D&D 5E Ability Scores

[The Crimson Binome]

Finally I disagree that everyone can dump charisma. A good portion of our game is interaction based and we roll plenty of cha checks during a game. Unless only one character wants to fully participate in a big section of the game then several characters tend to have some sort of cha focus. Its pretty boring when only one person does all the talking surely.

Talking doesn't rely on Charisma, unless you're trying to manipulate someone. If you just want to talk, then that's one of those things where you don't usually need to roll dice.

Maybe you do it differently, though.

 

[Prism]

Talking doesn't rely on Charisma, unless you're trying to manipulate someone. If you just want to talk, then that's one of those things where you don't usually need to roll dice.

Maybe you do it differently, though.

I agree, however we are often trying to manipulate someone when its important. We often use cha checks to gather information, we often capture enemies not kill them, we sometimes lie to enemies.

We also tend to roleplay the mental stats. I don't always want to play an unsociable character. If someone plays an 8 cha character I expect they will roleplay it as such - in our group of course

 

[Einlanzer0]

If fighting types benefited from both Strength and Dex, instead of needing one instead of the other, then there's a risk that you might reduce the number of options available.

In a worst-case scenario, if both your Strength and Dex modifiers added to your attack roll, it might feel like both are mandatory, so all fighters end up with Strength 20 and Dex 20 and they don't have enough points left over to be distinct in any way. If nothing else, the current system lets a character max out their mandatory stats while still having enough points left over to diversify in some way.

With the current proposal, I don't think it would get to the point that a Strength-based fighter would really care about investing in Dex, because crits in 5E are kind of lame for fighters (as contrasted with barbarians, who already care more about Dex since they don't have heavy armor; and especially rogues, who already only care about Dex and would massively benefit from expanded criticals on their sneak attacks).

But they would get significantly more benefit from doing it than they do currently, especially Champions, and Dex would become an attractive potential secondary without feeling mandatory. That's the point I'm going for. I'm curious how people feel about the overall strength of the Rogue class relative to fighter, because I haven't played one yet in 5e. If I were to use this proposal, it might require a rebalancing of Sneak Attack damage, which I have no issue at all with doing.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I agree that not all characters need to do everything. That's kind of my point. Once you have decided on your high stat you can mostly put the other stats wherever you want based on what skill usage you fancy or simply to round out the character. The OP is suggesting a house rule to benefit characters taking str and dex rather than just one. For me, this removes flexibility for a benefit that I don't see. I rarely see combat types dump either stat as they don't want to be truly bad at those aspects, but if they do, I can't see the problem.



Who is to say there is a strength fighter in the party? Or a rogue? Sometimes the rogue might be the intelligence guy when there is no wizard. Having free choice about most of your stats allows all sorts of flexibility.

Finally I disagree that everyone can dump charisma. A good portion of our game is interaction based and we roll plenty of cha checks during a game. Unless only one character wants to fully participate in a big section of the game then several characters tend to have some sort of cha focus. Its pretty boring when only one person does all the talking surely.

The thing is, though, is they really aren't very competitive with one another. If we eliminate the role of the primary stat and only look at each attribute as a secondary ones, they are easy to rank in order of general usefulness:

1. Con
2. Wis
3. Dex
4. Cha
5. Str (with standard encumbrance rule)
6. Int

With alternate encumbrance rules, Str moves above Cha. Dex and Wis are neck-in-neck, with the deciding line probably being whether or not you wear armor. Int is borderline garbage that directly gimps you unless you have wizard spellcasting. Str is almost completely useless for anyone who doesn't use it for their attack and damage rolls, while the same is not true for Dex. My goal is to make each ability score significant enough that you always give up something significant to gain something else that's significant.

Regarding the proposed house rule for Dex - keep in mind that the goal is to not require both to maintain what the game has now. Str characters will have the exact same damage output with 10 Dex as they do in the standard rules, and Dex based characters only have very slightly less. Dex characters are more likely to want a modest investment in Str, while Str characters can make a choice between better crits, higher HP, or whatever.

 

[Prism]

The thing is, though, is they really aren't very competitive with one another. If we eliminate the role of the primary stat and only look at each attribute as a secondary ones, they are easy to rank in order of general usefulness:

1. Con
2. Wis
3. Dex
4. Cha
5. Str (with standard encumbrance rule)
6. Int

Ok I assume you are referring to combat only then. There are some cases where you could want both Dex and Str e.g barbarians, but yes then Con is probably top of the list. You could work out a framework for monster knowledge checks which would emphasis Int in combat a little more.

However for the other parts of the game Con is probably near the bottom of the list. For exploration I would put Wis, Int and Dex near the top, and for social then Cha and Wis. I feel that if you over emphasized Str, Dex and Con use for combat then out of combat skills might suffer to some degree.

I say this from the point of view that we have a large exploration and social focus in our games. We typically have only one combat per session - sometimes zero, sometimes more.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Ok I assume you are referring to combat only then. There are some cases where you could want both Dex and Str e.g barbarians, but yes then Con is probably top of the list. You could work out a framework for monster knowledge checks which would emphasis Int in combat a little more.

However for the other parts of the game Con is probably near the bottom of the list. For exploration I would put Wis, Int and Dex near the top, and for social then Cha and Wis. I feel that if you over emphasized Str, Dex and Con use for combat then out of combat skills might suffer to some degree.

I say this from the point of view that we have a large exploration and social focus in our games. We typically have only one combat per session - sometimes zero, sometimes more.

I'm not really. Unless you are or have a DM that particularly emphasizes the social and exploration pillars, that ranking will hold across all game play. However, with that said, combat is disproportionately important, because that's generally the only way you die. The story tends to bend itself around what PCs can and can't accomplish outside of combat.

 

[Henry]

Side note: While I don't favor changing STR and DEX, and kind of like their exclusionary nature now, I do agree that INT has been made a bit of a red-headed stepchild due to the change to skills. i wish they had left in an alternate rules that gave people between one and three bonus skill proficiencies based on INT score, though it would have to have a different progression, because tying it to the regular (STAT - 10)/2 range would I think give too many bonus skills. Maybe +1 skill proficiency for 12-15, and +2 for 16-20? Or something similar.

As it is, I like what they've done with attack bonus and damage vs. spreading out saves and limiting armor types - while you'll never be completely rid of multiple ability dependency, I like reducing it where you can, ecause you cna then introduce lower point buys without players feeling they have to spread the points as thinly as possible.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think one of the few things WotC really dropped the ball on for 5e was in not putting a big emphasis on making sure the ability scores were designed well in terms of strategic offerings and balance. This has the effect of emphasizing dump stats, making characters less diverse, and building generally less interesting than it could be..

WoTC hasn't dropped the ball or placed the emphasis. Players do. WoTC has made it clear there are 3 pillars to the game which are all equally important. It's individual groups that place emphasis on particular stats based on play style. If you're a group that does almost nothing but combat, then the combat orientated stats will seem to be front and center. If you're a group that does a lot of interaction (role-playing) instead of combat, then other abilities will seem more important.

We really need to stop blaming WoTC for things that are more determined by our personal preferences than anything they are doing.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Side note: While I don't favor changing STR and DEX, and kind of like their exclusionary nature now, I do agree that INT has been made a bit of a red-headed stepchild due to the change to skills. i wish they had left in an alternate rules that gave people between one and three bonus skill proficiencies based on INT score, though it would have to have a different progression, because tying it to the regular (STAT - 10)/2 range would I think give too many bonus skills. Maybe +1 skill proficiency for 12-15, and +2 for 16-20? Or something similar.

As it is, I like what they've done with attack bonus and damage vs. spreading out saves and limiting armor types - while you'll never be completely rid of multiple ability dependency, I like reducing it where you can, ecause you cna then introduce lower point buys without players feeling they have to spread the points as thinly as possible.

I had planned to use the same progression for my houserule for Int and Dex:

below 12 - no change
12-15 - +1 Crit range, +1 skill/tool prof. or addl. language
16-20 - +2 Crit range, +2 skill/tool prof or addl. language

If that didn't feel significant enough, I would playtest +3 for 20 and above.

 

[Einlanzer0]

WoTC hasn't dropped the ball or placed the emphasis. Players do. WoTC has made it clear there are 3 pillars to the game which are all equally important. It's individual groups that place emphasis on particular stats based on play style. If you're a group that does almost nothing but combat, then the combat orientated stats will seem to be front and center. If you're a group that does a lot of interaction (role-playing) instead of combat, then other abilities will seem more important.

We really need to stop blaming WoTC for things that are more determined by our personal preferences than anything they are doing.

Sorry, but no. If there's a systemic problem, it's on WotC. As I said above, combat is disproportionately important because that's how the rules are designed. Exploration and social pillars are much lighter and softer rulesets with a lot more narrative flexibility. Combat rules are granular, individualized, and are much more likely to control success and failure on both a personal and campaign scale. This is why the ability scores are not equal - Wis, Con, and Dex > Int and Cha, and the only reason Wis is ranked higher than Int and Cha is because Perception has ramifications for combat. Str is unusual in that it's a powerful stat, but can be completely replaced by Dex. I find all of these things to be problematic in 5e's standard rules.

For the mental scores to compete with the physical scores, they need to play a more significant role in combat, and there's no reason why they shouldn't.