D&D General Decoupling Ability Scores from Offense

[ninjayeti]

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?

Sounds brilliant on paper. I am afraid in practice that you are going to inevitably end up with some options that out perform vs. others the same way that they do in the existing game. You are still going to get savvy players that understand that the two handed fighter outperforms the sword and board version in most situations. You are still going to end up with noob players that dump Int on their knife throwing rogue without realizing that is the prereq for the feats they need to make their concept work.

Ultimately you identify a problem (game is too complex, with trap options that hurt noobs and OP options that reward system mastery); propose a solution (power is based on solely on class and level); and then circle right back to the problem you identified in the first place (picking the right attribute opens up specific feat chains and combat options - which are unlikely to be any better balanced in the options your were complaining about in the first place).

Don't get me wrong - I think the idea sounds great. But the devil is in the details and experience has shown me that RPGs can have lots of cool options, or be perfectly balanced, but not both.

 

[Xeviat]

Don't get me wrong - I think the idea sounds great. But the devil is in the details and experience has shown me that RPGs can have lots of cool options, or be perfectly balanced, but not both.

Perfect balance isn't quite the goal. Perceived balance is. But saying perfect balance is impossible is not an excuse to not try to balance things.

You bring up a good point about prerequisites. I think they'd be called out clearly in the ability score chapter. Tell people what they can get from having each stat be high so they can decide how they want to build their character.

I wouldn't want to do away with ability scores entirely. I find them to be a good descriptive short hand and they fit with literary tropes.

 

[Steampunkette]

Perfect balance isn't quite the goal. Perceived balance is. But saying perfect balance is impossible is not an excuse to not try to balance things.

You bring up a good point about prerequisites. I think they'd be called out clearly in the ability score chapter. Tell people what they can get from having each stat be high so they can decide how they want to build their character.

I wouldn't want to do away with ability scores entirely. I find them to be a good descriptive short hand and they fit with literary tropes.

But... but! Also super useful for Social/Exploration pillar stuff!

Suddenly Attributes are just for Skills and Ability Checks and stuff. You still get your increasing proficiency over time, but a rogue's talents with sleight of hand being based on Dex could still be an important character aspect!

 

[Xeviat]

Putting proficiency in certain places works. I wouldn't put double prof in other places, though. Part of me wants to do a different more smooth scale. Or feats could replace the typical boost to 18 and 20 to primary score.

 

[Deset Gled]

I guess I'm going be the odd man out here, but I hate this idea. So, every rogue hits the same? My build for a smarty-pants rogue that outwits his opponents rolls with the same hit and damage numbers as my brutish rogue focused on melee combat, and as my dagger-throwing ninja-esque rogue?

I need character creation rules that don't just describe characters and being different. I need crunchy math that makes them play differently as well. Anything else just feels same-y.

 

[Steampunkette]

Putting proficiency in certain places works. I wouldn't put double prof in other places, though. Part of me wants to do a different more smooth scale. Or feats could replace the typical boost to 18 and 20 to primary score.

3 numbers. Offensive Proficiency. Defensive Proficiency. Skill Proficiency.

We can change the names around as we go... but thoughts?

Monks and Barbs get to use their Offensive Proficiency to Defense if they're unarmored. Everything else just slides along as normal.

Offensive Proficiency starts at 5. Defensive at 3. Skill at 2. Give 'em different speeds of progression, even, if you like!

 

[Umbran]

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

Make Attributes a part of the Exploration/Social pillar

So... you can still accidentally make a character who stinks at Exploration and Social stuff?

If you are going to get rid of the risk of building a character who isn't good at stuff, shouldn't you do it across the board?

 

[Steampunkette]

So... you can still accidentally make a character who stinks at Exploration and Social stuff?

If you are going to get rid of the risk of building a character who isn't good at stuff, shouldn't you do it across the board?

Except you -can't-, though.

You'll just make a character who is good at different Social/Exploration stuff than what some people might expect for your character class.

With combat if you pick the wrong stats you can't access the "Best Combos" for your class/build/whatever. Doesn't work that way with skills.

Just winds up making you a fighter that's really good at Persuasion if you put that 15 into Charisma. Or really good at Sneaking if it's in Dex. Perception if you make it Wisdom.

Things like that.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Maybe, just maybe have the items used for fighting have a ''quality'' or ''masterwork'' or whatever bonus.

Then when you make an attack roll, you roll 1d20, then you add your proficiency and the item's ''whatever'' bonus.

Say a simple longsword has a ''masterwork'' bonus of +2. You, as a 3rd level fighter, attack the goblin with an AC of 15. You roll your d20+2+2 and get a 18 total. Its a hit, you add both your proficiency bonus and item bonus to the damage!

Armors work like in regular 5e, but the Armor's AC is its Item Bonus and you get to add your proficiency bonus to the total AC. So that 3rd level fighter wearing a heavy leather armor (Item bonus = 12) and a shield (Item bonus = 2) would stand at a pretty nice 16 AC.

You do the same with Spell DC and Spell attack rolls, where Focus also have an Item bonus.

Then you can have a little table of masterwork quality an related bonus:

Basic: as in the PHB
Crude: -2 to the item's bonus
Poor: -1 to the item's bonus
Splendid: +2 to item's bonus

and obviously those item are also modified by their enchantment, if any.
So you can have a crude magic dagger, or a splendid armor of arrow catching etc

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm intrigued. I wonder where it might break things, though.

Some thoughts:

In combat, you try to grapple a giant. What determines who wins?

You try to feint someone in combat, to get advantage on your attack next round. Do you make a Deception check (modified by Charisma), or is it just a proficiency bonus check?

The Dragonlance mage character Raistlin is renowned for being fragile and sickly, having sacrificed his health for magical power. How do you model this? Instead of having a low Con, does he have some special curse, and in exchange get some nifty magical powers?

Conan (strong) fights Inigo Montoya (nimble). How does this fight mechanically differ from having two Conans fight each other, or two Inigos?