D&D General Decoupling Ability Scores from Offense

[Steampunkette]

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?

1) No reason to change a Giant's stats or how they work. You have your bonus compared to his. Roll and find out!
2) Probably Deception for skill use. Which could lead to Inigo being particularly adept at feinting but unskilled in grappling)
3) Feat that allows you to expend your Hit Dice during short rests in exchange for more spell slots.
4) Conan Rages while Inigo Sneak Attacks? Alternatively: Skill Use and Combat Maneuvers in the fight.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Following my own idea of Item bonus, it think it would be nice to have new ''scores'', determined by the proficiency bonus + item bonus:

Accuracy: Proficiency + Weapon or Focus' item bonus.
- In combat, you add your Accuracy to your attack rolls and damage rolls. Works with weapons or spell attacks.

Intensity: 8 + proficiency + Weapon or Focus' item bonus.
- The target number a creature has to make to resist an effect provoked by an attack or spell from you.

Armor class: Armor's Item bonus + proficiency.
- The target number a creature has to beat to cause you damage.

Recovery rate: Constitution modifier + item's bonus
- You can add your Recovery rate to all healing received.

I'd still let ability dictate a few things like shoves and grapples and things like spell preparation.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

How many 5e characters have you actually played that had different attack bonuses though? Does that crunch actually make your characters different, or does it just create trap options? Cause in my experience, it’s the latter. It’s so predictable, I can tell with probably about 90% accuracy what a player’s bonus is to any given roll, without looking at their character sheet, just by knowing their class.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

One way to alleviate the heavy focus on stats is to do what World Without Numbers has done and reduce the bonuses.

a 3 to 5 = -2
6 to 8 = -1
9-13 = +0
14 -17 = +1
18(Max)= +2

(it’s something like that. I don’t have the numbers exact)

there isn’t a big race to boost stats because, if you have a 9, you need to boost it all the way up to 14. Instead, if you want to be a better archer, you boost your ‘Shoot’ skill.

in any case, less focus on stats. The difference between 6 and 17 is only a two point difference.

you should try world without numbers before changing everything. It’s quite good and is close enough to D&D that it feels the same. It’s quite a bit more ‘gritty’ though. I started at 1st level with 1hp. It was intense.

 

[Charlaquin]

I realize say this at the risk of bringing up a hot-button topic, but it occurs to me that this would probably fix my issues with racial ability score increases. My issue has always been the shoehorning of races into (or out of) class roles, so if a Goliath with a strength bonus and a Halfling with a strength penalty were both equally effective Barbarians but qualified for different Feats, I think I would be fine with that.

 

[Xeviat]

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.

Right now, "every" rogue already hits the same because "every" rogue starts with a 16 Dex and rushes it to 20 asap.

My idea would have different types of rogues having entirely different abilities based on their archetypes. Who cares if their to hit number is the same? They're already the same a lot of the time.

An option can exist to lower the values as a trade off for something else for less combative archetypes.

 

[MGibster]

I realize say this at the risk of bringing up a hot-button topic, but it occurs to me that this would probably fix my issues with racial ability score increases. My issue has always been the shoehorning of races into (or out of) class roles, so if a Goliath with a strength bonus and a Halfling with a strength penalty were both equally effective Barbarians but qualified for different Feats, I think I would be fine with that.

I think that issue is what prompted WotC to remove attribute penalties from 5th edition. (Maybe they removed them from 4th but I don't remember.) Without the penalty you wouldn't feel punished for creating a halfling fighter or a half-orc bard like you did with AD&D. One of the things I kind of like about 5th edition is that I don't feel pressured to make sure my character starts out with an 18 or 20 in their primary stat.

If we're going to make such a radical change as to get rid of attributes having any impact on combat abilities then just get rid of attributes altogether. But what of spells that temporarily reduce attributes? Would we just rewrite them to remove combat bonuses?

 

[Xeviat]

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?

Str still, it's a skill check? Make it skill vs a save; no one cares if they're not good at initiating grapples if they don't want to be, but they care about being able to get out of grabs reasonably (so proficiency in all saves to help keep the differences more bounded).

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?

Deception. Again, this is your choice of skills. There may be a few other skills that could be used similarly (perception to look for a weak spot, knowledge to know a creatures weakness, deception to feint ...).

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?

Sounds like a nifty curse. I hadn't initially said remove con from hp but we'd have to otherwise everyone would just have high con.

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

Conan and Inigo have access to different maneuvers, different skills, and use different kinds of weapons.

How do they differ now if they're both fighters? One has a greatsword, full plate, and high str, the other has rapier, shield, studded leather, and high dex. They have the same to hit and AC, and same HP if their con is the same. One has 2d6*+5, the other has 1d8+7 and +2 AC ... all these differences would be maintained even if you didn't add in a nifty maneuver or feat system.

 

[Xeviat]

I realize say this at the risk of bringing up a hot-button topic, but it occurs to me that this would probably fix my issues with racial ability score increases. My issue has always been the shoehorning of races into (or out of) class roles, so if a Goliath with a strength bonus and a Halfling with a strength penalty were both equally effective Barbarians but qualified for different Feats, I think I would be fine with that.

Racial ability score bonuses/penalties are a problem because the mental stats are connotationally loaded.

 

[Xeviat]

I think that issue is what prompted WotC to remove attribute penalties from 5th edition. (Maybe they removed them from 4th but I don't remember.) Without the penalty you wouldn't feel punished for creating a halfling fighter or a half-orc bard like you did with AD&D. One of the things I kind of like about 5th edition is that I don't feel pressured to make sure my character starts out with an 18 or 20 in their primary stat.

If we're going to make such a radical change as to get rid of attributes having any impact on combat abilities then just get rid of attributes altogether. But what of spells that temporarily reduce attributes? Would we just rewrite them to remove combat bonuses?

There aren't many spells that reduce stats. Polymorph sets stats to certain numbers, but I can't think of stat reducing spells. They're all built around bonuses and penalties now. Disadvantage on checks, or penalties on checks, feels like a weakening.