D&D 5E Ability scores and attack bonus.

[Enchanter Tom]

Normally in D&D, strong creatures are represented by having a higher Strength score. This makes sense, but it is bad because it causes to-hit values to get out of control. A few suggestions for how to deal with this.

(a) Separate attack and damage rolls. Give characters a to-hit bonus that doesn't change with their ability scores.

(b) Cap ability scores and focus on them as being proportional to a creature's size. An ogre with 12 Strength is still really strong, but he's average for an ogre. A cat with 18 strength is still really weak, but he's strong for a cat.

(c) Limit ability score contribution to attack values. Add half your modifier if necessary.

 

[Cadence]

Haven't been following 5e very closely... weren't some of their changes being done with fixing this problem in mind? Do you have a favorite example of where they don't work?

(a) If hitting includes penetrating armor and protection, and strength helps penetrate many armors and protections, then shouldn't strength be related to ability to hit?

(b) Would there be a flat size bonus to damage then? Would you need something like the crazy Villains and Vigilantes formula for carrying capacity [(Strength/10)^3 + (Con/10)] x Weight/2 ? What if something of a certain size is supposed to be stronger (construct, outsider, etc...)? Does capping make sense for any of the other abilities?

 

[billd91]

Capping pretty much makes sense for all abilities to keep the bonus bloat down. But isn't the current cap 20? What does cutting it down 2 points really buy us?

 

[Dausuul]

Capping pretty much makes sense for all abilities to keep the bonus bloat down. But isn't the current cap 20? What does cutting it down 2 points really buy us?

Agreed. And I really, really don't see the point of making ability scores proportional to size. When a halfling tries to bull rush an ogre, I don't want to have to fiddle around with size modifiers like in 3E--that was a huge (or rather, Huge) nuisance. It's much easier if I can just call for a straight-up Strength check.

I do agree with separating attack bonuses and ability scores, but I think that ship has sailed.

 

[Enchanter Tom]

Capping pretty much makes sense for all abilities to keep the bonus bloat down. But isn't the current cap 20? What does cutting it down 2 points really buy us?

That was my original title. I changed the premise of the post but forgot to edit it.

 

[Szatany]

(a) Separate attack and damage rolls. Give characters a to-hit bonus that doesn't change with their ability scores.

It would be interesting to test a rule in which you use worse of Str/Dex for melee attacks, and worse of Dex/Wis for ranged attacks.

 

[Falling Icicle]

PC stats cap at 20 and monster stats cap at 30. Even that amazing and ultra rare 30 Str monster only has +5 more to hit than a 20 Str PC. Most monsters don't have anywhere near a 30 Str. So it's not really much of a problem in this edition.

 

[TheRustyOne]

Are you also willing to separate Dex from AC bonus? From initiative bonus? With bounded accuracy, those Str scores are never going to get too high, also, see Cap of 20. Although I don't know why they still need to give out stat increases.

 

[Talath]

I always felt that the bonus for stats above 19 should be 5 + (Ability Score - 20). Because epic monsters and deities.

 

[n00bdragon]

Attack bonus from Strength is a design feature holdover from when bonuses started at values that most people never got. Rare was the character that rolled high enough to get any bonus to attack or damage at all, and the rules for strength bonuses only applied to characters really. Monster damage values were simply pulled out of a hat. When 3e was made it was really sloppily done and that design logic was just tossed out the door. Now with bonuses beginning at 12 every adventurer needs a high score just to do their job with the base level of competency.