D&D 5E Divorce Abilty Modifiers from Attack Rolls

[mach1.9pants]

I was perusing the latest playtest document and I have come across an idea I like to get away from the high ability score requirement assumption. In 3E and, esp, 4E to keep up with the math you need a 18 or so in your prime requisites to not fall behind. This pushes for cookie cutter PCs and is a major min/max point. Obviously YMMV and a lot of people are happy to base their PCs around concept rather than maths. In 5E this will be even more important as bonuses to hit are lower e.g. +3 rising to +5 for a Wizard at 10th level. In the case of the current playtest doc a Wiz has a very big incentive to get a 20 INT at first level, a +5 bonus, the same as he can get for levelling, at first level.

So my proposal, which I know is not going to happen, but I put out for thought (and may well come as house rules for me) is this.

Instead of ability score modifiers applying to the to hit rolls they only apply to saves and skills. Each ability score will have one important thing attached to it as well as this, one each. The maths of assumed ability score bonus is just added to the class bonus. Although it probably would be better if the entire math basis is reduced by that amount rather than the number added on to everyone's Attack bonus)

So ATM a 1st level Ftr has a +3 to hit, if he wishes to be STR based he will be assumed to have (probably, a guess) a +4 STR bonus at first level, similar DEX if he goes that way. So I propose that a 1st level Ftr gets a +7 Attack bonus at first level, this keeps the assumed maths the same. Another option is to reduce all the AC values by 4 which gives a similar effect and means not starting on such a high number. Although I am sure some maths clever person will explain how this is different because 7 is a major effect on a d20 roll whereas 3 isn't. I guess?

In the case of DEX and AC I would give each class a bonus like the attack roll, that may apply only in specific armour. e.g. Ftr +2 in all armours, Rogue +3 in light, +1 in medium. Those are just numbers pulled out of the air, but you get the idea.

Allied to that, and apart from skills/checks and saves, each ability score does one important thing. So something like this:

STR: modifier applied to damage STR weps (and carrying capacity)
DEX: modifier applied to damage DEX weps
CON: modifier applied to HP and HD
INT: Bonus (only) applied to extra trained Knowledge and Profession skills
WIS: modifier applied to Initiative checks (To me your awareness of the world around is as important in getting off the mark as your hand-eye co-ord, if you want to be fast improved initiative is your friend! - although I accept some may think this is a reach to give WIS something and DEX less )
CHA: Mmmm not sure

I'd probably institute the minimum ability score for spell level requirement but at a lower ability scoer than 3E, to stop Archmage Wizards with an INT of 3!

For me this would make your ability score less important because, at the moment with the flat math, ability scores are so very important. With this you can make a heavy sword fighter that keeps up with a 13 STR, he may not do as much damage but he will hit as often.

So what think the boards?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I suggest that ability scores are more valuable than in previous editions, but less important to game balance. Damage and hit points are the most important factor in character and monster power. A +3 to hit is only a 15% improvement, which pales in comparison to the extra damage dice high level spells or attacks do.

 

[Stalker0]

In some ways this was actually true in previous additions. As others have mentioned a fighter in 2e only got a very small attack bonus due to a high strength.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I suggest that ability scores are more valuable than in previous editions, but less important to game balance. Damage and hit points are the most important factor in character and monster power. A +3 to hit is only a 15% improvement, which pales in comparison to the extra damage dice high level spells or attacks do.

Just a small note here, the +15% you are talking about is percentage points increase in the chance to hit. If you have 50% chance to hit having +3 to hit more increases the chance to hit up to 65% (50+15). This is an increase of 30% (50*1,30).

If you do an average damage of 20 (from (1d8+6+2d8) for instance) and have 50% chance to hit you do 10 damage a round on average, giving the same character +3 extra to hit, increases this to 13 average damage per round. It's a direct multiplier to those extra damage dice you get at higher levels and therefore very significant.

(Differences in to-hit bonus is less important vs low ac mobs and even more important vs high ac mobs. The 50% chance to hit I used here is very typical for 4e)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage

 

[FireLance]

In some ways this was actually true in previous additions.

Which part? Ability scores didn't influence attack rolls, or practically every fighter had an 18/xx Strength?

 

[Mengu]

I'd love a fixed attack bonuses, independent from stats, I've been begging for one ever since the release of 4e.

I was pondering a simplified D&D at some point, removing attack bonuses, where the enemies you are fighting would be labeled, easy, average, or hard, meaning you need a 5, 8, or 11 on the die to hit (or other arbitrary numbers to find a sweet spot). It would make attack resolution go pretty fast. PC's would similarly be easy (wizard, sorcerer, etc), average (rogue, cleric, etc), or hard (fighter, paladin) to hit. It becomes a bit of a children's game (and probably no longer D&D), but not completely unreasonable... Powers like the shield spell might temporarily boost a wizard's defenses to hard against an attack, so there is some design space to play around with it.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I suggest that ability scores are more valuable than in previous editions, but less important to game balance. Damage and hit points are the most important factor in character and monster power. A +3 to hit is only a 15% improvement, which pales in comparison to the extra damage dice high level spells or attacks do.

Not sure that makes sense to me, when you already have massive damage hitting 30% more often (as demonstrated with a 50% to hit vs 65%) means it is very important. Those extra hits will really count! Unless everything is designed to go down in a couple of hits.

 

[howandwhy99]

Divorcing ability score modifiers from attack rolls, or any rolls really, drops variation between player characters from the equation. They are no longer different due to their inborn abilities, but different solely because of their training or other factors like equipment.

This can be good and I do prefer it in some cases. Getting rid of it for Initiative opens up far more often the possibility of shared initiative, so I do think it matters for what you want emphasized in your game.

My main concern with Ability Modifiers in the current banded system is they are far too high for the bonus progressions from other areas. Magic Items are topping off at +3, I believe. And trained attack bonuses top off at +5. Ability Modifiers are hugely important. Too important in too many cases I think.

If you want, you could try a House Rule of Str scores 14 and up get a +1 on attacks, 19 and up a +2. Keep damage mods the same those numbers are far more inflated in relation to attack roll results. And then I'd do something similar for Magic Attacks and Int or Wis.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Divorcing ability score modifiers from attack rolls, or any rolls really, drops variation between player characters from the equation. They are no longer different due to their inborn abilities, but different solely because of their training or other factors like equipment.

This can be good and I do prefer it in some cases. Getting rid of it for Initiative opens up far more often the possibility of shared initiative, so I do think it matters for what you want emphasized in your game.

My main concern with Ability Modifiers in the current banded system is they are far too high for the bonus progressions from other areas. Magic Items are topping off at +3, I believe. And trained attack bonuses top off at +5. Ability Modifiers are hugely important. Too important in too many cases I think.

If you want, you could try a House Rule of Str scores 14 and up get a +1 on attacks, 19 and up a +2. Keep damage mods the same those numbers are far more inflated in relation to attack roll results. And then I'd do something similar for Magic Attacks and Int or Wis.

I agree with your opening paragraph, however what happens in reality is that most PCs have the same score anyway, like the 4E 16 and 16 or 18 and 14 (plus 2 to each due to race). In theory it reduces difference but in practice it may well see PCs with more diverse skill sets but, admittedly, being very similar in their core competency ie Attack/Magic Attack bonus.

The problem with having something like +1 for 14 and +2 for 19 means everyone will have a 19 or 20 in their Prime Requisite!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Cut the problem in half: let the ability bonus apply to either attack or damage (player's choice), but not both. Or maybe the player can choose how to split the bonus between attack and damage, but can't apply more than the total modifier.