D&D General Decoupling Ability Scores from Offense

[Xeviat]

Just to elaborate: going your way, you could define all d20 rolls by d20 + PB when you're not proficient, d20 + PB + PB when you're proficient, and d20 + PB + PB + PB when you're an expert. That's an abstraction too far for me.

Just attack rolls and save DCs. Maaaaaaaaaybe damage rolls. And they'd probably be a little different, since ability scores usually go from +3 to +5. My initial idea was to increase on the odd levels so it's smooth, but that's +10 growth when the baseline grows by +8; if you assumed someone only starting with a 14, they'd grow by up to +9.

 

[Xeviat]

Now if only we could decouple skill proficiency from level!

I have thought of how to do this too. PF2 does it reasonably I think. I think it would need to be paired with some sort of system of moving some of the skill feat abilities over to the skills so you feel like you're gaining minor abilities for mastering a skill, which would be neat.

 

[NotAYakk]

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?

When I did this for 4e, I called it "presumed competence". A level X character is presumed competent at thier abilities.

I didn't completely remove attributes. In 4e, your damage was (dice) plus (static modifier) -- I kept the static modifier from attributes to damage, and removed it from d20 rolls.

A version I've seen proposed in 5e is to use proficiency bonus.

Your Attack bonus is the best of your attribute plus your proficiency, or twice your proficiency.

Your DCs is the best of 8+attribute+proficiency, or 8 + 2*proficiency.

In effect, the floor of your attribute is your proficiency bonus.

An optimized attribute is usually 16 at level 1, 18 at level 4 and 20 at level 8+. Double prof vs attribute+prof is:
1: 4 vs 5
4: 6 vs 7
8: 8 vs 9
12: 10 vs 10
16: 12 vs 11
so failing to optimize your "attack" attribute costs you 1 point of DC or ATK modifier. And T4 characters get an extra +1 to hit regardless.

Your AC is either the base calculation, or:
Light armor: 10+proficiency+1/2 dex bonus
Medium armor: 10+proficiency+1/2 (max of dex or strength bonus) (+1 if stealth disadvantage)
Heavy armor: 12+proficiency+1/4 (sum of strength and con bonus)
round down the fractions, plus enchantment/shields/etc.

The bonuses from attributes cap out at +2, even if you have a belt of giant strength.

The 10+proficiency provides an AC floor, with a small contribution from an attribute on top, mostly for flavor: a 20s in attribute gives 2-3 points of AC over nothing at all, instead of 5.

Above 10+proficiency, the armor types give:

For light/medium we get:
10: +0 AC
14: +1 AC
18: +2 AC

For medium (stealth disadvantage) we get:
10: +1 AC
14: +2 AC
18: +3 AC

For heavy we get:
10/10: +2 AC
16/12: +3 AC
20/16: +4 AC
(note that with 10 con, you still get equal or higher AC from heavy than medium armor based off just strength)

This cap of +2 AC from higher stats is intended to exist, but not be so large as to make a huge difference.


---

By focusing on hitting, the goal is to avoid the wiff. The stronger more dexterous will hit a bit harder, and gets more uses of some attribute-mediated abilities.

I'd leave all skills alone. If someone wants to wrestle a giant, invest in strength.

But DCs/ATK being too important to be left to chance seems reasonable, and rolling in an AC floor is also reasonable.

By having enchantment stack on top of this floor, and making the subtype of armor you wear stop mattering at higher levels, is an intersting side effect in my opinion.

A level 20 fighter in +3 plate armor and shield with 26 strength and 16 constitution has an "old" calculation of 26 AC.

Under the new calculation, they have 12 + 6 (prof) + (8+3=11/4 = +2 capped) + 6 +2 = 28 AC even if they are wearing +3 chainmail instead of +3 plate armor.

(That extra +2 AC might be a small problem; it falls out of wanting to ensure that light armor < medium armor < heavy armor AC, with each getting a +1 kick over the last. You could make light armor be 8+calc, medium with stealth disadvantage be 9+calc, and heavy be 10+calc instead.)

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Love these.

Especially if we make Offhand Attacks a bonus attack during the Attack Action rather than a separate bonus action attack.

Then Rogues could Feint in combat to get advantage and sneak attack and still have their bonus action to dash.

Exactly.

As a side note, I already play with the notion that an off-hand attack does not require a bonus action and everybody at the table loves it and nobody was struck by lightning or died of instant combustion

 

[Steampunkette]

When I did this for 4e, I called it "presumed competence". A level X character is presumed competent at thier abilities.

I didn't completely remove attributes. In 4e, your damage was (dice) plus (static modifier) -- I kept the static modifier from attributes to damage, and removed it from d20 rolls.

A version I've seen proposed in 5e is to use proficiency bonus.

Your Attack bonus is the best of your attribute plus your proficiency, or twice your proficiency.

Your DCs is the best of 8+attribute+proficiency, or 8 + 2*proficiency.

In effect, the floor of your attribute is your proficiency bonus.

An optimized attribute is usually 16 at level 1, 18 at level 4 and 20 at level 8+. Double prof vs attribute+prof is:
1: 4 vs 5
4: 6 vs 7
8: 8 vs 9
12: 10 vs 10
16: 12 vs 11
so failing to optimize your "attack" attribute costs you 1 point of DC or ATK modifier. And T4 characters get an extra +1 to hit regardless.

Your AC is either the base calculation, or:
Light armor: 10+proficiency+1/2 dex bonus
Medium armor: 10+proficiency+1/2 (max of dex or strength bonus) (+1 if stealth disadvantage)
Heavy armor: 12+proficiency+1/4 (sum of strength and con bonus)
round down the fractions, plus enchantment/shields/etc.

The bonuses from attributes cap out at +2, even if you have a belt of giant strength.

The 10+proficiency provides an AC floor, with a small contribution from an attribute on top, mostly for flavor: a 20s in attribute gives 2-3 points of AC over nothing at all, instead of 5.

Above 10+proficiency, the armor types give:

For light/medium we get:
10: +0 AC
14: +1 AC
18: +2 AC

For medium (stealth disadvantage) we get:
10: +1 AC
14: +2 AC
18: +3 AC

For heavy we get:
10/10: +2 AC
16/12: +3 AC
20/16: +4 AC
(note that with 10 con, you still get equal or higher AC from heavy than medium armor based off just strength)

This cap of +2 AC from higher stats is intended to exist, but not be so large as to make a huge difference.


---

By focusing on hitting, the goal is to avoid the wiff. The stronger more dexterous will hit a bit harder, and gets more uses of some attribute-mediated abilities.

I'd leave all skills alone. If someone wants to wrestle a giant, invest in strength.

But DCs/ATK being too important to be left to chance seems reasonable, and rolling in an AC floor is also reasonable.

By having enchantment stack on top of this floor, and making the subtype of armor you wear stop mattering at higher levels, is an intersting side effect in my opinion.

A level 20 fighter in +3 plate armor and shield with 26 strength and 16 constitution has an "old" calculation of 26 AC.

Under the new calculation, they have 12 + 6 (prof) + (8+3=11/4 = +2 capped) + 6 +2 = 28 AC even if they are wearing +3 chainmail instead of +3 plate armor.

(That extra +2 AC might be a small problem; it falls out of wanting to ensure that light armor < medium armor < heavy armor AC, with each getting a +1 kick over the last. You could make light armor be 8+calc, medium with stealth disadvantage be 9+calc, and heavy be 10+calc instead.)

...

Wait...

What if we split the difference?

Rather than having Attributes have -no- effect on combat, we apply Presumed Competence to all characters or the Attribute, whichever is better?

That way players who roll lucky at low levels still get a good set of stats and get to enjoy their ability beyond a level of competence, but even someone who rolls a bunch of low-rolls is at least competent?

 

[TwoSix]

That way players who roll lucky at low levels still get a good set of stats and get to enjoy their ability beyond a level of competence, but even someone who rolls a bunch of low-rolls is at least competent?

That's how I do it. Stat mod OR proficiency bonus, whichever is higher. Starting with a 16 Dex or Str has value, if that's how you want to play your character. And Belts of X Giant Strength or Gauntlets of Ogre Power are still useful.

 

[NotAYakk]

...

Wait...

What if we split the difference?

Rather than having Attributes have -no- effect on combat, we apply Presumed Competence to all characters or the Attribute, whichever is better?

That way players who roll lucky at low levels still get a good set of stats and get to enjoy their ability beyond a level of competence, but even someone who rolls a bunch of low-rolls is at least competent?

Yes, that is what the post you quoted does in 5e.

For attack rolls and DCs, you use the best of your attribute or your proficiency.

For AC, I hobbled together a system where you can use the existing calculation, or one where attributes are half as important (roughly). The difference between a 10 stat character and a 20 stat character is 2 points of AC, so it is bounded.

The effect is that a high dex character is just as good in light or medium armor if they care about stealth.

If you give up on stealth, medium armor is +1 AC, and you can use strength instead of dexterity and keep your AC.

Heavy armor is just as good or better than medium armor for a strength build, and you can eke out another point of AC if you have medium to high constitution.

Now that I think of it, /2 and /4 is a bit too complex.

Light Armor:
AC 10+Proficiency bonus. +2 AC for 15 dexterity.
Medium Armor:
AC 11+Proficiency bonus. +1 AC for both 13 strength and dexterity.
Bulky Medium Armor (Stealth Disadvantage):
AC 12+Proficiency bonus. +1 AC for both 13 strength and dexterity.
Heavy Armor
AC 12+Proficiency bonus. +1 AC for each of 15 strength and constitution.

A "simple" table does it.

Heavy Armor is better AC than medium armor if you have at least one of 15 strength or con.

Light Armor is a match for medium armor at 15 dex vs 13/13 for medium.

Medium armor requires medium stats in both dex and strength, but if str/dex is low, medium is better AC than light.

Heavy armor for a weakling is no better than medium armor.

At level 1, assuming those modest attribute requirements are met, we get:

Light: 14 AC (requires 1 15)
Medium: 14 AC (requires 2 13s)
Bulky-Medium: 15 AC (requires 2 13s)
Heavy: 16 AC (requires 2 15s)

At level 20 we have:
Light: 18 AC (requires 1 15)
Medium: 18 AC (requires 2 13s)
Bulky-Medium: 19 AC (requires 2 13s)
Heavy: 20 AC (requires 2 15s)

Light armor is 1 AC higher than studded+20 dex. Heavy armor is 2 AC higher than baseline, but requires attributes.

 

[Dausuul]

This is one of those things that is going to require 3rd party creation and hopeful implementation by a large number of the player to become a "thing", because my sense is that it isn't something WotC would ever want to do on its own. The six ability scores are the clarion call of D&D as a game and as such the entire baseline and main focus that I don't think they'd ever want to reduce their use even further. If ability scores aren't used for things in the game, then they have no point. If they have no point, then they fall off the game. If they fall off the game, then you don't have "Dungeons & Dragons" anymore.

It is quite possible to keep ability scores, and use them, without tying them to the core functionality of the classes.

Much as I would like to see Wizards get rid of ability scores entirely, I know that will never happen--the fan response would make 4E look like a time of glorious harmony. But restricting them to saving throws and skills, plus the occasional side benefit (e.g., Constitution granting bonus hit points), is both possible and IMO desirable.

 

[Steampunkette]

Yes, that is what the post you quoted does in 5e.

I apologize. My reading comprehension went out the window as I looked at your post. I have no idea why...

 

[NotAYakk]

I apologize. My reading comprehension went out the window as I looked at your post. I have no idea why...

Laugh, trust me it is me. I speak and write my own language that just happens to, if you look at it right, look like English.