D&D 5E Flat math ability scores vs roleplay considerations

[howandwhy99]

Character levels rather than Class levels is one of the biggest problems with the current playtest. Adding mandatory ability score increases on top of this demorphism simply makes classes and class abilities more and more meaningless.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wouldn't mind to see that rule disappear.

In 3ed it meant two things:

- that every spellcaster just HAD to get at least 19 early or late in their career, because being totally blocked after some point was a terrible prospect

- that ability score damage or drain required another thing to keep track of

I am actually a fan of the second, but I never liked the first.

FWIW
1) I liked the rule.

2) you didn't need the high stat if you were planning in multiclassing...which I do 80+% of the time

3) I liked energy drain in theory, but not implementation. A while back, I proposed that ED* be done as a condition affecting power:

I always liked the original- sure it was nasty for bookkeeping, but it felt right.

In 5Ed, it could be a 4 step condition degradation. To use 3Ed terminology, I think it could work by making a PC Fatigued => Exhausted => Staggered => Unconscious.

* not the condition Bob Dole did commercials about

 

[Xethreau]

I personally understand what the OP means. I for one was brought up on a lot of video games where ability scores were not used, or if they were they did not effect how the characters played in cutscenes and dialogue.

In most games, you had six "stats"
Attack, Defense, Magic, Resistance, Speed, HP

You can easily switch those out for their ability score equivalents, but the thing about that is that these, being more abstract, can account for factors to a character's combat capability that do not necessarily directly effect their non-combat capabilities.

It means that you don't have to be smart to be a spellcaster, though you probably are, and you don't have to be a big muscle-guy to be a warrior, though you probably are. What systems like this allow one to do is split the mechanics of the character away from the character's personality.

Simultaneously, I don't really think that's the way D&D should go. I kind of like an earlier poster's idea that point buy points should be give upon level up, so as to increase more lower abilities faster, and to increase higher abilities only with more effort.

 

[ren1999]

As in the other threads I commented in, why not decide where the bonus comes from in a roll.

either an ability-10/2 bonus
or a level/3 bonus
or a magic bonus
whichever of the 3 is the highest.

 

[pemerton]

I ran a game of 2e using skills and powers once(where it let you separate your stats into two substats and choose which stat bonuses you got. Plus you could take disadvantages like "antisocial" in exchange for using d12s for hitpoints instead of d10s). I thought it was great because it let people customize their characters exactly how they wanted them. A friend of mine said it was really dumb and set out to prove it.

<snip>

choosing to act like an idiot shouldn't give you combat benefits whether it was due to a disadvantage system or simply because "big, dumb barbarian" was your role playing concept.

I tend to agree.

When I played a Skill & Powers game back in the day, my cleric has the Religious Fanatic disadvantage in return for combat power-ups, and while I didn't destroy the game, my cleric was clearly a stronger fighter than some of the straight-up fighters in the party, which is a little bit broken!

Burning Wheel takes the completely opposite approach to "disadvantage" - you pay points to be disadvantaged, have enemies etc on the logic that the more of these things you have, the more you and your PC will be the focus of the game.

 

[ren1999]

Another poster on the WOTC forum pointed out that the fighter has a +5 weapon attack bonus at 10th level which means he'll have a +10 weapon attack bonus at 20th level. Add that to his Strength20(+5) bonus and we are already exceeding the +10 bonus flat math goal. I was told by a designer that the goal was to keep the bonuses under +9. The latest play test already broke that.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I strongly doubt the level 10 base attack of +5 will be doubled by level 20 because it started at a base +3 at level 1. Extrapolating to level 20 it might increase to a base +7 for fighters...

Regardless, the more I think about it the less I like 19-20 being easily reached by PCs. I'm becoming inclined to favour stat bumps being a chance to improve rather than automatic.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...that the fighter has a +5 weapon attack bonus at 10th level which means he'll have a +10 weapon attack bonus at 20th level.

When you assume... you make an AS out of SUM and E.