, brains and social - a power, a tough and a finesse.

Then make sure each gets its due... Give social feinting, give wits a place in reaction,etc so that as close to possible each gap can be exploited.

 

[Yaarel]

I am in favor of 9 stats... Three each for brawn, brains and social - a power, a tough and a finesse.

Then make sure each gets its due... Give social feinting, give wits a place in reaction,etc so that as close to possible each gap can be exploited.

I find, the more stats, then the more impossible it is to balance the stats with each other.

My minimalist four stats balance well and correspond well to narrative tropes.

 

[Yaarel]

In the foursome − Empathy, Perceptiveness, Athleticism, Toughness − I want all spellcasters to use Empathy as the casting stat for accuracy, but use Perceptiveness for spell damage and higher effect, and longer range.

So there can be some mages who are naturally good at casting spells (Empathy), and other mages who have more potent spells (Perceptiveness). Because of the way spells are written, I havent decided the best way to boost spell potency.

In any case, where the warriors use Athleticism for attack rolls but Toughness for damage rolls, I want to see a similar split for mages.