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

[doctorbadwolf]

Am I the only one that never saw Con below 12 in any edition? Maybe I just remember the older editions? Did 2e not tie HP and Con together? Were Con saves not a big deal?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But 12 is already above average! Why would that be "bad" ?

Read it again. You seem to have mixed something up. Or, if you think I’ve misunderstood you, explain what you mean. As it is, your reply to me makes no sense.

 

[Flamestrike]

If a player is constantly asking "Do I know anything about [xxxxx]?" then there's going to be a constant series of checks. Either that, or the DM just uses fiat to say no which probably woudn't go over very well.

In your game maybe, but not in ones I DM.

The DM determines when a check is possible, not the player. He either says 'Yes' and assigns a DC, says 'No need, you succeed' or says 'No'.

Want me to point to the rules in the PHB and DMG that expressly state this?

 

[DND_Reborn]

In your game maybe, but not in ones I DM.

The DM determines when a check is possible, not the player. He either says 'Yes' and assigns a DC, says 'No need, you succeed' or says 'No'.

Want me to point to the rules in the PHB and DMG that expressly state this?

(bold added)

Sorry, but I always find such statements amusing.

 

[Ratskinner]

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...).

Maybe Fighter C has a little more experience under his belt to make up for his natural lack of abilities? I am assuming that either you'd be assigning a standard array or otherwise choosing such distinctions at character creation.

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.?

Narratively, yes. He would have whatever bonuses the wizard class gave him, which I would think should be generally lower than the fighter's. None of these "stat" distinctions apply to combat statistics numerically.

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?

I'm thinking this is more along the lines of the way thieving skills were done in AD&D. If you keep ability scores as modifiers to non-combat, then the different abilities would narratively and occasionally mechanically differentiate characters of the same class. i.e. Sneak/Stealth/whatever is not inherently based on Dex. I would be in favor of dropping Ability Scores entirely, but I was responding to an objection to dropping them.

 

[Kinematics]

Am I the only one that never saw Con below 12 in any edition? Maybe I just remember the older editions? Did 2e not tie HP and Con together? Were Con saves not a big deal?

I actually was just looking at the 2E stat stuff the other day. IIRC, anything between 8 and 14 gave 0 bonus to HP. 15 gave a +1, 16 a +2, and if you weren't a fighter, you could never get a bonus higher than +2.

Con gave some other minor bonuses, but overall wasn't worth it unless you rolled ridiculously well. An 8 Con would hardly be noticed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I actually was just looking at the 2E stat stuff the other day. IIRC, anything between 8 and 14 gave 0 bonus to HP. 15 gave a +1, 16 a +2, and if you weren't a fighter, you could never get a bonus higher than +2.

Con gave some other minor bonuses, but overall wasn't worth it unless you rolled ridiculously well. An 8 Con would hardly be noticed.

Yeah, I genuinely don’t remember much of the mechanics of 2e even though it was my first proper D&D.

Mostly I remember not liking it as much as I expected to, and being bummed out by that, and then 3.5 improvedsome basic mechanics but also just somehow made a game I liked even less, and then I finally liked D&D as Written with 4e.

 

[Don Durito]

Now I'm remembering the adjustment I was considering making.

Bonus HPs per level up to be based off lowest of Str or Con.

 

[J-H]

One of my players (Castlevania, 5e, combat-heavy) has an 8 in CON on his Arcane Trickster. I think his character has been reduced to 0 hp only three times from level 3 through level 10. He stays out of melee, hides a lot, and attacks at range.

I still favor CON 12-14 for most characters, but yes, some people really do dump CON. This guy actually ran the FLGS for a while and has played and run more D&D than I have.

 

[Don Durito]

One of my players (Castlevania, 5e, combat-heavy) has an 8 in CON on his Arcane Trickster. I think his character has been reduced to 0 hp only three times from level 3 through level 10. He stays out of melee, hides a lot, and attacks at range.

I still favor CON 12-14 for most characters, but yes, some people really do dump CON. This guy actually ran the FLGS for a while and has played and run more D&D than I have.

You can definitely do it. It's not that bad. After all for most of the history of the game wizards got by with d4 hit die. It's just that people think you can't.

Perception matters, however.