D&D 5E Idea that will most players will hate, but I think addresses a mechanical issue in game

[jmartkdr2]

INT to AC would be my preferred way to cut Dex a bit.

Not a fan of DEX to insert heavy thing A into skull B though. It takes more than brute strength, yes, but leverage isn't dexterity IMO.

Go further: remove stats to AC as a default entirely.

Unarmored AC is 10 + proficiency. Light and Medium armor just set your AC to a single number, the way heavy armor does. Mage armor makes your AC 15. Dex isn't added except for class features like unarmored defense.

(You'd need to do a few more tweaks - rogues might need help, for example.)

 

[FrozenNorth]

INT to AC would be my preferred way to cut Dex a bit.

Not a fan of DEX to insert heavy thing A into skull B though. It takes more than brute strength, yes, but leverage isn't dexterity IMO.

That would give a big boost to Wizards, who currently only invest in Dex to improve their AC. Are Wizards really hurting so much that they need a boost? Especially compared to Sorcerers?

 

[Scribe]

Go further: remove stats to AC as a default entirely.

Unarmored AC is 10 + proficiency. Light and Medium armor just set your AC to a single number, the way heavy armor does. Mage armor makes your AC 15. Dex isn't added except for class features like unarmored defense.

(You'd need to do a few more tweaks - rogues might need help, for example.)

Stuff like this, granting initiative to other stats, and putting minimum requirements on weapon type or assorted other rules which drive diversification of stats would certainly help.

 

[payn]

Im of mind to just remove accuracy and damage from stats. Instead look at giving bonuses to certain actions based on stats. These are examples and not perfect, but use str to bull rush and/or shield bash. Dex can be used to trip and/or disarm. Obviously, a certain paradigm would have to be built for casters. The point is to promote diversity in stats that will also give variety in builds. ITs awful boring right now where every class picks two stats and dumps the rest. Anything to promote out of that would be a win for me.

 

[Jmarso]

Over the years I have seen I have no idea how many arguments about Dex being the god stat. I don't disagree.
There are also umpteen arguments about stats/abilities/what not tied to Str or Dex.

I propose something, that will infuriate most players, for all kinds of reasons.

Some weapon attacks require both a modicum of Strength AND Dexterity. In the real world, a top swordsman (not talking fencers), or archer, needs both.
So what happens if I said to my players:

"OK, when you use your Long Bow, you use your Dex and Prof to Hit, but you add (or subtract) your Str modifier for damage."
This concept can be applied to a myriad of the published weapons, though not all.
Anybody who has wielded a sledgehammer in the real world, or tried splitting wood, understands it not all about Strength.

Now, the cons to such an idea are not limited to the following:
1. More complexity for the players and DM, and we know that new age players hate complexity.
2. Dex, or Str, is no longer a dump stat, which will irritate most martial class players.
3. Martial class chars are taking the hit, while this has no impact on casters.

But...this is far more realistic, and the arguments about creating optimized chars loses some of its value.
Does this also mean that the base damage value of martial weapons has to be altered, to compensate for the inherent nerf to martial chars? Yes.
There are multiple cascade effects.

Eminently sensible, and applicable to other weapons as well. Thrown daggers, hand axes, etc- Dex for the attack, Str for the damage. Crossbows shouldn't get any damage adjustment since they are totally mechanical. I think there is even an argument concerning using the same mechanic for finesse weapons. It takes strength to punch a rapier through a chain shirt, not dexterity.

5E needs a little more of this kind of 'common sense' granularity, IMHO.

Other ideas include not determining initiative adjustments solely with dexterity. Wis and Int would often factor in, especially during negotiations when things were about to go south, or a double-cross or ambush was planned. Level-up already incorporates some of this thinking.

 

[Jmarso]

Another problem, if you want to call it that, is that ability score modifiers kick in too soon and go too high. In 2E, a 16 Str granted a +1 bonus to damage, and that was it. If you weren't a fighter, it was pointless shooting for a Con higher than 16 because your max HP bonus was 2.

And call me a grognard, but I don't like ability scores for humans / demi-humans / humanoids being able to go over 18, either. Especially with a score of 20 granting a +5 ability bonus. I'd rather have +5 swords and lower ability bonuses.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That would give a big boost to Wizards, who currently only invest in Dex to improve their AC. Are Wizards really hurting so much that they need a boost? Especially compared to Sorcerers?

I've never seen a wizard invest in Dex, but no, they neither need not deserve a boost.

CHA to AC it is then. No explanation, it just is.

Go further: remove stats to AC as a default entirely.

Unarmored AC is 10 + proficiency. Light and Medium armor just set your AC to a single number, the way heavy armor does. Mage armor makes your AC 15. Dex isn't added except for class features like unarmored defense.

(You'd need to do a few more tweaks - rogues might need help, for example.)

I am not really a fan of anything that just 'sets' a stat.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another problem, if you want to call it that, is that ability score modifiers kick in too soon and go too high. In 2E, a 16 Str granted a +1 bonus to damage, and that was it. If you weren't a fighter, it was pointless shooting for a Con higher than 16 because your max HP bonus was 2.

And call me a grognard, but I don't like ability scores for humans / demi-humans / humanoids being able to go over 18, either. Especially with a score of 20 granting a +5 ability bonus. I'd rather have +5 swords and lower ability bonuses.

There would be no issue in the game with switching your bonuses to:

3-4-5-6-7-8: -1
9-10-11-12: +0
13-14-15: +1
16-17: +2
18: +3

And you can't go over an 18.

 

[Blue]

In my experience, 5E players don’t want realism and don’t want challenges and don’t want anything less than perfectly optimized characters. The majority of 5E players seem to want fantasy superheroes or demigods from the start.

I'm glad I don't have your experience. If anything, the majority of the people I play with (say 12-15 across several groups) just want to play, do single classed characters that seem interesting, and purposefully pick different spells then they saw last campaign, even if that gets rid of a bunch of the power hitters. We did have one guy who was a power gamer with is no longer with the group for unrelated reasons. He was also a fun roleplayer and it's sad it's no longer with us. And I can optimize but have have learned from my time on the DM sides of the screen that I have more fun when the whole party is around the same level of power. So if I optimize, it's in a support role to make others shine.

I think all we can take from this is that there is no "one true description" of 5e players.

 

[payn]

Another problem, if you want to call it that, is that ability score modifiers kick in too soon and go too high. In 2E, a 16 Str granted a +1 bonus to damage, and that was it. If you weren't a fighter, it was pointless shooting for a Con higher than 16 because your max HP bonus was 2.

And call me a grognard, but I don't like ability scores for humans / demi-humans / humanoids being able to go over 18, either. Especially with a score of 20 granting a +5 ability bonus. I'd rather have +5 swords and lower ability bonuses.

Oh, god, no. Please, can we not expect characters advancement to be placed on stuff? Unless, of course, you just intend the +5 sword to be a sweet bonus not expected by the system math?