D&D 5E Rethinking Ability Scores

[ro]

[wiki][/wiki]
Here's a slightly different take, adding in the Magic Defense idea.

7 Ability Scores
Resilience (Con)
Accuracy (Dex)
Power (Str)
Defense
Spell Accuracy (Int)
Spell Power (Cha)
Spell Defense (Wis)

Constitution
Constitution / Resilience is unchanged.

Weapon Attacks
Weapon attacks all use Dex/Accuracy:
--- Attack bonus = Prof + Acc (Dex)
Weapon damage always uses Str/Power:
--- Damage bonus = + Pow (Str)

Weapon Defense/Armor Class
AC uses new Defense modifier: 10 + Def
Armor changes this calculation as normal, but using Defense instead of Dexterity and Strength.

Magic Attacks
Spell attacks all use Intelligence:
--- Spell attack bonus = Prof + Int
Spell damage always uses Charisma:
---Spell damage = (spell level + 2 * Cha [up to spell level]) * dX

Magic Defense
Saving throws against spells are no more. Instead, all spells use spell attack rolls against the opponent's Magic Armor Class.
Magic Armor Class, M-AC, uses Spell Defense (Wisdom) modifier: 10 + SpDef (Wis)
Armor can have an M-AC calculation, too.

Spell Damage Dice
When you cast a spell of 1st level or higher, roll a number of damage dice equals to the spell's level. You may also roll additional damage dice equal to twice your Charisma modifier, up to the spell's level. When you cast the spell with a higher level spell slot, roll an addition damage die for each level higher.

Modifying Spell Damage
Each spell is assigned a damage die size, dX, rather than a fixed number of dice to roll, as follows:
--- Single target, no damage on save: d10
--- AoE/Multitarget, no damage on save: d8
--- If the spell imposes a condition, decrease the die size by one step.
--- If the spell gives half damage on a save, decrease the die size by one step.
--- If the spell gives recurring damage with concentration, decrease the die size by one step.
--- Leave Magic Missile as-is.

Consequences
All martials need Dex and Str. All spellcasters need Int and Cha. Everyone needs Con and Wis.

--------------

Armor
Padded: 11 + Def (Dis)
Leather: 11 + Def
Studded Leather: 12 + Def
Hide: 12 + Def (max 2)
Chain Shirt: 13 + Def (max 2)
Scale Mail: 14 + Def (max 2) (Dis)
Breastplate: 14 + Def (max 2)
Half Plate: 15 + Def (max 2) (Dis)
Ring Mail: 14 (Dis)
Chain Mail: 16 (min Def 13) (Dis)
Splint: 17 (min Def 15) (Dis)
Plate: 18 (min Def 15) (Dis)

Magic Armor
Smock: 11 + Wis (Dis)
Tunic: 11 + Wis
Cape: 12 + Wis
Jacket: 12 + Wis (max 2)
Chiton: 13 + Wis (max 2)
Mantle: 14 + Wis (max 2) (Dis)
Frock: 14 + Wis (max 2)
Tabard: 15 + Wis (max 2) (Dis)
Cloak: 14 (Dis)
Surcoat: 16 (min Wis 13) (Dis)
Capote: 17 (min Wis 15) (Dis)
Cassock: 18 (min Wis 15) (Dis)

 

[Wulffolk]

I have put myself through this exercise multiple times over the last few decades. I have never been satisfied with D&D's rules set. There are too many issues with it to build the system that I envision. Any attempt to rebuild D&D is building upon a very shaky foundation of legacy rules that didn't make sense to begin with.

Every time I attempted this I reached a point where what I was creating could no longer be recognized as D&D, and long before you reach that point you will start to limit your pool of potential players. You end up asking yourself if it is worth all the effort to be alone with a system that satisfies your vision, or are you better off sharing an imperfect game with a large pool of players that usually care more about casual fun than all the details that bothered you in the beginning.

And that is the greatest strength of D&D, it's name-recognition and the crowd that it attracts. It's just too bad that D&D wasn't built upon a more solid foundation, but we have the benefit of decades of hindsight and the evolution of gaming systems to make that judgement.

 

[5ekyu]

The designers at WotC would probably be offended after reading goal #1.

i wouldn't think so... after all they do not need each ability to be balanced against every other ability since players do not play abilities - they play characters and those are mechanically speaking defined mostly by classes which are big packages which make certain abilities good for the character and others not so good. my bet is WOTC is more concerned with producing "balance" at the unit the player runs in some "generic game setup", not so much the individual pieces parts. Obviously one element being way, WAY, WAY!!! out of whack can make that task more difficult, but as long as they stay close enough, its likely not gonna cause sweat off WOTC brow.

Which of course brings us back to the notion that changes of significant nature to abilities change all sorts of class mechanics and ripples through it all and thus... winds up with a major overhaul or a major truckload of unintended consequences.

ME? i am much happier seeing and accepting the GM's role in balance in play (the challenges i present as part of the story and narrative are in fact the single biggest determination of balance in play) and only have to worry about things that blow the "sensibility" elements or are those massive way, WAY, WAY!!! outliers. as far as rules changes for balance go.

 

[Wulffolk]

Despite having generally given up re-writing D&D these discussion still provoke an involuntary firing of neurons in my brain and send me down the rabbit-hole again and again. (This might be a symptom of insanity? A compulsive disorder?) I have had some further thoughts on the issue of the perceived difference in power between Dexterity and Intelligence.

The main purpose of heavy armor was to protect the wearer from attacks that they are unable to avoid. This was more of an issue in the thick of a swirling melee than it was in a one on one duel. It becomes exceedingly difficult to evade attacks from multiple foes, especially when they come from different angles. It is hard enough to successfully evade the blade of one skilled opponent, let along trying to dodge and parry several.

So, how about this?

The Dexterity bonus to AC only applies against attacks from one opponent by default.
Each point of Intelligence bonus increases the number of foes that you can keep track of and apply your Dexterity bonus against.
Your Initiative bonus comes from quick wits helping you react faster, so you use your Wisdom modifier as your Initiative bonus instead of Dexterity.
Also, I like using Dexterity for accuracy and Strength for damage.

This means that a Dexterity based defense would be more useful in dueling situations and an armor based defense would work better fighting through a horde.

Thoughts? Does this give a little extra incentive for leaner smarter fighters? Does it encourage DEX builds to be smarter about their situational awareness and skirmish rather than hold the line? Or does it cripple DEX builds?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Thoughts? Does this give a little extra incentive for leaner smarter fighters? Does it encourage DEX builds to be smarter about their situational awareness and skirmish rather than hold the line? Or does it cripple DEX builds?

It gives extra incentive for characters to wear heavy armor, regardless of stats. You could have a Dex-based fighter or paladin, but you would still put them in heavy armor since Dex-based defense is unreliable. For classes that aren't proficient in heavy armor, it encourages multi-classing or other methods to gain proficiency. The only ones this rule would still affect are some rogues and most wizards, where they're likely to have high Int anyway.

Even if someone was otherwise inclined to build a smart fighter, the benefit is too little. Unless you frequently have encounters with exactly 2-6 enemies, it's unlikely that getting your full AC against one or two more is likely to matter much; if you have AC 18 against three of the trolls and AC 13 against the other five, then those five will attack you while the other three attack someone else. I don't know how things work at your table, but my games frequently involve battles against dozens of enemies at once. (Not to mention the bookkeeping involved with specifying exactly which of the enemy archers you're trying to dodge, after they all scatter on their turn.)

 

[Wulffolk]

It gives extra incentive for characters to wear heavy armor, regardless of stats. You could have a Dex-based fighter or paladin, but you would still put them in heavy armor since Dex-based defense is unreliable. For classes that aren't proficient in heavy armor, it encourages multi-classing or other methods to gain proficiency. The only ones this rule would still affect are some rogues and most wizards, where they're likely to have high Int anyway.

I was thinking this would reduce the number of characters that use Intelligence as a dump-stat. This would apply to anybody that wanted to rely on Finesse or ranged weapons, light armor and mobility. They would need to either invest a little bit into Intelligence or make use of tactics to only face one foe at a time in melee.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I was thinking this would reduce the number of characters that use Intelligence as a dump-stat. This would apply to anybody that wanted to rely on Finesse or ranged weapons, light armor and mobility. They would need to either invest a little bit into Intelligence or make use of tactics to only face one foe at a time in melee.

I just don't see that happening. Whenever you introduce a house rule that targets a specific type of character, the natural response is to not play that type of character. If you introduce a house rule that makes ninjas less powerful - or even if it's an entirely different system, where the mechanics just aren't very favorable toward ninjas - I can just make a knight character for now, and put off playing a ninja until the anti-ninja rules are no longer in effect.

 

[Wulffolk]

Another consequence of this change would be that medium armor would play a greater role, especially with Medium Armor Mastery. It would allow for the dextrous character to wear something lighter than heavy armor, still gain the benefit of Dexterity most of the time, but not be left defenseless when in the thick of it.

As for ninjas, or fencers, or other such characters, it seems more in their image that they would face off against single foes or a limited number. As a player I would not consider that a nerf. I would consider that encouragement to play to type.