D&D General Decoupling Ability Scores from Offense

[Charlaquin]

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

True, that is still a thing.

 

[Oofta]

I understand the point, I just disagree. First, you really don't need a 16 in your primary ability score at first level. I've had extremely successful PCs that started with a 14 and never got above a 16. It really wasn't all that noticeable in combat and he had more flexibility.

But I also think it takes something away from builds. Yes, you can make bad builds that are suboptimal but it's not as bad as the last couple of editions. Give new players a little bit of guidance, reinforce that you don't need a 16 in your primary ability score or race to 20.

But different strokes for different folks. I think the OP is suggesting a pretty major modification for an issue that can be addressed more easily in other ways.

 

[Xeviat]

I understand the point, I just disagree. First, you really don't need a 16 in your primary ability score at first level. I've had extremely successful PCs that started with a 14 and never got above a 16. It really wasn't all that noticeable in combat and he had more flexibility.

But I also think it takes something away from builds.

What's going to be taken away if everyone's offense to hit number is the same? I think its going to open up more builds instead of strongly incentivizing the 16-20 in your prime stat. Other options would be viable because they wouldn't be competing with it.

If it's truly going to ruin a character idea if they're actually good at combat (and I wouldn't want to tell the player "then just don't use your attacks"), there could be a trait for that, but based on ideas here someone with low str and low dex wouldn't meet weapon prerequisites and might be stuck with daggers and such; if they're not a Rogue, and then they don't take weapon special abilities and focus on other tiers, they wouldn't be a dagger master, but they could still knife someone if they had to.

Princess Leah had the highest accuracy rating in the original trilogy apparently.

 

[TwoSix]

But different strokes for different folks. I think the OP is suggesting a pretty major modification for an issue that can be addressed more easily in other ways.

The thing is, it's actually a really simple fix. You can go down a rabbit hole with it patching various issues, but the core change (attacks follow a fixed progression that isn't based on stat) is a tiny house rule.

 

[Tonguez]

I did a homebrew rule that allowed Players to use any attribute to use any skill provided the player could narrate how they were doing it. Combat is also a skill

So a Charismatic fighter using Cha+bonus in making flashy distracting spins of their scimitar, an intelligent combatant that strikes with tactical accuracy, your strong tank fighter cleaving heads or your quick nimble knife thrower.

Really a skilled knife fighter should have the same chance of striking and hurting an opponent as a skilled great axe fighter - weapons should be the special effects which characters use to facilitate their attacks, but the strike should be due to Character skill not weapon type.

 

[Oofta]

What's going to be taken away if everyone's offense to hit number is the same? I think its going to open up more builds instead of strongly incentivizing the 16-20 in your prime stat. Other options would be viable because they wouldn't be competing with it.

If it's truly going to ruin a character idea if they're actually good at combat (and I wouldn't want to tell the player "then just don't use your attacks"), there could be a trait for that, but based on ideas here someone with low str and low dex wouldn't meet weapon prerequisites and might be stuck with daggers and such; if they're not a Rogue, and then they don't take weapon special abilities and focus on other tiers, they wouldn't be a dagger master, but they could still knife someone if they had to.

Princess Leah had the highest accuracy rating in the original trilogy apparently.

Well, like I said, I think people over-emphasize getting maxed out scores. You don't notice it in combat. Stressing that, to me, is a better option than making a major change like the OP suggests.

On the other hand, it's not my game.

 

[Shiroiken]

So basically OD&D? Back then ability scores pretty much only determined how much xp you got.

 

[Dausuul]

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

I have been wanting this for ages. I applaud every little step Wizards takes toward decoupling ability scores from character power (and indeed from anything at all).

 

[Deset Gled]

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?

All of them, and yes it makes my characters different.

To be transparent, I've only been playing 5e for about a year. In 3e (my previous edition), I've literally played rogues that mained every stat except Wis. Hit bonuses were all over the place, and the characters were extremely different.

 

[Charlaquin]

All of them,

I find that hard to believe.

and yes it makes my characters different.

Eh, if different attack bonuses does it for you, that’s cool. I don’t see any meaningful difference there, personally.

To be transparent, I've only been playing 5e for about a year. In 3e (my previous edition), I've literally played rogues that mained every stat except Wis. Hit bonuses were all over the place, and the characters were extremely different.

3e is a very different game than 5e. I don’t doubt that you could have made 3e characters with hit bonuses all over the place. I do doubt that more than a tiny fraction of those characters were competent in combat, but I suspect that’s not something you consider terribly important, in which case I can only say have fun playing the game the way you like to.