D&D 5E Divorce Abilty Modifiers from Attack Rolls

[Stalker0]

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!

This is not necessarily true.

We all can agree that hitting is very important. But even so, it is not so important that I would sacrifice everything else in the world to get it.

If I can get another +1 to hit for 1 point buy, I would do it. If I could it for 2, still do it. But for 10....no, that can buy me a lot of other abilities.

So there is a threshold when another +1 to hit just isn't worth the opportunity cost of all the other things you could pick up instead.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Personally, I would rather the class bonuses be reduced at 1st level. Why a wizard is +2 on weapon attacks when a creature like a goblin is +0 absolutely confounds me.

I would much rather see:

Fighter: +2
Cleric/Rogue: +1
Wizard: +0

That reigns in 1st level PCs, but still makes a fighter's bonus twice as good as other classes.

 

[mach1.9pants]

This is not necessarily true.

We all can agree that hitting is very important. But even so, it is not so important that I would sacrifice everything else in the world to get it.

If I can get another +1 to hit for 1 point buy, I would do it. If I could it for 2, still do it. But for 10....no, that can buy me a lot of other abilities.

So there is a threshold when another +1 to hit just isn't worth the opportunity cost of all the other things you could pick up instead.

Personally, I would rather the class bonuses be reduced at 1st level. Why a wizard is +2 on weapon attacks when a creature like a goblin is +0 absolutely confounds me.

I would much rather see:

Fighter: +2
Cleric/Rogue: +1
Wizard: +0

That reigns in 1st level PCs, but still makes a fighter's bonus twice as good as other classes.

Both very good points. I still think divorcing ability boni and reducing the starting numbers is a good idea.

 

[kerleth]

I have one main issue with this. In real life, if I have equal training with someone, have the same arm length, am wielding the same weapon(or am unarmed), etc. BUT am stronger and faster, I WILL be able to land more hits. That may be splitting hairs and asking for too much "realism", but it just doesn't seem right to me that I could dump my strength and dexterity to 8 to max out my charisma and wisdom but still strike as fast and accurately as the other guy who maxed out strength/dexterity. Admittedly, damage done is an abstract and the bonus there could be inferred as precision, etc. but it just doesn't seem right. I have heard this basic idea proposed before, and your version seems the most promising. Even though I'm leery of it, I would definitely be willing to give it a go if some people asked me to play a game IRL using it.

 

[DogBackward]

Yeah, Next doesn't require super-high stats, actually. They're a bonus, but not at all necessary. I played a Wizard with a 12 Strength and Dexterity, and I ended up bopping people on the head constantly. He was the scholarly type, so I didn't take things like Magic Missile or even Shocking Grasp, it was all utility magic. So, every so often, I'd thwack something with my stick. Even with my whopping +3 attack bonus with my quarterstaff, I hit often enough to make a difference, 1d6+1 damage at a time.

If my Wizard can hit fairly often with a 12 Strength, I think the Fighter can manage it just fine with an extra +1 attack and a 14-16 Strength.

 

[nightwalker450]

I'd just got with +1 to attack for 14 or higher, +2 for 20 or higher, +3 for 30...

So this means for players, they only need a 14 in their primary to be considered competent. Stat bonus to damage will be the symbolism of further expertise. Keep Dex as it is to defenses, but use Proficiency bonuses to make sure this balances properly still for expected chance to hit.

 

[pemerton]

In real life, if I have equal training with someone, have the same arm length, am wielding the same weapon(or am unarmed), etc. BUT am stronger and faster, I WILL be able to land more hits.

What exactly does it mean to have equal training with someone, yet they are stronger and faster? That sounds to me like they've been training harder! Or at least that their training has been more effective.

I mean, what is involved in coaching a sprinter, for example, or a fighter, except making them stronger and faster?

 

[Steely_Dan]

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.

Yes.

So in response to the OP: please gods, no.

 

[Blackwarder]

I suggest halving attack bonuses and rounding up so a +1 is still +1 but a +2 is +1 for combat and if you want a +2 you need to have an ability modifier of +3 or +4... The most an 18 <insert ability name> character will get is +3 for its attack and damage rolls.

Couple that with other incentives to get higher ability scores (AC bonus, spells, lift capacity, saves, skills etc etc) and I think that we got a good system...

I'm afraid of number bloat in 5e I would much rather not see it.

Warder

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I suggest halving attack bonuses and rounding up so a +1 is still +1 but a +2 is +1 for combat and if you want a +2 you need to have an ability modifier of +3 or +4... The most an 18 <insert ability name> character will get is +3 for its attack and damage rolls.

Couple that with other incentives to get higher ability scores (AC bonus, spells, lift capacity, saves, skills etc etc) and I think that we got a good system...

I'm afraid of number bloat in 5e I would much rather not see it.

Warder

I would round down for attack bonus and round up for damage bonus, but otherwise, i would like that more than the full bonus on everything!