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

[NotAYakk]

Interesting. The 46% weaker stat doesn’t look right though. You probably need an average of the penalties for comparison not a multiplication of them. As a character with 1 less bonus clearly isn’t 46% weaker even if that affect multiple elements.

How many guards you can kill probably isn’t an appropriate metric for power in a Ravenloft game. It is hard to quantify but I would imagine mobility, the ability to deflect damage, and the ability to fight defensively and still fight would be extremely useful in that kind of game.

All that is worth bearing in mind though. Any monk player would just have to go into that with eyes open and balance the AC and Damage issue against the generalist benefits and freedoms of being a monk. Particularly in Ravenloft which is likely to be quite a carefully curated world.

Thanks for the thoughtful insight though. I’m just not convinced that the negative outweighs the many benefits of doing in that setting.

The "how many monsters of type X in a row you can kill" is just a measurement stick.

Being able to deliver a package is powerful, but how powerful scales with the package payload.

And multiplication is what happens when you weaken a character. This is one of the reasons why the -1 to all attributes is deceptively strong in how much it weakens a character, and why "boring +1" weapons are so strong.

The guard is just a placeholder monster. While a different monster would give different results, any modest change results in only a modest change in conclusions. I use the guard because it is a concrete monster, weak enough that you can measure how many you kill instead of having to deal with fractions of monsters etc.

My L 4 monk model will use a non-magical quarterstaff in 2 hands. The attack routine thus becomes 1d8+Dex, then 1d6+Dex for unarmed, then an extra 1d6+Dex on a flurry. 17 Dex, 14 Wis, 14 Con attributes gives them 15 AC, +5 ATK and 31 HP (8+5+5+5+2*4). They get no healing in their first fight after a rest.

The (congo line of) Guard's relevant stats are +3 to hit, 1d6+1 damage, 16 AC, 11 HP.

We can give the Monk the ability to "cleave" damage to simplify it. So they deal (1d8+1d6+6).5 + (1d8+1d6).05 (7.4) at will damage per round, plus 3.4 per Ki spent (which they have 3). The guards hit 45% crit 5% for 2.2 damage per round; the monk drops after 31/2.2 = 14.1 rounds, during which time the monk deals 10.2 + 7.4*14.1 = 114.54 damage, enough to kill 10.4 guards.

(While in practice some of the monk's damage will blow-through, the guard is just a stand-in for monsters which have a variety of HP, and we'll measure both before and after monk permitting cleave, so that is roughly equal.)

We then take the weakened monk. Its AC falls to 13, +4 to hit, 27 HP, damage is 1d8+2 and 1d6+2 instead.

The guard now hits 55% crits 5% for 2.65 damage per round (20% more), the congo-line kills the monk in 10.9 rounds instead of 14.1.

The monk hits 45% of the time and crits 5% of the time for 3.15 QS and 2.65 Fist (5.8 DPR base, plus 2.65 per flurry). With 3 flurries that is 7.95 + 5.8*10.9 = 71.17 damage before falling, killing 6.47 guards.

6.47 / 10.4 is 62% effectiveness compared to before.

(This is less weak because I upgraded the before/after to a quarterstaff, and then some variation from using a concrete monster.)

We do the same with the fighter. The fighter has 18 AC before and after, has GW feat and style. Attacks deal 2d6+5 damage (with GWStyle this is 13.33 per swing, +8.33 per crit). +5 to hit, 36 HP, 9.5 second wind. We will neglect using the bonus action extra attack from dropping foes and critting in both calculations.

The guard hits 30% and crits 5% of the time for 1.525 damage per round, dropping the fighter in 29.8 rounds.

The fighter hits 50% and crits 5% of the time for 7.08 damage at-will, plus 7.08 from action surge. Over 29.8 rounds it deals 218.06 damage, killing 19.8 guards.

Drop the fighter's strength and con by 2 points each and they deal 2d6+4 at +4 to hit, and has 32 + 9.5 HP. They now kill the fighter in 27.2 rounds and the fighter hits 45% crits 5% for 5.97 damage per round/action surge. This means 168.35 damage before dropping, or 15.3 guards.

15.3/19.8 is 77% as effective compared to before (at fighting congo lines of guards).

---

Note that in this kind of model, swarms of guards have triangular growth impact on difficulty; 5 guards at once is roughly 15x as tough as 1, while 5 in a congo line (fighting one at a time) is 5x as tough as one. But that effect is the same with or without the weakened PC.

---

Modelling different monsters will show different effectiveness drops. But the monk will end up being weakened 1.5x to 2x as much as the heavy weapon fighter is by this kind of change. Dex-based defenders get weakened more than the heavy fighter, but less than the monk, as their AC falls whlie the heavy fighter's AC is unchanged by this reduction in stats. Spellcasters lose prepared spells, but their damage rarely adds their attribute; they'll usually be weakened less in this naive model. (Warlocks, with AB, are the exception). -1 to save DCs and -1 to ATK are roughly equivalent in effect, so that is a wash.

The Paladin's level 6 feature (adding cha to saves) becomes weaker. Their reliance on smites helps make up for this (as smites mean more of the Paladin's damage is not a function of hitting reliably or attribute bonus damage).

I used Monk and Heavy Weapon Fighter as my examples because my naive, back of napkin math has them at two extremes while both being relatively simple melee types.

This is not intended to compare the two of them directly; so the number of guards one drops vs the other isn't intended to be a fair comparison. The comparison is between each before and after, so we understand the magnitude of the changes within the class. A monk that can close and deal damage still needs to survive and hurt the target, so if they are half as tough and deal half the damage, closing efficiently doesn't matter as much. And if they are so fragile they have to switch to defensive dodge mode quicker, that also makes them less useful to the party. But when comparing monks to fighters directly, those options that the fighter lacks do boost the monk compared to the fighter; they just don't boost the monk compared to the monk, so I feel confident in ignore them in monk:monk comparisons.

 

[TheSword]

Ok, I see where you’re getting inflated results.

Under the points buy I proposed the monk is still likely to have 16 Dex and 14 Wis at level 1. Possible 13 Wis if they have pushed Con instead.

Again I dispute the suggestion that negatives should be multiplied. Maybe you could argue that attack bonus and damage bonus could be multiplied as those two things are directly related. However there’s no sensible reason to multiply the % in AC and attack roll as they are two totally discreet separate rule interactions that don’t have any bearing on each other’s rolls. They should be averaged.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I thought making PCs vastly weaker would be a good thing since so many DMs complain about over powered PCs???

 

[tetrasodium]

I thought making PCs vastly weaker would be a good thing since so many DMs complain about over powered PCs???

Most GM's have 2-5 players and the ratio of players who have never been a gm that have zero interest in being one to GM's is a gap with a pretty significant margin. That's the fatal flaw in wotc's whole 31% veto thing

 

[Maxperson]

Suppose you reduce all PC ability scores by 2. So modifiers are all -1. This is easy to model.

Heavy armor: less likely, but same AC.
Light armor: 1 less point of AC.
Monks, unarmored barbarians: 2 less points of AC.

Con goes from 14 down to 12. Impact on HP of a level 3 character:
d12 HD: 29/32, 9.4% less
d10: 26/29, 10.4% less
d8: 23/26, 11.5% less
d6: 20/23, 13% less

At level 4+, with GWF (2024) and a two handed sword, 16->15 attack stat damage per swing from 13 to 12, a 8.7% reduction.

With Monk Unarmed Attack, damage per swing goes from 6.5 to 5.5, a 15.4% reduction.

So the L 4 15 strength GWF with Plate has 33 HP+9.5 SW deals 12 per swing at +5 to hit and has 18 AC; before this character had 17 strength, 37 HP+9.5 SW, did 13 per swing at +6 and 18 AC. Valuing each +1 ATK/DEF has 10%, -2 to all stats weakened the fighter by 42.5/46.5 * 12/13 * .9 = about 24%.

(You can use armor weaker than plate; the point is, the fighter's AC doesn't change, as they can pull off 15, enough for max heavy armor, by level 4.)

The monk goes from 34 to 30 HP, from 6.5 to 5.5 damage, from +6 to +5 ATK, and from 15 to 13 AC. They are 30/34 * 5.5/6.5 * .9 * .8 = about 46% weaker.

Completely non-viable? Probably not, but extremely weakened by this change.

(If you want a concrete metric, measure how many Guard NPC monsters the PC can kill in sequence before dying, and you'll get similar percentages. Each time a guard dies, a new one arrives and attacks immediately, no kiting. The fighter's action surge and the monk's Ki points will roughly cancel.)

My point is that you wanted PCs to be weaker. You expressed no desire for certain PC classes to be made more weaker than other PC classes, yet the in between class power changes are as large as the per-PC changes in many cases. This is a sign that the unintended consequences are as large or larger than your goals, which makes me question if it is good plan.

This is what I mean. The percentages look big, but it's still only a few points. 20 instead of 23. 29 instead of 32. 1 single point of damage. It's trivial and much ado about nothing.

Forget the 15.4% reduction. It's deceptive. It's still only 1 freaking point of damage against multiple big bags of 5e hit points. That PC is far better off taking a feat.

 

[NotAYakk]

Ok, I see where you’re getting inflated results.

Under the points buy I proposed the monk is still likely to have 16 Dex and 14 Wis at level 1. Possible 13 Wis if they have pushed Con instead.

Again I dispute the suggestion that negatives should be multiplied. Maybe you could argue that attack bonus and damage bonus could be multiplied as those two things are directly related. However there’s no sensible reason to multiply the % in AC and attack roll as they are two totally discreet separate rule interactions that don’t have any bearing on each other’s rolls. They should be averaged.

If you subtract a half point from all attribute modifiers, expect (at various levels) about half as much impact as if you subtracted a full point.

The point, again, is that dropping attributes has a significantly larger effect on monks than it does on heavy weapon fighters. Almost twice as much effect. And, if your goal is weakening PCs, this side effect being almost as large as your goal says to me that this is a bad way to do that.

If your goal was to paint your house red, and you used a technique that also painted 3/4 of your neighbors house red against their will and not because you wanted to just a side effect, that would probably be a bad way to paint your house red.

When the size of the unintended side effects of a technique are almost as large as the intended effects of your technique, I personally would recommend reconsidering your technique.

Note that making monsters a bit beefier does not have this effect. If you make monsters have about 20% more HP and damage, PCs will feel roughly 30% weaker (in the congo-line measure). This effect will be relatively uniform.

Then just avoid providing +X items (DC, ATK, AC) to keep modifiers in line at higher levels and bob is your uncle. (Prefer +Damage and other creative stuff. A suit of chain armor that lets you cast Armor of Agathys at your proficiency bonus level with a recharge of 6 is something I'd guess is on-par or weaker than +3 plate armor.)

 

[TheSword]

If you subtract a half point from all attribute modifiers, expect (at various levels) about half as much impact as if you subtracted a full point.

The point, again, is that dropping attributes has a significantly larger effect on monks than it does on heavy weapon fighters. Almost twice as much effect. And, if your goal is weakening PCs, this side effect being almost as large as your goal says to me that this is a bad way to do that.

If your goal was to paint your house red, and you used a technique that also painted 3/4 of your neighbors house red against their will and not because you wanted to just a side effect, that would probably be a bad way to paint your house red.

When the size of the unintended side effects of a technique are almost as large as the intended effects of your technique, I personally would recommend reconsidering your technique.

Note that making monsters a bit beefier does not have this effect. If you make monsters have about 20% more HP and damage, PCs will feel roughly 30% weaker (in the congo-line measure). This effect will be relatively uniform.

Then just avoid providing +X items (DC, ATK, AC) to keep modifiers in line at higher levels and bob is your uncle. (Prefer +Damage and other creative stuff. A suit of chain armor that lets you cast Armor of Agathys at your proficiency bonus level with a recharge of 6 is something I'd guess is on-par or weaker than +3 plate armor.)

I’m not sure why you would think a slightly larger statistical effect on monks AC and DPR (ignoring all other benefits they have) is a greater consequence than the benefit I’m trying to achieve. I don’t think it is. I think it’s a minor statistical swing is probably balanced by other benefits they get and even if it isn’t that choice is theirs. I’m not publishing a campaign, I’m offering a curated campaign to my players.

 

[Willie the Duck]

5.5 is criticized as being the most powerful edition of the game so far. Which might be challenge if you want to play in something like a Ravenloft campaign, where unbridled heroic power might limit the options for interesting encounters. If you are looking for something lower power which doesn’t limit your characters ability to progress, how does the following sound as an option?

I think others have done a fairly representative job of laying out the winners and losers of the proposal. I don't have anything in particular to say about the specific implementation*. What I'd like to explore is whether this change actually accomplishes the intended goal.
*at eyeball's glance it doesn't look that different from keeping the point buy costs and maximums the same and then just shifting the attribute modifier columns one row worse (a 3 nets you -5, a 20 gives +4)

We can (and have, a multitude of times) argue back and forth about how valuable a +1 in your (PC's) key attribute modifier actually is, but for the sake of simplicity* let's say 10% (e.g. a 18 Str fighter is 10% more effective than a 16 Str one). Or even more simplified, having +1 modifier in all your stats makes you 25% more effective. Is the critique of 5e being the most powerful edition or that it is hard to make a Ravenloft campaign feel right because the characters are 25% too effective? Would lowering them 20%** make the Ravenloft campaign feel scary and intimidating/less heroes-doing-heroic-things? Potentially yes, but let me argue no.
*and because I'm not about to make a numeric analysis, so specifics don't matter.
**If someone earns 25% more than you, lowering them to your level is a 20% loss to them.

1) Firstly, when I've heard people critique 5e for ease/power level, it isn't about the high numbers. The complaints are usually either larger whole-cloth systemic changes like:

• Full health recharge overnight.
• Too easy to rest/recharge resources (/too hard to justify interruptions all the time, overall '# of encounters per rest' expectations not realistic).
• Bonus action pop-up healing at range (Healing Word, 'whack-a-mole').
• Removal/diminishment of 'Save or Die'/'Save or Suck' spells and monster effects.
• Removal/diminishment of long-term or permanent penalties such as level drain, attribute damage, item/magic item destruction, and permadeath (or permanent death consequences).
• Removal/diminishment of limitations or considerations such as spellcasting disruption, wilderness survival challenges (Goodberry being too good and easy), arcane casting in armor, Vancian spell selection, or difficult/DM discretion magic item creation.
• Ease of multiclassing or feat/race-selecting one's way into a spell or class feature that hugely negates a limitation of one's existing/main class (1 level of fighter/cleric on wizards for armor, magic initiate for Shield for clerics or healing for wizards, ranger1/monk X-1 for Hunter's Mark and weapon mastery, etc.)
• The surprise, initiative, stealth, and perceiving rules, which every edition seem to have at least one incongruous result or abusable clause apiece.

Or hyper-specific changes like:

• Specific classes or builds (Twilight Cleric, Coffeelock, Shepherd Druid).
• Specific spells or spell combos (Wish+Similacrum, Animate Dead, 2014 Conjure Animals, action denial spells like Command).
• Specific strategies (kiting, Spike Growth+forced movement, Darkness+Devil's Sight, action economy maximization).

Now, some of these utilize the attribute modifiers (certainly anything with attacks or saves, but even Healing Word has a attribute-dependent quality). But really, it is more the overall existence of these qualities in general that seem to be the main issue (both in terms of perception, and in how the game plays out).

Easiest example is probably mages in armor. Magic users in BECMI can't do so, full stop*. That 5e wizards can do so (relatively simply) changes both the perception of power level, and how the game plays out (if you do not want to devote massive efforts to defending your incredibly vulnerable arcanist, there is a simple fix). Whether that armor gives you +10 AC (full plate and shield, with 15 str to do so without issue) or whatever you get with a 14, 13, or even 10 Str/Dex** obviously matters, but just the fact that you can do so at all changes things drastically.
*I'm sure there is some exception somewhere, AD&D certainly has several.
**or full plate+ shield and 8 str, and eat the consequences.

2) Secondly, D&D in general was already playing catch-up on a lot of these things. I remember playing Ravenloft in 1e/2e -- even back then it had some general thematic architectural faults. You were already used to going into the scary unknown and slaughtering* (with a certain amount of risk and difficulty) werewolves and vampires and creepy-crawlies of all sizes and stripes. Code switching to them now being scary was always an uphill battle. This is hardly inarguable, but I recall more than a few people saying that it was less horror and more AD&D's Halloween edition.
*and yeah yeah yeah, adage about older D&D really supposed to be a combat-avoiding heist game where you avoided the fights at all cost and crept around in perpetual fear. Was it actually played that way enough to make that the general perception (and, if so, why was Ravenloft necessary?)

Given this, I'm not sure that moving 5e back towards earlier versions of the game (through cutting character effectiveness by some moderate amount) really accomplishes the stated goal. What I think might be more effective would be a broader reframing of the game (or making/using an at least slightly different game) at a more fundamental level. One where fundamental assumptions like 'you are here to defeat monsters and take their stuff,' or even, 'most entities encountered can be addressed through combat,' might not apply. I'm not saying all horror games need to be Vaesen or Ten Candles, merely that older A/D&D* was itself often not-optimized to capturing this feel, and merely moving 5e back in that direction a little might not accomplish the task.
*and even Call of Cthulhu sometimes. I recall entirely too many situations where (by the rules) dynamite and shotguns really were the optimal solution

Mind you, none of this means that (IMO, clearly) you shouldn't try to power-down 5e if you want. Nor that this isn't an option towards doing so. I just feel it is a bit rearrange-the-deck-chairs-y, both for powering it down (where I think larger issues than 14 vs 18 attributes are the primary influence) and for achieving unheroic scary Ravenloft games (where I think examining what you want the game to do might be more fruitful). Either way have fun with what you decide to do, and let us know what you decide.

 

[TheSword]

I think others have done a fairly representative job of laying out the winners and losers of the proposal. I don't have anything in particular to say about the specific implementation*. What I'd like to explore is whether this change actually accomplishes the intended goal.
*at eyeball's glance it doesn't look that different from keeping the point buy costs and maximums the same and then just shifting the attribute modifier columns one row worse (a 3 nets you -5, a 20 gives +4)

We can (and have, a multitude of times) argue back and forth about how valuable a +1 in your (PC's) key attribute modifier actually is, but for the sake of simplicity* let's say 10% (e.g. a 18 Str fighter is 10% more effective than a 16 Str one). Or even more simplified, having +1 modifier in all your stats makes you 25% more effective. Is the critique of 5e being the most powerful edition or that it is hard to make a Ravenloft campaign feel right because the characters are 25% too effective? Would lowering them 20%** make the Ravenloft campaign feel scary and intimidating/less heroes-doing-heroic-things? Potentially yes, but let me argue no.
*and because I'm not about to make a numeric analysis, so specifics don't matter.
**If someone earns 25% more than you, lowering them to your level is a 20% loss to them.

1) Firstly, when I've heard people critique 5e for ease/power level, it isn't about the high numbers. The complaints are usually either larger whole-cloth systemic changes like:

• Full health recharge overnight.
• Too easy to rest/recharge resources (/too hard to justify interruptions all the time, overall '# of encounters per rest' expectations not realistic).
• Bonus action pop-up healing at range (Healing Word, 'whack-a-mole').
• Removal/diminishment of 'Save or Die'/'Save or Suck' spells and monster effects.
• Removal/diminishment of long-term or permanent penalties such as level drain, attribute damage, item/magic item destruction, and permadeath (or permanent death consequences).
• Removal/diminishment of limitations or considerations such as spellcasting disruption, wilderness survival challenges (Goodberry being too good and easy), arcane casting in armor, Vancian spell selection, or difficult/DM discretion magic item creation.
• Ease of multiclassing or feat/race-selecting one's way into a spell or class feature that hugely negates a limitation of one's existing/main class (1 level of fighter/cleric on wizards for armor, magic initiate for Shield for clerics or healing for wizards, ranger1/monk X-1 for Hunter's Mark and weapon mastery, etc.)
• The surprise, initiative, stealth, and perceiving rules, which every edition seem to have at least one incongruous result or abusable clause apiece.

Or hyper-specific changes like:

• Specific classes or builds (Twilight Cleric, Coffeelock, Shepherd Druid).
• Specific spells or spell combos (Wish+Similacrum, Animate Dead, 2014 Conjure Animals, action denial spells like Command).
• Specific strategies (kiting, Spike Growth+forced movement, Darkness+Devil's Sight, action economy maximization).

Now, some of these utilize the attribute modifiers (certainly anything with attacks or saves, but even Healing Word has a attribute-dependent quality). But really, it is more the overall existence of these qualities in general that seem to be the main issue (both in terms of perception, and in how the game plays out).

Easiest example is probably mages in armor. Magic users in BECMI can't do so, full stop*. That 5e wizards can do so (relatively simply) changes both the perception of power level, and how the game plays out (if you do not want to devote massive efforts to defending your incredibly vulnerable arcanist, there is a simple fix). Whether that armor gives you +10 AC (full plate and shield, with 15 str to do so without issue) or whatever you get with a 14, 13, or even 10 Str/Dex** obviously matters, but just the fact that you can do so at all changes things drastically.
*I'm sure there is some exception somewhere, AD&D certainly has several.
**or full plate+ shield and 8 str, and eat the consequences.

2) Secondly, D&D in general was already playing catch-up on a lot of these things. I remember playing Ravenloft in 1e/2e -- even back then it had some general thematic architectural faults. You were already used to going into the scary unknown and slaughtering* (with a certain amount of risk and difficulty) werewolves and vampires and creepy-crawlies of all sizes and stripes. Code switching to them now being scary was always an uphill battle. This is hardly inarguable, but I recall more than a few people saying that it was less horror and more AD&D's Halloween edition.
*and yeah yeah yeah, adage about older D&D really supposed to be a combat-avoiding heist game where you avoided the fights at all cost and crept around in perpetual fear. Was it actually played that way enough to make that the general perception (and, if so, why was Ravenloft necessary?)

Given this, I'm not sure that moving 5e back towards earlier versions of the game (through cutting character effectiveness by some moderate amount) really accomplishes the stated goal. What I think might be more effective would be a broader reframing of the game (or making/using an at least slightly different game) at a more fundamental level. One where fundamental assumptions like 'you are here to defeat monsters and take their stuff,' or even, 'most entities encountered can be addressed through combat,' might not apply. I'm not saying all horror games need to be Vaesen or Ten Candles, merely that older A/D&D* was itself often not-optimized to capturing this feel, and merely moving 5e back in that direction a little might not accomplish the task.
*and even Call of Cthulhu sometimes. I recall entirely too many situations where (by the rules) dynamite and shotguns really were the optimal solution

Mind you, none of this means that (IMO, clearly) you shouldn't try to power-down 5e if you want. Nor that this isn't an option towards doing so. I just feel it is a bit rearrange-the-deck-chairs-y, both for powering it down (where I think larger issues than 14 vs 18 attributes are the primary influence) and for achieving unheroic scary Ravenloft games (where I think examining what you want the game to do might be more fruitful). Either way have fun with what you decide to do, and let us know what you decide.

Great post. So much in there to agree with.

I guess my response would be to say that I think you need a combination of things… reduced ability scores is one tool in the toolkit to reduce the heroic feel.

Others I’m probably considering are.

• Single class only
• One level of exhaustion upon hitting 0 hp
• Exhaustion removed by resting in a safe space
• Only healing overnight by spending hit dice or resting in a safe space
• Amending selected monster to have longer ranging effects. E.g shadows strength drain requires a short rest in direct sunlight.
• Restricting some key offenders - Tiny hut, rope trick, twilight cleric, world tree barbarian etc.
• A shadow corruption mechanic similar to AIME.

Some players may baulk at these restrictions and it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea. This is also not the game I typically play. I’ve also done the opposite and ran a Greek odyssey campaign where the players were close to demigods and had boosted stats, free resurrections, legendary magic items etc. I just think Ravenloft is utterly wasted on the scooby do, happy Halloween adventure romp. If that’s what folks want then that’s cool, I just wouldn’t want to DM it in Ravenloft.

I remember Curse of Strahd worked so well with a curated ruleset but the key thing I did was under level the PCs by 2. They went straight into Barovia with the wolf ambush at the level 1 with all the atmospherics and Ravenloft tricks I could muster. Feedback was that it was genuinely scary, the wolves in the mists, the screaming from the church cellar, the ladies of old-bonegrinder, the first meeting with Strahd. There was one memorable scene on a bridge west of Valaki where a group of farmers with a wagon were heading the other way. They warned the PCs of werewolves in the hills, said they would need silver weapons to hurt them and asked if the PCs had any themselves or if they had any they could share or sell? When the PCs said they only had one small dagger, the farmers said ‘good’ and transformed.

The only problem with using under-leveling as a tactic is that it becomes less effective as you level up. So unless stop leveling with some kind of E6 system or dramatically slow it becomes less and less effective. For me self improvement and development is one of the key motivations as a player (I include gaining magic items in that). I’d touch that last to be honest, and then only reluctantly.

 

[GuyBoy]

Great post. So much in there to agree with.

I guess my response would be to say that I think you need a combination of things… reduced ability scores is one tool in the toolkit to reduce the heroic feel.

Others I’m probably considering are.

• Single class only
• One level of exhaustion upon hitting 0 hp
• Exhaustion removed by resting in a safe space
• Only healing overnight by spending hit dice or resting in a safe space
• Amending selected monster to have longer ranging effects. E.g shadows strength drain requires a short rest in direct sunlight.
• Restricting some key offenders - Tiny hut, rope trick, twilight cleric, world tree barbarian etc.
• A shadow corruption mechanic similar to AIME.

Some players may baulk at these restrictions and it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea. This is also not the game I typically play. I’ve also done the opposite and ran a Greek odyssey campaign where the players were close to demigods and had boosted stats, free resurrections, legendary magic items etc. I just think Ravenloft is utterly wasted on the scooby do, happy Halloween adventure romp. If that’s what folks want then that’s cool, I just wouldn’t want to DM it in Ravenloft.

I remember Curse of Strahd worked so well with a curated ruleset but the key thing I did was under level the PCs by 2. They went straight into Barovia with the wolf ambush at the level 1 with all the atmospherics and Ravenloft tricks I could muster. Feedback was that it was genuinely scary, the wolves in the mists, the screening from the church cellar, the ladies of old-bonegrinder, the first meeting with Strahd. There was one memorable scene on a bridge west of Valaki where a group of farmers with a wagon were heading the other way. They warned the PCs of werewolves in the hills, said they would need silver weapons to hurt them and asked if the PCs had any themselves or if they had any they could share or sell? When the PCs said they only had one small dagger, the farmers said ‘good’ and transformed.

The only problem with using under-leveling as a tactic is that it becomes less effective as you level up. So unless stop leveling with some kind of E6 system or dramatically slow it becomes less and less effective. For me self improvement and development is one of the key motivations as a player (I include gaining magic items in that). I’d touch that last to be honest, and then only reluctantly.

I was privileged to be one of the players in this campaign and can confirm that the sense of terror was real and exhilarating. The scene with the “farmers” transforming to werewolves was truly scary, as were so many other aspects of that campaign.
We truly “lived” the Gothic horror aspects of Ravenloft, and I’m convinced that a big part of that is that we didn’t have min-maxed characters who could just say, “ ho-hum, werewolves; my DPR makes this a cakewalk.”