Ability scores do not affect attacks/defenses

eriktheguy

First Post
I'm currently working on a new house rule that will eliminate what I think has been a negative trend since 3e.

Before I continue let me say that I think every edition of D&D has been a drastic improvement over the previous edition, and that 4e is by far the best, most balanced, and most newb friendly.

There has been one trend in D&D that I do not like. In original D&D ability scores basically determined your character's flavor (how they acted out of combat) and affected their experience gain.

In 1st/2nd edition, extreme ability scores marginally improved your combat statistics. A player with a 17 Str score was looking at +1 to hit. Since rolling was the default method, extreme scores were rare. Mostly level and class decided combat statistics.

3rd edition began a real trend of having ability scores determine combat. Str improved melee, Dex was for ranged attacks, Int made your spells harder to save against, etc. Since rolling was the default method, two characters of the same level could have vast power differences. The balance was decent.

4th edition makes the 3rd edition system much cleaner. Every class uses their own ability score to hit, rogues attack with dex and wizards with Int. Things are more balanced. Also, ability scores were no longer rolled. You are pretty much guaranteed an 18 (including racial mods). Everyone gets a decent to-hit value. The game is so balanced that we actually have time to complain about things like expertise making a difference.

But the problem remains that most of the time, your class determines your ability scores, and this gives characters little flexibility. If you want to make a fencer style fighter with low Str that uses agility and cunning to hit, too bad. Make a rogue. Fighters require at least 16 Str to be playable, and I would suggest at least 18.
Another problem is non-AC defenses. In order to have a character with decent attacks and defenses, your stat block will look like this.
18
10
16
10
16
8
and will become even more exaggerated as you level up. I think it's ugly. I preferred when ability scores determined how good you were at skills and helped describe your character, and attacks were determined mostly by level.

My analysis is that ability scores don't NEED to affect defenses and attacks. We already have several scaling numbers that affect these rolls (level, expertise, enhancement) and ability scores are just unnecessary.

So my suggested house rule is to alter the game so that ability scores no longer affect to-hit rolls, AC, or NADs. Your primary ability score still effects damage, and your secondary ability scores still effect secondary bonuses, but attack rolls and defenses no longer rely on ability scores.

The immediate effects of this are greater freedom in character creation. A fighter with 14 Str is doing 2 less damage than an 'optimal build', but no longer suffering a crippling to-hit penalty. If you want a sly rogue with only 14 dex but 18 Cha, do it! Chances are you can make a near optimal character relative to someone with 18 Dex. The character will certainly be playable.

You can also make builds that involve two ability scores in the same category. No longer do characters with 18 Str and 16 Con have to suffer terrible Ref and Will.

Finally, this idea fixes some problems with the scaling of players' lowest NAD's at higher levels.

To balance this rule would be difficult. I will generate a small chart of penalties to apply to monster Attacks/Defenses at each level 1-30. This will balance the monsters to the 'no ability scores' idea and make creatures from the Monster Manual usable with minimal alteration. A benefit to this is that you can work the 4e math issues into this chart and eliminate the need for expertise and paragon defenses.

Another alteration I would have to make is to light/heavy armor. I don't know exactly what to do with that. I'm sure it can be fixed.

The final problem, and the reason that I will probably never use this house rule, is that it would be impossible to implement in character builder.

So what do you think? Would a system in which ability scores do not effect attack/defense be better? If not house rule material, would it make a good 5e?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Wow, erik, that's pretty radical. I can see where you're going with it, though, and I think its perfectly workable as a house rule.

If your general problem is "All characters look the same", you can still take some other approaches in Character Builder.

Its certainly got the ability to support rolled-up characters - you just get the little "H" icon that denotes a House-Ruled character.

Alternately, you can use a different point buy scale .. you could house rule a different point buy system or even house rule a "No attribute higher than 15 before racial mods" rule .. which might give me a rogue with a 15 dex and a 17 cha, depending on my race.

The Monster Manual monsters are still perfectly usable in these cases ... the DM just needs to be careful in encounter construction. Where an optimized party might be able to handle a Level+2 encounter as a non-boss, middle-of-the-day fight .. Level+2 might be a near-TPK boss fight for a party rolled up using non-optimal means. (It also requires some careful vetting of published material.)

The "balance" problem, in my mind, only really comes up when you have one or two optimized-build players mixed in with a group of non-optimal, role-play players. Creating a good mix of monsters for that situation is very challenging for a DM, as anything that challenges the optimized characters is too tough for the non-optimized characters. On the other hand, if the DM throws out enough skill challenges, the role-play characters are going to shine and the optimized-for-combat character is going to regret his choices.
 

Here's another thread that discusses a similar idea, though one far more drastic than yours:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/272300-10-better-hit-period-3.html

As for your idea, sounds reasonable and not too hard to implement, but a few things to consider:

1. Alchemical items and other things with fixed attack bonuses that players used will need to be reduced a bit to compensate for the reduction in attack bonuses.

2. You will significantly increase the number of viable multiclassing options because it will be much easier to multiclass in different classes that have different primary ability scores. This is probably good as it increases options, but could crete more possibilities for min-maxing.

3. In some cases you will actually make secondary ability scores more important than primary ability scores. For example, pacifist clerics don't do damage anyway, so they will be able to dump wisdom, and spend the extra points to boost their secondary ability scores. That is something you might be able to deal with on a case by case basis though.

----

Here's another interesting idea I read earlier, although I don't know how well it will work. Each character has two separate sets of stats, each generated through the normal point buy method. One set of stats is used for combat, the other set of stats is used for skills and such. Flavor-wise, the first set of stats represents the character's "combat style", while the second set of stats represents the character' actual strength, dexterity, intelligence etc. In your example of "a fencer style fighter with low STR that relies on agility and cunning to hit," he would be a fighter whose "combat stats" have high STR, while his "noncombat stats" have lower STR but higher DEX or INT.
 

Its certainly got the ability to support rolled-up characters - you just get the little "H" icon that denotes a House-Ruled character.

The "balance" problem, in my mind, only really comes up when you have one or two optimized-build players mixed in with a group of non-optimal, role-play players. Creating a good mix of monsters for that situation is very challenging for a DM, as anything that challenges the optimized characters is too tough for the non-optimized characters. On the other hand, if the DM throws out enough skill challenges, the role-play characters are going to shine and the optimized-for-combat character is going to regret his choices.

That's a good point about the rolling, I never even though of that. Rolling worked in 2e because ability scores didn't really alter combat. Point buy is better for 4e where ability scores are intrinsic to combat. 3e had the worst combination of the two because rolled stats and combat intrinsic stats do not mix well.
So I guess my house rule would pose a possible solution for DMs that want to go back to rolling without breaking the balance.

I think that my rules would actually present LESS opportunity for players to min/max relative to each other. Under my system the biggest difference between a role-playing character and a min/max character is going to be about 2 points of damage per hit, and an occasional secondary effect being weaker. This is really nothing compared to a difference in 'to-hit' values under the current system.
And I agree with you about using skill challenges and RP in a party where some characters are min-maxed and others aren't. At my table there are some players that are really important to combat and others that are really important to socializing with NPCs.

Here's another thread that discusses a similar idea, though one far more drastic than yours:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/272300-10-better-hit-period-3.html

As for your idea, sounds reasonable and not too hard to implement, but a few things to consider:

1. Alchemical items and other things with fixed attack bonuses that players used will need to be reduced a bit to compensate for the reduction in attack bonuses.

2. You will significantly increase the number of viable multiclassing options because it will be much easier to multiclass in different classes that have different primary ability scores. This is probably good as it increases options, but could crete more possibilities for min-maxing.

3. In some cases you will actually make secondary ability scores more important than primary ability scores. For example, pacifist clerics don't do damage anyway, so they will be able to dump wisdom, and spend the extra points to boost their secondary ability scores. That is something you might be able to deal with on a case by case basis though.

----

Here's another interesting idea I read earlier, although I don't know how well it will work. Each character has two separate sets of stats, each generated through the normal point buy method. One set of stats is used for combat, the other set of stats is used for skills and such. Flavor-wise, the first set of stats represents the character's "combat style", while the second set of stats represents the character' actual strength, dexterity, intelligence etc. In your example of "a fencer style fighter with low STR that relies on agility and cunning to hit," he would be a fighter whose "combat stats" have high STR, while his "noncombat stats" have lower STR but higher DEX or INT.

I saw that thread. I thought it was a good idea, but wouldn't use it at my table. I think that taking the characters levels/builds out of the question entirely goes a bit far. I will admit that the thread partially inspired this idea. I think this idea is a little less extreme.

I also recognized that in some cases secondary ability scores will outshine primary ability scores. Not only am I okay with this, but I like it! I think it's a great way to expand the build and flavor options in the game. A rogue with 18Cha 14Dex is easily playable when you use 'sly flourish' for example, and could even be considered optimized!

Thanks for the note on alchemical and similar items, missed that.

Increasing the number of multiclass options was an unmentioned benefit of this system. I dislike that in the current edition many multiclass combinations are highly incompatible, and some that are compatible and cool fall far below the level of optimized. For example, multiclassing as a rogue/bard would be easier under my system.

That 'two ability score arrays' idea is interesting, very similar to mine actually.
 



And I agree with you about using skill challenges and RP in a party where some characters are min-maxed and others aren't. At my table there are some players that are really important to combat and others that are really important to socializing with NPCs.
:) I was really annoyed when one of my characters showed up with a min-maxed ranger who was going to totally outshine the rest of the role-play-party in combat ...

... and quite pleased when the player, after the first session, realized that my campaign was going to require a lot of finesse in a lot of different skills, and submitted a totally different build for day two!

I think it was something about the amount of stealth, nature, perception, endurance, bluff, diplomacy, insight, and intimidate checks the party made on day one ... :)
 

Your system would work. What are you ideas for heavy and light armor, they were difficult in my 10+ system as well.
 

I love the idea and have been toying with the same concept myself. Its like the mentioned stats (ac, nads and to-hit) are based on a "proxy value" regardless of what they are, and that said value needs to be correctly promoted.

My thoughts were
Level 1-7 : +3
8-13:+4
14-20:+5
21-27:+6
28+:+7

Which is like starting with a stat of 16 and pumping it for all its worth through your career. Why start with an effective 16? eh, I just thought that a starting 18 was the "exceptional case" (i.e. racial associated or player willing to allocate the very expensive 18) and that 16 more represented the norm (it can be argued, but even so, this would still work)

The thing I like is this goes in seemlessly with the existing system. You can just do this without needing much ajustment at all.

Mind you, the wacky character combos this will result in could lead to some super-cheese builds.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top