D&D 5E (2024) The impact of reducing Ability Scores?

[DEFCON 1]

yeah, if we are talking about a single roll for a thing.
a lucky punch or similar.
what if it's extensive competition?

let's say arm wrestling?
and you need 3 won opposite rolls in a row to win?
8 vs 20 STR now drops into 1,5% chance of happening.

and more the extended competition is, more is completely unlikely that the that much weaker opponent will win at anything.

How often are extended competitions asked for though for most checks? I would submit rarely.

A portcullis is blocking a path... the DM asks for a Strength check. The "buff superman" with the 20 STR rolls a 4 for a total of 9... and the STR 5 "weakling" rolls the 19 and gets a 16, thereby raising the gate because the DM doesn't ask for an extended check in that situation. Thus, that tells me that it's not the ability score that is determining how strong these two PCs are... it's the d20 roll. The d20 roll is what gave that one PC the power to lift it and didn't do the same for the other. Even with the supposed bonus of the supposedly "buff superman's" high strength score.

But I'll be honest here... my quibble isn't the numbers themselves. It isn't the fact that it's the die roll that really shows us how much a PC is on a thing. But rather my quibble are that people try and define and describe their characters based on their ability scores. Because those descriptions just aren't right. The fact is, you aren't an "idiot" with a very low Intelligence score, you aren't a "clumsy oaf" with a very low Dexterity score. Rather, you are merely just less of those things than someone else might be. Someone else will usually be more charismatic than you... but it doesn't mean you are therefore "repellent" with your 6 CHA. Because once out of every 5 rolls you're still hitting that DC 15 check.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I can’t disagree. I suspect there would be pushback from the general public. Particularly in an open online campaign. Would it cause folks on Start Playing to walk on by… I suspect yes.

It’s a shame though because I think it would improve a Ravenloft game. I would keep it in the bag for a home game with friends with whom there would be a compact. I’d work my ass off to make it really atmospheric and fun in exchange for their forebearance.

I think for a CoS game in particular it might go over fairly well - the kind if player who will balk hard will overlap with the kind of player who wouldn’t enjoy CoS very much in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

if you have a bunch of "fighters" with 8 STR and a group of fighters with 16 STR and they both try to defeat a sane enemy,
Sack of HP of 120 and average AC of 15

1st group has attack of +1 and damage(good ol longsword) of 1d8-1
that is 35% hit rate with average damage of 1,45 per swing

2nd group has attack of +5 and damage of 1d8+3
55% hit rate with average damage per swing equals to 4,35

that comes down to:
1st group needs 83 attacks on average to bring the enemy down
2nd group needs 28 attacks

And that's with a difference in modifiers of 4. That's why I say +1 or even +2 difference doesn't mean much in the scheme of things. You're going to see a much greater difference with a good feat, and it will be more fun at the same time.

 

[Maxperson]

yeah, if we are talking about a single roll for a thing.
a lucky punch or similar.
what if it's extensive competition?

let's say arm wrestling?
and you need 3 won opposite rolls in a row to win?
8 vs 20 STR now drops into 1,5% chance of happening.

and more the extended competition is, more is completely unlikely that the that much weaker opponent will win at anything.

Also, included in that d20 roll is luck. If the weak guy wins the arm wrestling contest, the stronger guy probably has his elbow slip or pulled a muscle in order for that to happen.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm just referring to actual strength (or any of the six scores.) Magic items or bonuses for class features or whatnot aren't a part of that.

People keep saying things like having a bad score like a 6 INT means their character is a moron and that PC should be roleplayed like they are a moron, while the character with an 18 INT is a brainiac. But that's just not true. A 6 INT (-2 modifier) character is only 6 points behind an 18 INT (+4 character) and can easily be "smarter" than that supposed brainiac on any given day whenever they are making INT rolls and adding up to 20 additional points to their totals. Yes, the 6 INT "moron" will lose a lot of the time... but not every time. And there's no rhyme nor reason as to when that "moron" might be smarter than the "brainiac" because it's all completely random when that spark of intelligence will kick in. Which is why I claim that ability scores do not in any way accurately portray how a PC actually is when talking about their strength, or intelligence, or charisma, or whatever, because on any given day at any given moment, the brainiac will be made a fool by the idiot on any random incident or subject.

The modifiers are just not high enough relative to the die roll that gets added to it to portray the ability's use.

The 6 int guy will NEVER be smarter than the 18 int guy. It's possible for him to get lucky and in the moment remember something that the 18 int guy never learned, but sit them both down at a table to answer 100 questions and it will be very apparent which one is smarter.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The 6 int guy will NEVER be smarter than the 18 int guy. It's possible for him to get lucky and in the moment remember something that the 18 int guy never learned, but sit them both down at a table to answer 100 questions and it will be very apparent which one is smarter.

I'm not denying the 18 INT person is smarter. But I'm saying the 6 INT person is not an "idiot" or "moron" or any of the other descriptors people keep using to describe characters with low stats.

People keep insisting that ability scores define the level of which a character is at for that ability. That 18s and 20s make them the best of the best in their fields, and 4s, 5s, and 6s make them complete and utter schmucks. But that's just not true. Not when you add up to 20 additional points to their score. A person with a 5 DEX is not as agile as someone with a 13... but they are still plenty agile on their own-- easily hitting DC 15 checks on 17+. So if you want to define your character as truly "clumsy"... just having a 5 on score alone ain't going to do it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

All this is to say that in relation to the original post... reducing an ability modifier by a point or 2 won't really accomplish anything of note because you'll still have those 20 potential points from the d20 to compensate for almost all the loss from the ability score reduction. You reduce an ability modifier by 2 points? That's merely a 10% loss in ability. You now will fail one more time out of every 10 rolls. Which is pretty much unnoticeable. No player will ever make note of it. As far as what players will see... nothing will have noticeably changed regarding their successes and failures.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not denying the 18 INT person is smarter. But I'm saying the 6 INT person is not an "idiot" or "moron" or any of the other descriptors people keep using to describe characters with low stats.

People keep insisting that ability scores define the level of which a character is at for that ability. That 18s and 20s make them the best of the best in their fields, and 4s, 5s, and 6s make them complete and utter schmucks. But that's just not true. Not when you add up to 20 additional points to their score. A person with a 5 DEX is not as agile as someone with a 13... but they are still plenty agile on their own-- easily hitting DC 15 checks on 17+. So if you want to define your character as truly "clumsy"... just having a 5 on score alone ain't going to do it.

The d20 roll is random chance, skill, etc. It's not the stat itself. The 6 int person is stupid, but could get lucky, have learned a skill really well, and so on. His actual intelligence is a detriment to any luck or skill he has, because he's dumb.

The idea that the d20 is the stat itself is novel, but I don't think it holds up in any edition of D&D.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The d20 roll is random chance, skill, etc. It's not the stat itself. The 6 int person is stupid, but could get lucky, have learned a skill really well, and so on. His actual intelligence is a detriment to any luck or skill he has, because he's dumb.

The idea that the d20 is the stat itself is novel, but I don't think it holds up in any edition of D&D.

A truly stupid idiot would not be able to beat a genius in one out of every 5 tests of intelligence. And "luck" would not be the answer to explain why they do.

 

[TheSword]

A truly stupid idiot would not be able to beat a genius in one out of every 5 tests of intelligence. And "luck" would not be the answer to explain why they do.

Events dear boy, events. As Harold Mcmillan said.

Advantage acquired from any one of a number of sources, moves things even further towards the dice roll mattering more than ability stat and will probably mean now the ‘idiot’ beats the ‘genius’