D&D 5E House rule impact: Replacing stat mod with proficiency bonus

[DND_Reborn]

Skills are a little off (they still add stat mod) but yea, pretty much. The “trained in every skill” build is pretty fun (I played a version before).

Sorry, I missed that this doesn't work for skills.

In that case, I would not be a fan of it because it creates more exceptions to a pretty simple set-up. You would have attacks/damage and spells/DCs with one rule, but skills with another. With the way 5E is designed, I wouldn't be a huge fan of that. Still, if I joined a table and this was the rule, I would try it and probably be fine with it.

While this would remove the stress/need/desire to max ability scores, IME that has never really been a big issue. The biggest complaint for players who max out scores through ASIs is missing out on feats. There is one problem with feat thought, which comes up: there aren't enough feats that cover each ability score. STR and DEX are most heavily favored by feats. We fixed it by allowing a feat which includes an ASI to apply to any ability score instead.

If your table feels compelled to max out scores, I don't know how much it will help. What level do you play to typically? If you are only getting to 10th or so like many tables, you are just matching 18s for +4. For the people who want their bonuses, they will still max out the score because that is their priority. For players who are willing to settle for lower +2s and +3s, you are (eventually) rewarding them at middle and higher levels.

I don't know. If I was a player who wanted to max things out, I might be a bit put off by this. I am investing in my ASI, but the other player will eventually benefit for free. Now, I am sure I will benefit in other ways maybe, but since it doesn't include skills how is not readily apparent to me.

 

[NotAYakk]

I'd just use it for attack bonuses, and not damage bonuses.

Losing a point or two off damage isn't as big an impact as not being able to hit things.

Then a str 8 wizard has a +4 to +12 to hit with the quarterstaff, but still deals 1d8-1 damage.

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry, I missed that this doesn't work for skills.

In that case, I would not be a fan of it because it creates more exceptions to a pretty simple set-up. You would have attacks/damage and spells/DCs with one rule, but skills with another. With the way 5E is designed, I wouldn't be a huge fan of that. Still, if I joined a table and this was the rule, I would try it and probably be fine with it.

I see your point, but I would counter with that none of the rules have changed, attacks and spells still work in the same way they did previously. This is simply an alternate calculation that can be used instead.

While this would remove the stress/need/desire to max ability scores, IME that has never really been a big issue. The biggest complaint for players who max out scores through ASIs is missing out on feats. There is one problem with feat thought, which comes up: there aren't enough feats that cover each ability score. STR and DEX are most heavily favored by feats. We fixed it by allowing a feat which includes an ASI to apply to any ability score instead.

Adding on more feats is something I'm thinking about. I'm actually concerned that half-feats (that give +1 to a stat) might be undervalued, since the value of any one stat increase is less. I'm contemplating making them a +2, and regular ASI to +3.

If your table feels compelled to max out scores, I don't know how much it will help. What level do you play to typically? If you are only getting to 10th or so like many tables, you are just matching 18s for +4. For the people who want their bonuses, they will still max out the score because that is their priority. For players who are willing to settle for lower +2s and +3s, you are (eventually) rewarding them at middle and higher levels.

Usually into the mid-teens. Our last game ran from 5 to 16. Our current game is at 11th (started at 8th) and will probably go to about 15. Depends on how the next few sessions go.

Although, full disclosure, I'm contemplating this rule for a more out-there game that will start at 1 but have random stat generation.

I don't know. If I was a player who wanted to max things out, I might be a bit put off by this. I am investing in my ASI, but the other player will eventually benefit for free. Now, I am sure I will benefit in other ways maybe, but since it doesn't include skills how is not readily apparent to me.

Well, when you boost one of your stats high, the primary benefit is to skills (and saves). You can't have a high stealth without a high Dex, for example.

 

[TwoSix]

It could enable more versatile roll-stats-in-order character generation.
Stats become more guidelines for personality/physical attribute than mechanical attributes.
Some formerly "low priority" feats become competitive.
Feats become competitive vs ability increase.
Comparatively, the gap between proficient and non-proficient deepens as the characters gain levels.

These are the kind of changes, specifically, that I hoped the rule would emphasize.

 

[Blue]

Okay, let's look at this over the most commonly played levels, 1-10.

I'm ignoring the bonus ASI that fighters and rogues get.

Traditional starts with a +3, this starts with +2
@4th, traditional the majority (>50%) of the time moves up to a +4. Right on it's heels, this moves up to +3 @5th.
@8th, traditional often goes up to +5 and caps. Again, this is one level behind and goes to +4.

What do I get from this?
With bounded accuracy, using proficiency instead of continuously amping your prime ability score is very feasible. Because of that I expect to see a lot more feats or alternate ability increases - but only on some classes.
For example, Wizard really has little else that triggers off INT, and it's not a big ability score in other ways. So I can see wizard happy with it and bumping CON, DEX or taking feats.
Bard, on the other hand, has their bardic inspiration uses based on CHR. They really need to continue to push it. Paladins auras and CHR. Monks need their WIS.

So with straight classed characters I see that this adds a very uneven advantage.

Multiclassed characters open up in interesting ways. 13 in an ability score to enable multiclassing isn't bad, and we have two big advantages:
1. You can mix and match without care for ability scores. Paladin/Cleric/Wizard. All the attacks and spell DCs don't lag.
2. You no longer need to get ASIs in order to keep up, one of the balancing points for multiclassing. You can cherry-pick without being left behind mathematically.

I think multiclassed characters get a very large boost from this.

In the end, because of how uneven the classes are in the use of ability scores outside attack/saves, I think that it's very uneven. It would need to be that you could sub your proficiency in for any and all ability score use in order to even out. And even in those cases, I would not allow multiclassing.

 

[Esker]

Multiclassed characters open up in interesting ways. 13 in an ability score to enable multiclassing isn't bad, and we have two big advantages:
1. You can mix and match without care for ability scores. Paladin/Cleric/Wizard. All the attacks and spell DCs don't lag.
2. You no longer need to get ASIs in order to keep up, one of the balancing points for multiclassing. You can cherry-pick without being left behind mathematically.

This is a really nice analysis, Blue. I was just going to point out that martials still want to invest at least to +2 in their attack stat for AC (more for rogues and monks), whereas warlocks and sorcerers (some of whom may not have anything riding on CHA besides spell attacks and DCs), and to a lesser extent Clerics, Druids and Wizards (who still have spell prep slots based on their casting stat) are free to pump CON and DEX at the expense their casting stat, possibly leaving that at 13 the entire game, taking feats (or further pumping CON/DEX) at 4th and 8th, while rarely being more than one modifier point behind someone who starts with less survivability and maxes their casting stat as early as possible.

I'm not sure I'd be too worried about your first point above, though, at least in itself. You can already choose multiclass combinations that share relevant stats, which is one reason why CHA is so powerful in 5e, since there are so many more stat-compatible multiclass options. I think this would give you more variety in viable multiclass options, giving us fewer sorlocks, bardlocks, and sorcadins, etc., with probably a few more wizard and cleric dips.

I mean, yes, mathematically, the optimal choices from a less restricted set will be at least as good as the optimal choices from a more restricted set, and so this is going to be some kind of power boost. But still, that part seems fine to me.