D&D General Decoupling Ability Scores from Offense

[Xeviat]

Wild idea that came up while talking to my players. One of my friends, whom I've been playing with for 20 years now, was commenting someone he was playing with wasn't having fun because their character was weak. This other player is more of a casual player, but was growing disinterested because his character just couldn't do very much. My friend helped make some changes to his character, and suddenly he was much more effective, and he started having more fun with the game (and not just the pizza and beer socializing).

So we got to talking about how unfortunate it is that the game makes it possible to accidentally make a weak character. We had actually been running into this issue from the very beginning of our time playing D&D, from someone rolling particularly higher stats than another player to a 3E ranger taking weapon finesse and a Str 10 since it seemed like it would be fine.

There are so many unspoken "rules" of character building for making optimal characters that its easy to make a suboptimal character. You "need" a 16 in your primary stat. If you're a medium armor class, you really want a dex 14. Everyone wants a con 14. Certain feats are better than others. And so forth.

Yes, you don't "have" to, thats what the air quotes are for.

But, what if you didn't need to do all this? What if your level determined your offensive capability? What if, say, a level 10 rogue is deadly because they're a level 10 rogue, regardless of if they're an agile thief, a cunning mastermind, or a charming rake?

What if your to hit and damage bonuses were determined by your class level? What if your ability scores contributed to skills and saves, but were also used for item and feat prerequisites? So, a high strength, high con fighter would naturally favor heavy two handed weapons, especially things in the axe/hammer groups, while a balanced str/dex fighter would favor sword and shield or long bow, or a high dex fighter may favor shortswords and crossbows?

Your wizard could be an intelligent scholar, or they could be a natural and are just figuring it out (or maybe you'd want to require a mental stat prerequisite for magic for a certain flavor, up to you).

But, the end result is level determines power, your ability scores determine how you flavor and differentiate your character.

It would be a very different edition, but what do you think?

 

[Charlaquin]

Wild idea that came up while talking to my players. One of my friends, whom I've been playing with for 20 years now, was commenting someone he was playing with wasn't having fun because their character was weak. This other player is more of a casual player, but was growing disinterested because his character just couldn't do very much. My friend helped make some changes to his character, and suddenly he was much more effective, and he started having more fun with the game (and not just the pizza and beer socializing).

So we got to talking about how unfortunate it is that the game makes it possible to accidentally make a weak character. We had actually been running into this issue from the very beginning of our time playing D&D, from someone rolling particularly higher stats than another player to a 3E ranger taking weapon finesse and a Str 10 since it seemed like it would be fine.

There are so many unspoken "rules" of character building for making optimal characters that its easy to make a suboptimal character. You "need" a 16 in your primary stat. If you're a medium armor class, you really want a dex 14. Everyone wants a con 14. Certain feats are better than others. And so forth.

Yes, you don't "have" to, thats what the air quotes are for.

But, what if you didn't need to do all this? What if your level determined your offensive capability? What if, say, a level 10 rogue is deadly because they're a level 10 rogue, regardless of if they're an agile thief, a cunning mastermind, or a charming rake?

What if your to hit and damage bonuses were determined by your class level? What if your ability scores contributed to skills and saves, but were also used for item and feat prerequisites? So, a high strength, high con fighter would naturally favor heavy two handed weapons, especially things in the axe/hammer groups, while a balanced str/dex fighter would favor sword and shield or long bow, or a high dex fighter may favor shortswords and crossbows?

Your wizard could be an intelligent scholar, or they could be a natural and are just figuring it out (or maybe you'd want to require a mental stat prerequisite for magic for a certain flavor, up to you).

But, the end result is level determines power, your ability scores determine how you flavor and differentiate your character.

It would be a very different edition, but what do you think?

I think it’s a fantastic idea.

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm with Charlaquin. That is, frankly, amazing.

Make Attributes a part of the Exploration/Social pillar with some minimum requirements for different weapon types (No Greatsword without a 13 Strength, no Cantrip without a Spellcasting Modifier goes here under 13) and armors...

... hot dicks. I think you're onto something, Xeviat!

 

[Xeviat]

I'm with Charlaquin. That is, frankly, amazing.

Make Attributes a part of the Exploration/Social pillar with some minimum requirements for different weapon types (No Greatsword without a 13 Strength, no Cantrip without a Spellcasting Modifier goes here under 13) and armors...

... hot dicks. I think you're onto something, Xeviat!

Hmmmm ... if feats were tweaked to be about options and not power (like learning a new cantrip, or a power attack that is balanced against a basic attack), then feats could be built into normal progression ... otherwise rebalancing the game for combat feats might be weird.

 

[Steampunkette]

Instead of Stat mods to AC or HP we could have Proficiency Bonus apply in different ways and to different degrees.

Fighters could get their proficiency bonus to AC with whatever armor their wearing (And have armors limit proficiency bonus to AC the same way the armors limit dexterity). Monks getting "Expertise" in unarmored defense to double their Prof Mod to AC while wearing no armor...

Weapon Styles would become expertise in their use, as well.

Feats could bridge the gap? Give you some Combat function and some Exploration/Social function?

What do you think of Proficiency Bonus applied at every level for Hit Points with retroactive increases?

It would turn 5th level into a big gain for combat (Increase cantrip damage, extra attack, hit points go up by 1 per level for every level you've gotten so far)

 

[TwoSix]

I'm a fan, it's an option that's been discussed a few times on these forums. In one of my games, I'm using the option that players can use proficiency bonus in place of their stat mod bonus for attack rolls and for determining spell save DCs. (Example, a 5th level fighter with a 12 Dex would make his longbow attacks at +6 (3 prof + 3 prof) instead of +4 (3 prof + 1 Dex).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But, the end result is level determines power, your ability scores determine how you flavor and differentiate your character.

It would be a very different edition, but what do you think?

Basically, TSR-era but even more limited in terms of ability score bonuses.

One of the few things I truly preferred (as opposed to jokingly prefer) about the older rulesets, and one of the things I love, is that characters accrue their significant advantages (saves, to hit) from increasing their level.

A higher-level fighter is just better at fighting, period. Much, much better.

Overall, I love this concept. The race for ASIs and the samey-ness of certain builds (not to mention the prevalence of 20 dexterity adventurers in the world at large) is not something I like about 5e.

 

[loverdrive]

That's a rare houserule that actually sounds awesome. Do it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'd be more in favor of just getting rid of ability scores entirely, myself. They're redundant as it is.

 

[Steampunkette]

To keep things about where they are, now...

I think the easiest method would be to give players "Expertise" in a handful of weapon options, as well as any spellcasting they happen to have. And then have proficiency apply to Hit Points gained and retroactively. And AC in general based on what you're proficient in.

That would create three "Tiers" of proficiency for weapons. But even the best trained level 1 swordsman would "Only" get a +4 to attack when the current expectation (16 in attack stat) would give them 5. But I'm not sure just how much of a "Problem" that really is in the end.

Then have Barbarians Monks gain expertise in unarmored? That'd give them a 14 AC at level 1 where most would have a 15 under current rules... Of course they'd be rocking a 22 at level 20 soooo... Maybe it cancels out well enough?

Proficiency mod only once to Damage starts out at +2 ends up at +6... not the worst, I suppose.

It feels like we're averaging everyone down by 1 point early on and boosting them by 1 point later on? Could fix that by having the Proficiency Bonus start at 3, instead, to maintain low-level play balance...