D&D 5E Ability Score Balance: through the eyes of fresh players

[Blue]

Yes. As such I prefer rolling. But I also hate rolling, because inevitably you get someone with an 18 and then their racial makes it a 20 and they're basically just able to start taking Feats from L4 onwards and kinda-breaking the bounded accuracy (not quite but it sure feels like it). And I have yet to find a method which includes both the fun of rolling, and isn't prone to giving some players drastically less playable characters.

I read about a method I did like the sound of, apparently used for some Pathfinder Adventure Paths, called Focus and Foible, which is that all the PCs start with an 18 and an 8, and roll 1d10+8 (I think - or possibly 1d10+7) for the rest of their stats. At worst you're going to get a character good only at one thing, and even that's rather unlikely. It shares the "Feats from Level 4" issue, but at least all the PCs will have that.

I like rolling as well, but don't do it in 5e.

I played with a DM back with AD&D 2nd that had us roll three sets of 4d6k3 in order, and then keep whichever set we wanted. Made really organic characters, and you didn't always get to play what you wanted. (But back then you needed a 17 CHR to play a paladin and certain races could not be certain classes, so there were restrictions anyhow.) One of my favorites was a bard with an 18 CON. Back then, if you weren't a martial you maxed out with bonuses at 16 CON. So it wasn't actually helpful mechanically. But the DM let me drink most people under the table, which became one of his character traits.

But however much I love rolling, in 5e I love the Faustian bargain of an ASI or a feat more. Both offer very different types of rewards, and there's a real opportunity cost to choosing one and not the other. I feel it's a meaningful choice that will help define this character vs. others. So I use point buy when I run.

 

[billd91]

But however much I love rolling, in 5e I love the Faustian bargain of an ASI or a feat more. Both offer very different types of rewards, and there's a real opportunity cost to choosing one and not the other. I feel it's a meaningful choice that will help define this character vs. others. So I use point buy when I run.

We roll for stats in 5e and still feel the choice between an ASI and a feat is a meaningful one. I suppose it could be undermined a bit by rolling mostly or all even numbers, but I rolled a lot of odd values and had to make a pretty difficult choice between ASI and a feat.

 

[FrogReaver]

Really?
Its beating cantrips all the way from level 1 to level 11, and most of them even after that.
Its beating at-will weapon attacks from classes without extra attack from level 5 onwards.

At level 1 a longbow with +2 dex will do roughly the same as a firebolt -1 hit/+1dmg in comparison.
By level 5 the comparison becomes -2hit/+2dmg
By level 8 the comparison becomes -3hit/+2dmg

If you have 14 dex, extra attack and a longbow then you pretty much keep up with cantrips till level 8. So through most of the game you are relatively close to a cantrip. Probably a little better at low levels and a little worse at high levels.

Of course if you have 12 dex then a caster using a cantrip is better the whole way through.

 

[Blue]

We roll for stats in 5e and still feel the choice between an ASI and a feat is a meaningful one. I suppose it could be undermined a bit by rolling mostly or all even numbers, but I rolled a lot of odd values and had to make a pretty difficult choice between ASI and a feat.

You have a point, let me expand.

A character under point buy will definitely be at a point where ASIs and feats are both desirable. As you take more of one, you will sate it some and the other may become more desirable. In general it's a hard choice for a 4th level character picking their first ASI/feat (less so for vHuman), and a 20th level character will likely have both ASIs and feats.

For rolling it's a bit different. Just like over 6 rolls you'll have variation, over 5 sets of rolls - that is to say all the characters - you'll have variation. You'll get some who may have rolled a well but nothing too high so ASIs are a lot more compelling of a pick. You'll have some where the ability or abilities they need are already high so a feat is a lot more compelling pick. You have people who just didn't roll all that good so they need ASIs - a lot of them - just to contribute and survive. And may have the opposite, the great set of rolls that there's nor reason not to take feats.

For a lot of them, the choice isn't balanced - ASI or feat are not equal to them. So there's less opportunity cost, less Faustian bargain, and more what the mechanics are telling me / freeing me to do.

 

[Blue]

If the player of a low-Int character insists on making Int checks, once in a while I'd be sorely tempted to - on what seems a successful roll - give information that later proves to be outright wrong: the PC has accurately remembered some complete BS it heard somewhere along the line.

Quick clarification - is this the "I had a DC in mind that applied to all characters, and this player thinks they made it but didn't with their character's penalty"? In which case I agree with you - I'll give out incorrect information on a flubbed roll sometimes.

Or is it "with the mechanical penalty accounted for they made the DC, a rare event, but I'm going to give them an extra penalty on top by turning their rare success into misinformation?" In which case I'm against this. It's like "well, they missed your AC but you have a low DEX so you fall prone because I feel like it".

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't agree with dumping stats, but I could see getting a bonus from your class.

You could do it (mostly) without dumping the stats, too. Just get rid of their bonuses to combat stats. Then you can balance all the classes without having to worry about how stats affect them. The only difference would be the narrative explanation that Fighter A (with high physical stats) gets all his bonuses from his great physique, while Fighter B (with higher mental stats) gets all his bonuses from his training, wits, and willpower. Other tidbits would help, too.

Stats are saves...so, let the player narratively describe how they save vs. whatever. Get poisoned? High Con guy just toughs it out, high Wisdom guy treats it, etc. High Charisma guy will have a tough time with poison, but c'est la vie.

The tougher part (perhaps only conceptually) is skillmonkeys. If the skills still directly default to certain stats...that still puts a weight on them. So, I would again divorce them. I'd also re-work how certain skillsy things work, taking a page from Dungeon World. For instance, Perception would go away, becoming a save...did you see the trap before you triggered it? This would only apply to things that you didn't state you were looking for. Similarly speaking, if you want to sneak...you sneak. The other guy needs to make a save to see you. What kind of save? I dunno, describe to me how you are sneaking past. Wait for him to fall asleep...Con, distract him with a pebble toss?, Int. Alternatively, you could internalize the DCs for various activities within the classes/backgrounds/races. i.e. Sneaking is DC 20 for a Human Fighter, but DC 10 for a Halfling Rogue. Again, what stat you use depends on what you are doing. So if you're trying to climb a wall sneakily...Strength, get through a crowd at a party...Cha, in a precarious situation...Dex.

just my $.02

 

[Don Durito]

You don't actually have to get rid of the ability scores just have to make them largely irrelevant to actual resolution.

This way they could fulfill the function they were actually designed for more freely and be an actual description of your character. You could even roll them 3d6 in order if you wanted to. .

 

[DND_Reborn]

You could do it (mostly) without dumping the stats, too. Just get rid of their bonuses to combat stats. Then you can balance all the classes without having to worry about how stats affect them. The only difference would be the narrative explanation that Fighter A (with high physical stats) gets all his bonuses from his great physique, while Fighter B (with higher mental stats) gets all his bonuses from his training, wits, and willpower. Other tidbits would help, too.

Stats are saves...so, let the player narratively describe how they save vs. whatever. Get poisoned? High Con guy just toughs it out, high Wisdom guy treats it, etc. High Charisma guy will have a tough time with poison, but c'est la vie.

The tougher part (perhaps only conceptually) is skillmonkeys. If the skills still directly default to certain stats...that still puts a weight on them. So, I would again divorce them. I'd also re-work how certain skillsy things work, taking a page from Dungeon World. For instance, Perception would go away, becoming a save...did you see the trap before you triggered it? This would only apply to things that you didn't state you were looking for. Similarly speaking, if you want to sneak...you sneak. The other guy needs to make a save to see you. What kind of save? I dunno, describe to me how you are sneaking past. Wait for him to fall asleep...Con, distract him with a pebble toss?, Int. Alternatively, you could internalize the DCs for various activities within the classes/backgrounds/races. i.e. Sneaking is DC 20 for a Human Fighter, but DC 10 for a Halfling Rogue. Again, what stat you use depends on what you are doing. So if you're trying to climb a wall sneakily...Strength, get through a crowd at a party...Cha, in a precarious situation...Dex.

just my $.02

So, if Fighter A is strong, and Fighter B is smart, where does Fighter C, who is not exceptional in anything perhaps, get his bonuses from? They all get bonuses from level (i.e. proficiency bonus), so if you give them all the same bonus but narrate it differently, aren't you basically just making them all the same (which would seem boring...).

Also, if Fighter B is smart, and gets his combat bonuses from INT, wouldn't the Wizard also get his combat bonuses from INT when he swings his staff, etc.?

Finally, changing the DC for a check because on class is better at it then the other (your sneaking Human Fighter vs. Halfling Rogue), you can keep the same DC but just five the Halfling Rogue the +10. Which is pretty much what the game already does, right? The Rogue will have proficiency, the Fighter not as likely, and the Halfling might also have a higher DEX, put it all together and you get your +10 or whatever.

Maybe I am just not seeing it?

You don't actually have to get rid of the ability scores just have to make them largely irrelevant to actual resolution.

This way they could fulfill the function they were actually designed for more freely and be an actual description of your character. You could even roll them 3d6 in order if you wanted to. .

(bold added)

So, if they become largely irrelevant, why have them?

 

[Don Durito]

So, if they become largely irrelevant, why have them?

Sacred Cows.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Unrelated crazy idea:

Fighting Styles
You can learn one style and an additional number of styles equal to your Intelligence modifier. (I would go so far as to indicate with INT 8 you won't get a style, but I am an evil, cruel, and wicked DM. )

Since many styles don't have crazy synergies, I don't think this would be too OP on the surface, and it would give at least some benefit for Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers to have a decent INT score. With adding UA styles, you have a decent selection even for someone like a Fighter/Wizard (bladesinger).

Any big issues with this? At a glance I don't see any.