D&D 5E [Homebrew] − Rethinking the Ability Scores

So, combat encounter is reasonably well defined in D&D.

Social encounter is slowly coming into shape as a mechanical aspect of the game. To be fair, it is difficult to quantify human social interactions. Cortex Prime does some interesting things, giving stats for relationships (≈ Bond with a person) and personal goals (≈ Ideal to strive for, but more like an ambition). The defined relationship Bond and Ideal are sorta like skills that increase in bonuses while leveling. Thus they exert more success when trying to influence other characters. Failing at a social contest means you give in and do the goal that your friend wants you to do, but that conflict with your goal. During the contest to see who ‘wins’, the feeling of increasing levels of stress and tension is sorta like taking hit points in social damage.

Along similar lines D&D 5e uses Background to establish social stats. Personality Traits (what I would rather call Quirks), Ideals (values, concepts that the character believes in), Bonds (persons, places, or even objects that the character cares deeply about and that define the character), and Flaws (darkside, less flattering aspects of the ‘other side of the coin’).

D&D doesnt really quantify these Background descriptions into numeric bonuses that are added to a dice roll. But maybe you can, such as granting advantage to skill checks that relate to upholding a Value or defending someone that the character Bonds with.

Even more interestingly, a player might intentionally choose to take a disadvantage on a skill check (or even a combat attack) that pertains to the characters Flaw. Why would a player intentionally take a hit? Because of Inspiration Points.

Inspiration Points are like a separate Experience Points track that only applies to social roleplaying. When a player conscientiously dramatizes the personality considerations of their character, the DM awards them with Inspiration Points.

Currently, Inspiration Points can be spent to modify important dice rolls in the future, at a time of the players choosing.

But I would like to use Inspiration Points as the only way to ‘purchase’ magic items. I dislike the idea of buying magic items with gold, because to me it makes them feel like mundane nonmagical technology. But bonding, namely attuning, with a magic item does feel magical; and it feels social to me. Like the magic item attunes because in some way the character is a person who merits the magic. A magic item might even mysteriously ‘find its way’ to the character, in a cosmic karma kind of sense.

So, if the player roleplays a skill check or an attack roll, where a relevant Flaw becomes interferesome, and that dice roll *fails*, then the player gains Inspiration Points (somewhat automatically, mechanically on the failure of the dice roll − the DM can monitor against any abuse). In this way, a player will intentionally want to get disadvantage in the name of roleplaying the Flaw, for the purpose of acquiring a desirable magic item or to modify a future roll that is important for ones Value or Bond.

Inspiration Points are a potential tool to incentivize and to some degree quantify social encounters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maybe Persuasion and Intimidation skill checks can be used in player character versus player character social contests. To pressure the other character to do what you want to do. The roleplaying intentionally tries to call attention to Ideal and Bond to gain advantage on the checks, and to exploit the Flaw of the other to impose a disadvantage.

The player that ‘loses’ the social skill checks gains Inspiration points for roleplaying how the character goes along reluctantly with the plan.

This kind of head-to-head needs some thinking, such as where the limits are of what one player can impose on an other. But there seems to be enough here to do some interesting things.
 

What if all bonuses are die sizes?

+2 ≈ +d4
+3 ≈ +d6
+4 ≈ +d8
+5 ≈ +d10
+6 ≈ +d12

For example,

Proficiency bonus:
Level 1 to 4, Student: +d4
Level 5 to 8, Professional: +d6
Level 9 to 12, Master: +d8
Level 13 to 16, Champion: +d10
Level 17 to 20, Legend: +d12

Abilities, sample array:
Size: +0 Lightweight
Athletics: +d4
Perception: +d10
Intelligence: +d8
Charm: +d6

Other Bonuses:
Class Feature +d8
Feat +d6
Magic Bow +d6

... etcetera.


The benefit is, it becomes possible to roll many dice representing many possible factors that contribute to a successful dice roll. But then. Only pick the HIGHEST of the dice rolls to determine the bonus amount. This helps the game stay within bounded accuracy. At the same time, picking the highest one still allows characters who specialize in multiple ways, to benefit accumulatively from each way by increasing the frequency of high dice results.
 
Last edited:

The Ability Fivesome represents the 5e player races as follows.


PLAYERS HANDBOOK

Human (+1 to any two)

Dwarf, Hill (+2 Size, +1 Perception)
Dwarf, Mountain (+2 Size, +2 Athletics)
Size ≈ 6½ feet tall Human: "Though they stand well under 5 feet tall, dwarves are so broad and compact that they can weigh as much as a human standing nearly two feet taller."

Elf, Drow (+2 Perception, +1 Charm)
Elf, High (+2 Perception, +1 Intelligence)
Elf, Wood (+2 Perception, +1 Athletics)
Perception = Keen Senses, sensitive steady hand, longbow, stealth, and craftsmanship.

Dragonborn (+2 Size, +1 Charm)

Gnome, Forest (+2 Intelligence, +1 Perception)
Gnome, Tinker (+2 Intelligence, +1 Athletics)

Half Elf (+2 Charm, +1 other two)

Half Orc (+2 Size, +1 Athletics)

Tiefling (+2 Charm, +1 Intelligence)



I am satisfied with the ability of the Fivesome to represent the Players Handbook races.

The Players Handbook format standardizes for no ability penalties.
 
Last edited:

One way to look at it is, the small races have penalties to Size, −2 or −1.

But a penalty to an ability always sucks.

Maybe a better way to look at it is, Small player races must put their lowest ability score in Size.



For example, there are five abilities. Thus the heroic array for player characters can be:
16, 14, 12, 10, and 8.

So the Lightfoot Halfling assigns the lowest score to Size. Size 8 is perfect for Small:
Athletics 12, Size 8, Perception 16, Intelligence 10, Charm 14

Thereby, the player can still use feats to improve Size. Heh, so the Halfling is puny, but hes getting pretty buff for a Halfling.

Note, the Stout Halfling is more massive and may even have Dwarf ancestry, so arguably tends to be on the Lightweight spectrum of Medium Size, say typically 10. Maybe it is possible to be more generous, saying something like, During character creation, Size must be one of the three lowest abilities. Thus the Stout Halfling may have a Size of 8, 10, or even 12.

For a Drow Elf, you might want to say something like Size is the lowest ability, both in the sense of fragile constitution and in the sense of weak fighter that lacks brute force. With Intelligence being both intuition and academics, a high Intelligence score would make a great Cleric as well as a great Wizard. By contrast, Charm makes a great Paladin and Warlock. Athletics is great for the accuracy of a ‘weak’ Fighter, as well as body coordination, ambidexterity, and agile melee combat. Perception handles keen senses, stealth, steady hand, and handbow. Typically, Drow can have the highest score in any ability, except Size. Altho Drow are low-mass, they seem fairly fit, and they are relatively tall. So maybe say something like, During character creation, Size must be one of the two lowest abilities.



In any case, thinking about player races in terms of ability prereqs during character creation, helps form the feel of the race, without creating ability penalties, and without needing super-huge bonuses.



In any case, rather than penalties.
 
Last edited:

A nice feature of the ability fivesome is, the overly powerful single ability Dex splits up into two abilities.

• Athletics handles the AC dodge bonus, relflex save, and gymnastic balance and tumble.
• Perception handles the slow sensitive precision, Stealth, and steady-hand ranged weapons.

Each of the fivesome seems roughly equally powerful and equally appealing.
 

Regarding Small races, it probably makes sense to go with old school race ability minimums and maximums. The minimums and maximums are *after* race ability score improvements.



Something like: Players Handbook races

Lightfoot Halfling: Size score maximum 9
Stout Halfling: Size score maximum 13

Forest Gnome: Size score maximum 9
Tinker Gnome: Size score maximum 11

Dragonborn: Size score minimum 13
Half Orc: Size score minimum 17
 

Just for fun! :)

Size 20 - Large
Size 19 - Large
Size 18 - Large
Size 17 - Large

Size 16 - Super Heavyweight
Size 15 - Heavyweight
Size 14 - Light Heavyweight
Size 13 - Middleweight

Size 12 - Welterweight
Size 11 - Lightweight
Size 10 - Featherweight
Size 9 - Bantamweight

Size 8 - Small
Size 7 - Small
Size 6 - Small
Size 5 - Small

Size 4 - Tiny
Size 3 - Tiny
Size 2 - Tiny
Size 1 - Tiny
 

An other thread was discussing the implications of a Halfling with a Strength score of 20.

It makes me more confident that splitting Strength into the Athletics score and the Size score is a better way to go.
• Athletics score: yes, the Small Halfling can fight accurately with attack bonus, and jump far.
• Size score: no, the the Small Halfling cannot have Large Ogre strength, damaging impact, nor throw boulders.

Size matters.
 

Initially, I wanted Athletics to handle stamina and the ability to press on, as an aspect of fitness. For example, endurance training, and marathoning.

By contrast, Size is handles the ability to ignore and shake off physical punishment. For example, punching a Large horse merely annoys it, while punching a small animal can seriously injure it. (Heh, no reallife animals were harmed during the production of this example.)

The problem is, 5e hit points blur the line.

The hit dice for regaining hit points after combat, represent stamina to recover from fatigue. The combat itself shows almost no signs of injury before half hit points, and only minor superficial injuries after half hit points. The only time a significant injury occurs is at zero.

So, assigning the hit point bonus to Size, but the hit dice recovery to Athletics, seems to slippery.

For the sake of distinguishing the abilities from each other, it seems better to lump all things relating to hit points into Size, along with the relatively infrequent stamina checks. So Size represents ‘big and tough’.

Any thoughts?
 

Remove ads

Top