D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

[KidSnide]

It's more a matter of sacred cows than anything else. You and I might agree, but my gut says that if they completely divorced ability scores from attack rolls there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think divorcing ability scores from attack rolls violates tradition any more than having attack rolls based on Constitution, or any other ability score that that requires rationalization to justify.

Classes could even provide "melee", "ranged" and "magic" modifiers that were used with most attack powers. (...and I don't see any reason why a minority of powers couldn't continue to be based on stats.)

-KS

 

[Bluenose]

Really, it is trivial to come up with these answers:

STR - I hit hard, my blows are hard to block
CON - I keep up a constant barrage of blows until my enemy's guard is worn down
DEX - My attacks are exceptionally accurate and quick

See how easy that is? ALL of those are plausible.

People writing about boxing often divide boxers into three style-categories which match these descriptions quite precisely:

Sluggers - people who when they hit you it hurts.
In-Fighters - people trying to work inside and overwhelm an opponent by the persistence of their blows.
Out-Fighters - people relying on movement and accuracy, often concentrating on jabs.

The best fighters can switch their style during a fight, if one way isn't working out. Perhaps there's a case for powers to be available to some classes that can exploit whichever ability is associated with the power.

 

[KarinsDad]

Really, it is trivial to come up with these answers:

STR - I hit hard, my blows are hard to block
CON - I keep up a constant barrage of blows until my enemy's guard is worn down
DEX - My attacks are exceptionally accurate and quick
INT - I outthink my opponent and analyze his weakness to get past his guard
WIS - I possess a natural instinctive ability to anticipate and/or an intuitive understanding of the enemy's style of fighting
CHA - I have superior self confidence and force of will which causes my enemy to be defeated

See how easy that is? ALL of those are plausible.

Interesting that Charisma became force of will (i.e. willpower) when that was always Wisdom. In fact, every single one of my PCs has superior self confidence, even with a Charisma of 8. That's what happens when people try to fluff rationalize things. They invent new definitions of the ability score, just to shoe horn it into their fluff.

One PC can use Int to outthink his foe, but another equally intelligent PC cannot.

These are plausible to you because you have convinced yourself that they are plausible. Just because you've convinced yourself that the fluff works doesn't mean that it works for everyone, or even that it is consistently logical. It just means that you've rationalized it in your head.

My personal magnetism, force of personality, ability to lead, and good looks, shouldn't make foes stand there and cower, and let me hit them easier and harder. I could fluff it that way, but it's fairly nonsensical. I love those cowering undead and constructs because of my good looks and forceful personality.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Interesting that Charisma became force of will (i.e. willpower) when that was always Wisdom. In fact, every single one of my PCs has superior self confidence, even with a Charisma of 8. That's what happens when people try to fluff rationalize things. They invent new definitions of the ability score, just to shoe horn it into their fluff.

You do realize that there is a conception of "charisma" that predates all D&D that means "force of will" and something quite a bit stronger? It is a religious term, and I'm pretty sure Gygax had that in mind when he picked the name for the attribute.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure about that. I don't think divorcing ability scores from attack rolls violates tradition any more than having attack rolls based on Constitution, or any other ability score that that requires rationalization to justify.

Classes could even provide "melee", "ranged" and "magic" modifiers that were used with most attack powers. (...and I don't see any reason why a minority of powers couldn't continue to be based on stats.)

-KS

This isn't an issue of tradition. You all need to look deeper at the design and understand why doing this won't work.

Suppose I'm a striker. I want to do high damage. So, how do I do that? Accuracy, damage bonuses, etc. Accuracy is the primary method in 4e, it usually trumps any other technique, a +1 to-hit is by itself generally superior to any other bonus you can normally get.

Now, suppose instead I'm a controller, then hitting is even MORE important, because what I care about is conditions/effects, not damage output.

Now, consider in a game where to-hit is not adjusted by ability score. The striker now has no reason to bring up their prime score, so really doing so is probably disadvantageous. They will still want to bring up their secondary score for increased damage. The controller OTOH has a different agenda. It is going to be much harder to balance out ability score based costs because their 'cost' is going to be quite different for different types of character. In the current system because to-hit is SO predominant you can pretty much neglect any other cost considerations as virtually irrelevant.

I think you'll find that you actually put a number of non-obvious constraints on system design as soon as you get rid of ability score providing a to-hit bonus. We can of course all debate the pros and cons, but just be aware that there ARE cons. Beyond that it seems just rather harsh. I dunno, but I feel like there are legitimately reasons for different levels of accuracy. They can be a pain, but they also provide a number of different sets of trade offs that allow for different builds. At a bare minimum once you get rid of accuracy as a consideration how do you give different strikers different damage output options? You can't really, they need to all do the same damage since that's where their DPR comes from and that's what matters for a striker. This can get pretty murky if you're dealing with characters that do AOE vs single target, etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Interesting that Charisma became force of will (i.e. willpower) when that was always Wisdom. In fact, every single one of my PCs has superior self confidence, even with a Charisma of 8. That's what happens when people try to fluff rationalize things. They invent new definitions of the ability score, just to shoe horn it into their fluff.

One PC can use Int to outthink his foe, but another equally intelligent PC cannot.

These are plausible to you because you have convinced yourself that they are plausible. Just because you've convinced yourself that the fluff works doesn't mean that it works for everyone, or even that it is consistently logical. It just means that you've rationalized it in your head.

My personal magnetism, force of personality, ability to lead, and good looks, shouldn't make foes stand there and cower, and let me hit them easier and harder. I could fluff it that way, but it's fairly nonsensical. I love those cowering undead and constructs because of my good looks and forceful personality.

I think you're missing the point of my argument KD. You may not like the PARTICULAR fluff that I've just used as my example, but there are ENDLESS variations. Who are you to decree that only brute strength matters when using a sword any more than I am to say I could using a style where the my personal magnetism intimidates and demoralizes the foe and makes him easier to defeat (CHA)? Or that CHA represents my ability to channel the divine power of Atur God of Kings. The details are irrelevant. The point stands.

Why does one PC use INT and another use STR? That's trivial. The big bruiser fighter uses STR and beats down his enemy. The quick witted fighter uses INT. They are fighting with completely different styles using the tools they have available to them, that's all. No one style is more fundamental or necessarily superior to another. The game might or might not currently implement each of them for all classes but it doesn't have to either, the INT 'fighter' uses the tools best adapted to his style, which involve magic and he's called a Bladesinger (though you can use your own fluff here). He might also be a warlord.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This isn't an issue of tradition. You all need to look deeper at the design and understand why doing this won't work.

Suppose I'm a striker. I want to do high damage. So, how do I do that? Accuracy, damage bonuses, etc. Accuracy is the primary method in 4e, it usually trumps any other technique, a +1 to-hit is by itself generally superior to any other bonus you can normally get.

Now, suppose instead I'm a controller, then hitting is even MORE important, because what I care about is conditions/effects, not damage output.

Now, consider in a game where to-hit is not adjusted by ability score. The striker now has no reason to bring up their prime score, so really doing so is probably disadvantageous. They will still want to bring up their secondary score for increased damage. The controller OTOH has a different agenda. It is going to be much harder to balance out ability score based costs because their 'cost' is going to be quite different for different types of character. In the current system because to-hit is SO predominant you can pretty much neglect any other cost considerations as virtually irrelevant.

I think you'll find that you actually put a number of non-obvious constraints on system design as soon as you get rid of ability score providing a to-hit bonus. We can of course all debate the pros and cons, but just be aware that there ARE cons. Beyond that it seems just rather harsh. I dunno, but I feel like there are legitimately reasons for different levels of accuracy. They can be a pain, but they also provide a number of different sets of trade offs that allow for different builds. At a bare minimum once you get rid of accuracy as a consideration how do you give different strikers different damage output options? You can't really, they need to all do the same damage since that's where their DPR comes from and that's what matters for a striker. This can get pretty murky if you're dealing with characters that do AOE vs single target, etc.

I don't think it's as critical as you're making it out to be. There are a few different possible approaches.

1) Only the attack bonus gets removed. In this case, you still want a good primary stat if you want to dish out as much damage as possible, so it remains something of importance (albeit, not critical importance). Move secondary bonuses to the primary stat (a rogue shifts Dex mod squares instead of Cha mod squares) and the primary becomes just as important as before. Admittedly, that means essentially getting rid of secondary stats (though I'm not so sure that would be a terrible thing).

2) Divorce ability scores from combat capability completely; they don't affect damage or hp or initiative, just skill checks. You'd choose your ability scores based on what skills you want to be best at, and as long as skill selection is balanced, so are ability scores.

3) Remove ability scores from the game completely. While they're a nice customizing feature, historically they've never been well balanced. Traditionally, Charisma has been a dump stat for most classes, and has never measured up to stats like Dexterity (defenses, initiative, and ranged attacks) or Constitution (bonus hp, resistance to harm from things like poison).

There are probably more approaches, but those are the three that spring to mind.

 

[KidSnide]

1) Only the attack bonus gets removed. In this case, you still want a good primary stat if you want to dish out as much damage as possible, so it remains something of importance (albeit, not critical importance). Move secondary bonuses to the primary stat (a rogue shifts Dex mod squares instead of Cha mod squares) and the primary becomes just as important as before. Admittedly, that means essentially getting rid of secondary stats (though I'm not so sure that would be a terrible thing).

Exactly. The primary ability shows up in nearly every power, either as a damage bump, or to determine the magnitude of a rider effect. You're right that a Sorcerer-style damage bump ("add secondary stat to every attack") doesn't work, but there are plenty of other ways strikers can get bonus damage.

What this does (at least for some classes) is reduce the primary stat to being only slightly better than the secondary stat. I consider this a feature. I don't mind that the warlord is all about smacking and inspiring at the same time, but I really wish there was a good "low damage, high rider" build for warlords that are smarter (or more charismatic) than they are strong.

And, of course, class abilities can also be designed to ensure that the primary stats stay useful and important without rising to the current level of dominance.

-KS

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you'll find that you actually put a number of non-obvious constraints on system design as soon as you get rid of ability score providing a to-hit bonus.

I seem to recall 1E through 3.5E not having bonuses to hit for most spells.

When discussing 5E, throw out not just the 1E through 3.5E sacred cows, open up your mind to throwing out 4E sacred cows as well.

Do we really need to hit rolls for every single attack? And if we do, do they all need ability score modifiers to work? And does every ability score have to be used for to hit and damage by somebody? Can some of them not be used for that and it be ok?

Touch attacks worked just fine in 3E and each PC did not use a different ability score modifier to do one.

Defenses use a single ability score. Skills use a single ability score. What is the driving factor for using different ability scores for attacks and having every single ability score have that function? Why is that so necessary?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Defenses use a single ability score. Skills use a single ability score. What is the driving factor for using different ability scores for attacks and having every single ability score have that function? Why is that so necessary?

Power. The attack bonus from ability scores is powerful. Ergo, people want it. But this has nothing to do with the broadness or narrowness of the conception of the ability score. That just affects how far an individual is willing to go with their rationalization. If we want to remove the impetus to use any ability score, then make them less powerful. Cut off the problem at the root.

The funny thing is that I agree with your main objection, but on different grounds. I see no point in having six ability scores if they aren't going to mean something substantially different from each other. If they are to be relegated to effectively color, then make them traits.

I'd prefer that we have them, and that they do substantially differ. But I don't want them so powerful that we get this constant push to collapse the differences. It is a balancing act.