D&D 5E (2014) Divorce Abilty Modifiers from Attack Rolls

[ren1999]

I sort of agree.
I'm thinking let the to hit bonuses come from equal amounts of level/feats, natural ability, and magic.
Level bonuses to hit were too high in 4e and ability bonuses in 5e will be too high. Equal them so that ability scores aren't too important.

 

[Szatany]

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.

I would go for something like 10-12: +0, 13-15: +1, 16-19: +2, 20-22: +3. That means that starting characters can hope for +2 at best (and it's easy to get). +3 is reserved for higher levels and is at the high end of the spectrum.
Same, of course, should apply to Dex bonus to AC.

 

[Szatany]

I sort of agree.
I'm thinking let the to hit bonuses come from equal amounts of level/feats, natural ability, and magic.
Level bonuses to hit were too high in 4e and ability bonuses in 5e will be too high. Equal them so that ability scores aren't too important.

I would keep them as important, just not in combat. I'd love if ability checks and saves were just ability score + d20 roll. Make modifiers lower and use them only for important stuff, and for everything else just use full ability +d20 checks.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

My main concern with the approach of the OP is devaluing the abilities you ought to associate with the class. We've already seen an excellent analysis of Str vs. Dex Fighters that makes Str look useless to them. I've also spotted a Wizard build that requires no Intelligence (it's all utility and Magic Missile), and similarly a Cleric build that requires no Wisdom (you just heal and buff).

 

[kerleth]

Actually, I think that is a strength of the class design, not a weakness. I can play a wizard who just has a talent for magic, but isn't a genius. He'll know less spells, the spells he does know will be pulled from a more limited list (save DC 9 for fireball would make it much less useful, as an example) but it CAN be done. Will most people do it. Probably not, there are still a good number of reasons to have at least a decent intelligence. But I really like the idea that not all wizards have to be super geniuses (or super charismatic sorcerers, etc). Why should a cleric have to have a high wisdom to gain blessings from a higher power? Are you still incentivized to have a good wisdom? Yes. Necessary. No. It allows for greater "character" customization, not just "class" customization. (Tangentially, I always felt it would be more appropriate for the cleric to use charisma than wisdom anyways. I have a nice rant prepared, but I don't want to derail the thread or come across like those with other feelings are having badwrongfun).

Pemerton, at least in the sake of combat I know that this is strictly not true. Technique is gained as a result of training, not just physical fitness. As is a proper mindset (this could be lumped in with technique, arguably). Those things make a HUGE difference.

 

[Kaodi]

If the bonuses are that important, it will become apparent when human becomes the only race played for any class in any game where people pay attention to the prime stat...

I, on the other than, am a big fan of having the most bonuses, for which human is also superior, especially in point buy. A 1st-level human in any class can have an array of 16, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11, which seems pretty damn good...

 

[Rhenny]

I would go for something like 10-12: +0, 13-15: +1, 16-19: +2, 20-22: +3. That means that starting characters can hope for +2 at best (and it's easy to get). +3 is reserved for higher levels and is at the high end of the spectrum.
Same, of course, should apply to Dex bonus to AC.

This is definitely worth looking into especially with bounded accuracy. If monster AC never really goes up (except for when they gain armor or dexterity), why should a first level human fighter (as it stands now with a +4 for 18 strength) be able to hit AC 17...50% of the time? That seems way too high. Hitting AC 17 should be difficult even for a trained 1st level fighter, and since most monsters have AC 14 or less (especially at lower levels), the beginning fighter is super optimized. (This applies to rogues using finesse weapons and dexterity based fighters as well).

 

[Warbringer]

I've been toying with the same concept as in bounded accuracy a high score is son important.

The issue is to put value back into the high scores for variation, or you might as well get rid of stats...


I'd propose something like you get to choose a skill for each bonus you have from a list for the ability .. So a fighter with a strength 16/+3 chooses 3 strength based skills... (adding some dex skills to the list to buff it out, like acrobatics)... This keeps the importance of the stat. Now add in that the more times you take a skill (say I have stealth 3 times) you gain feats or stunts that you use in skill checks, not just raw bonus.

For attack, I've always been found of a minimum ability score to wield, then extra damage dice (or expertise dice) for excess .... In another post I suggested the minimum to wield is average damage x 2' so str 9 for a long sword. For every 5 ability points above this minimum in the stat, you gain an extra dice of the weapon type, to a maximum of an extra 3 dice....

Impact, curve is flat, damage and maneuvers scale

 

[NotAYakk]

I like the idea of splitting attribute bonuses from to-hit rolls. Bonuses to to-hit rolls are extremely powerful, but they don't look extremely powerful, so you get a situation where something that isn't exciting at first glance ends up dominating game balance.

I call them extremely powerful because they are strong in most situations, and game defining in other relatively common ones. In most situations with about a 50-50 chance of hitting, each +1 to hit boosts your characters effectiveness by nearly 10%, while reducing the variance in your character's ability to do things as well.

In the relatively common situation where your chance to hit plummets, a handful of bonuses to hit can more than double your ability to connect against a target.

Only in situations where you are auto-hitting, or almost auto-hitting, does a +1 to hit start to pale in usefulness: and in most versions of D&D you can turn reliable hitting into reliably winning.

...

By splitting your combat accuracy off from your attributes, attribute min/maxing becomes less important. Your characters are presumed competent at what they adventure as -- wizards are presumed competent at casting spells, fighters at swinging weapons, assassins at stabbing people with knives.

I've played around with doing this in 4e, and it seems to work reasonably well there.

 

[pemerton]

I've played around with doing this in 4e, and it seems to work reasonably well there.

Details, please!