Suggestion: Don't have size affect ability scores

[Terath Ninir]

I'm a 3e/Pathfinder fan, but one thing I've always found a tad ridiculous as stat bloat. Oh, the mental stats aren't too insane, usually, but it's not unusual to see a monster with a 30, 40, or even 50+ Strength score.

My suggestion for 5e is: don't do this. Size should have an effect, but not directly on the stats. Especially if skills default directly off of ability scores. If a monster is going to make a Con save against your attack (or whatever the exact mechanic), it's really going to suck if they have a 30 score and you're a fighter with a 16 strength.

But size should affect things like your damage and your hit points, right? Right! But just do it directly. If you're large, you use bigger weapons and get, say, a +2 damage bonus. You get bonus hp per HD, or maybe even just a flat +10 HP bonus. You can still have a large creature with a 3 Str or an 18 Str -- but they can do feats of strength that a smaller creature can't. Similarly, a small creature uses smaller weapons and can carry less than a medium one. So you can have an 18 Str halfling and an 18 Str minotaur meet -- and the minotaur will be able to carry much more and do more damage.

Since I've seen things saying WotC wants to do away with video game style ability score bloat, this I think could help. You still get most of the effects, but not the ridiculously high scores.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Disagree.

If I have a 20 Str Fighter and I run into a 30 Str monster, I have an easy way to compare our respective values regardless of his size. Easier than having to multiply his encumbrance factors or something.

Now, I think you might be happier to say that the difference in combat ability between a large, 30 STR creature and a medium, 20 STR fighter needs to be reduced. It doesn't need to be a linear scale, after all.

Yes/no?

 

[trancejeremy]

I think it should just have a cap, like in AD&D, where 25 was the most.

Realistically, something huge would be much, much stronger, but also realistically, they'd squish you like a big.

In Call of Cthulhu, which uses a very similar stat system to D&D, Cthulhu has a Strength of 140. That's appropriate for that game, but probably not for D&D.

 

[Number48]

I think it might be easy to implement. Giant, Str 20 (+15 to skills). There, done. His save is on par with a strong PC but his ability to do stuff with Str is much greater. Use the skill bonus in opposed Str checks and still good. As for the Str adding to the to-hit or damage, well I don't see that as needing to be so mechanical for monsters. Just give him the appropriate to-hit bonus and damage, no need to reference Str in it.

 

[Banshee16]

I'm a 3e/Pathfinder fan, but one thing I've always found a tad ridiculous as stat bloat. Oh, the mental stats aren't too insane, usually, but it's not unusual to see a monster with a 30, 40, or even 50+ Strength score.

My suggestion for 5e is: don't do this. Size should have an effect, but not directly on the stats. Especially if skills default directly off of ability scores. If a monster is going to make a Con save against your attack (or whatever the exact mechanic), it's really going to suck if they have a 30 score and you're a fighter with a 16 strength.

But size should affect things like your damage and your hit points, right? Right! But just do it directly. If you're large, you use bigger weapons and get, say, a +2 damage bonus. You get bonus hp per HD, or maybe even just a flat +10 HP bonus. You can still have a large creature with a 3 Str or an 18 Str -- but they can do feats of strength that a smaller creature can't. Similarly, a small creature uses smaller weapons and can carry less than a medium one. So you can have an 18 Str halfling and an 18 Str minotaur meet -- and the minotaur will be able to carry much more and do more damage.

Since I've seen things saying WotC wants to do away with video game style ability score bloat, this I think could help. You still get most of the effects, but not the ridiculously high scores.

Disagree. You can't tell me that a larger creature such as a bear, rhino, or elephant doesn't have significantly more kinetic force (and consequently, the ability to dish out damage) than a smaller creature.

Or that a 6'4" man who weighs 265 lbs can't dish out significantly more punishment than a 5'0" woman....or even a 5'4" man.

Or that a wolf weighing 110 lbs can dish out much more punishment than a 20 lb fox.

I think where it got ridiculous is when you had characters with 40 STR scores. Maybe there's a ceiling based on size? So a size Diminutive creature can never achieve as high a score as a size medium creature...no matter how many points he puts into the STR score.

Banshee

 

[LurkAway]

For me, the ability score -- for better or worse -- is the core/base reference point and everything (story, cognition/immersion, mechanics) stems out from that. I'd rather have Str mapped somewhat to size and let the peripheral mechanics unfold organically from that.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Obviously I'm not explaining myself well enough here. My idea is that size doesn't increase your strength *stat*, so we don't see 3e-style Str score bloat. (I understand 4e is much the same way.) Here's how it would work:

A halfling with a Str of 10 can carry 50 pounds and does a d6 with his longsword. A human with the same strength score can carry 100 pounds and does a d8 with his longsword. An ogre with a 10 strength can carry 400 pounds and does 2d6 damage. You still get the benefit for going up in size, but it actually means something if you have a high strength score. No more telling someone you have an 18 Str and them saying, "Oh, I'm sorry. Why is it so low at your level?"

 

[Vegepygmy]

Here's how it would work:

A halfling with a Str of 10 can carry 50 pounds and does a d6 with his longsword. A human with the same strength score can carry 100 pounds and does a d8 with his longsword. An ogre with a 10 strength can carry 400 pounds and does 2d6 damage.

That's essentially how it works in 3E, so...what exactly are you suggesting should be different?

 

[Dausuul]

What is the point of avoiding "Strength bloat?" Considering the very practical annoyances of having the same Strength score mean different things at different sizes, I don't see the benefit.

Personally, I think that if a monster is five times as strong as an average human, it should have a Strength score five times as high as the human's. Clean, simple, and intuitive. There's nothing wrong with big numbers.

 

[Glade Riven]

It can be a problem when you need to make a large-sized PC race under Pathfinder/3e.