Should mods to hit be dropped from ability scores?

[Oni]

So it was a flaw in 4e, but no problem whatsoever in Pathfinder, 3.5, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, B/X, etc.? Because ability scores modifying to-hit, damage, and saving throws has been in the game in every single edition.

It was a bigger flaw in 4e because of how the math was balanced, but it is/was also a huge flaw in Pathfinder/3.5/3e. The impact was felt less once you go back beyond that. The problem stems not from the existance of bonuses to hit, but rather too carefully balanced math and the 3e/4e attribute chart that advances mods so quickly (one for every two points of ability score) and with no kind of diminishing return. The same chart they're trying to drag out again fro 5e, this was frankly my biggest disappointment when I looked at the playtest material.

 

[am181d]

Really, dealing 1d4+4 damage with a dagger is a bit ridiculous - the strength modifier in this case is more efficient than the weapon itself.

Let's be honest, though. That's the right result. If I (with my Strength of 8) get into a fight with Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime (with his Strength of 18), he will quickly gut me with his knife and I will be able to do virtually no damage to him.

A person with an 18 Strength is really, really strong. One regret I have about the move to point buys is that everybody takes an 18 in their main stat. If you use 4d6 drop the lowest, the odds of getting an 18 on a given roll are 1-in-60, or about one 18 per ten characters. The game works best, to my mind, when strong characters start out with 16s rather than 18s...

 

[Ratskinner]

I was just thinking about this, that one of the biggest incentives to min/max is the accuracy bonus/saving throw DC mods that comes from having high ability scores. I'm really happy that they are flattening the math in the upcoming 5e, but I'm concerned that in doing so each plus to hit is going to become even more important creating an even greater incentive to min/max scores. I'm thinking perhaps to hit and spell dc mods should be dropped from the list of things affected by ability scores. Opinions?

I totally support the idea of divorcing ability scores from the combat stats. It instantly allows the "High Intelligence" or "High Charisma" fighter without some pile of feats to support it...and the demands by min/maxers to get those feats free so that they won't be less combat-effective. By treating the ability scores more like large skill sets, you let them determine more of the flavor of each character, rather than the flat out power.

I would add that divorcing combat stats from ability scores removes one assumption from "balance" considerations...that is "What score can we assume for primary attribute? 16? 18? 14?" Taking variables out of the "power curve" or whatever, makes it easier to define and control. I'm not sure that the Bounded Accuracy stuff has anything to do with it, though.

For the skeptics, I would have disagreed with this idea until very recently. I got to play a game that did it and found that it really made a lot of sense.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would probably hate it. I would like +1/2 strength or dexterity to hit, full bonus to damage. I just believe, that your stats should play a role in how good you are in combat.

But maybe, in the end, the damage bonus would suffice. So maybe I would actually try it. And Heavy armor has no dexterity mod either. So it may actually be fair...

I could imagine weapons could also be:

strength weapons
dexterity weapons
static bonus weapons (maybe a crossbow could have a straight modifier to hit instead of desterity)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I totally support the idea of divorcing ability scores from the combat stats. It instantly allows the "High Intelligence" or "High Charisma" fighter without some pile of feats to support it...and the demands by min/maxers to get those feats free so that they won't be less combat-effective. By treating the ability scores more like large skill sets, you let them determine more of the flavor of each character, rather than the flat out power.

I would add that divorcing combat stats from ability scores removes one assumption from "balance" considerations...that is "What score can we assume for primary attribute? 16? 18? 14?" Taking variables out of the "power curve" or whatever, makes it easier to define and control. I'm not sure that the Bounded Accuracy stuff has anything to do with it, though.

For the skeptics, I would have disagreed with this idea until very recently. I got to play a game that did it and found that it really made a lot of sense.

2nd edition had more or less bounded accuracy... you had to grow into a confortable zone (hitting AC 0 well enough) but then the fighter really got better and better in hitting, as AC tended to stay in the range of -2 to 2 mainly...

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I think that the notion of applying a single stat to modify an attack roll automatically is nonsensical; one could argue that any ability score could offer a bonus in combat: an attack could be powerful (Str), intuitive (Wis), intelligently placed (Int), finessed (Dex) or even directed by your mojo (Cha).

I'd rather that feats or themes unlocked the ability to leverage certain stats in combat, representing an effort on the part of the character to develop a style which played to their own inherent strengths. I also think the bonus progression is too fast in 3.5/PF/4e, and would like to see something closer to the B/X progression.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

What's wrong with min/maxing?

If you're in a group where everyone is doing it heavily you may feel forced to play a combat-optimized character rather than one you would prefer for roleplaying reasons. There are also cases where folks min/max according to the mechanics in ways that break genre or verisimillitude, which is a problem if their fellow players care about such things.

 

[sheadunne]

I'd like to see the + to damage changed to a die type increase.

Dagger

0-4 1-2 damage
5-8 1d3 damage
9-12 1d4 damage
13-16 1d6 damage
17-20 1d8 damage

An 18 strength now does potential the same as 1d4+4 but it's more random. It'll also make giving a + to damage from a magical weapon more significant

 

[billd91]

It was a bigger flaw in 4e because of how the math was balanced, but it is/was also a huge flaw in Pathfinder/3.5/3e. The impact was felt less once you go back beyond that. The problem stems not from the existance of bonuses to hit, but rather too carefully balanced math and the 3e/4e attribute chart that advances mods so quickly (one for every two points of ability score) and with no kind of diminishing return. The same chart they're trying to drag out again fro 5e, this was frankly my biggest disappointment when I looked at the playtest material.

Whether or not the stat bonuses in combat are a flaw (or stat bonuses anywhere else) depends a whole lot on perspective. I don't consider them a flaw. I want a PC who rolls a high strength to have an easier time hammering through armor than someone who doesn't make that investment. I want him to to be a more dangerous opponent in that regard.

 

[Ratskinner]

Whether or not the stat bonuses in combat are a flaw (or stat bonuses anywhere else) depends a whole lot on perspective. I don't consider them a flaw. I want a PC who rolls a high strength to have an easier time hammering through armor than someone who doesn't make that investment. I want him to to be a more dangerous opponent in that regard.

What investment? I only ask because you said "rolls". Rolling stats doesn't seem like an investment to me, even if you "arrange to taste".