D&D 5E I’d be glad for MAD

[Warpiglet-7]

O

I agree. Those were mentioned because a table who feels encumbrance and inventory management is bad can just turn off all or part of it without needing to design them in a self nullifying way like 5e did. My overall point was that nonlinear capacity scaling like we saw in past editions was much better than the 1: 1 linear version 5e has where bumping strength from 2 to 4 gives the same capacity increase as bumping it from 18 to 20. The nonlinear capacity back then was a big factor in making it hard to dump strength as dramatically as so many 5e builds do by default


I think you might have thought I was saying bags of holding were needed or something instead of "but it's not fun[to 31% of survey responders]" not being relevant to the way encumbrance & inventory management should be designed.

Ok I get your point now.

That said what else would be useful in making a more broad use of abilities more necessary?

I really like 5e a lot but it does not always seem as “grounded” as I like!

 

[ezo]

1. remove CON, like 90% of characters have 14 con, it's now more or less a point buy tax.
just give everyone +2 HP per level

Or keep CON, remove the hit point aspect, and don't give everyone +2 hp per level.

FWIW, you nailed the CON dependence. I don't know if CON 14 would be 90%, but it is certainly pretty high!

100% agreed. SAD means you only care about 3 stats, MAD means you absolutely require at least 4 stats to be at 14+.

LOL then they should come up with different acronyms for SAD = Single Ability Dependence. Single, as in ONE, not three.

How about Some Ability Dependence?

Heavy Armor martials aren't dependent on Dex. That includes for initiative as it is only relevant the first turn and there are very few opponents who can drop a character in a single round (by design). Con however, benefits anyone and everyone.

Of course. But I think you missed the point of the discussion and why I removed CON and DEX from the list.

 

[Horwath]

Or keep CON, remove the hit point aspect, and don't give everyone +2 hp per level.

sure, but then as I said, there is not much left for CON to do,
No HP mechanics, no skills, just saves and some off chance to be used in some ability count?

FWIW, you nailed the CON dependence. I don't know if CON 14 would be 90%, but it is certainly pretty high!

in last 3 campaigns, 16 characters, 15 with 14 CON, one(barbarian) with 16 CON.

LOL then they should come up with different acronyms for SAD = Single Ability Dependence. Single, as in ONE, not three.

How about Some Ability Dependence?


Of course. But I think you missed the point of the discussion and why I removed CON and DEX from the list.

Well, single ability dependency can open up more room for other abilities.
If you remove CON and you need only 1 ability, other 4 can be in various combinations and that gives lots of different characters of same class and/or race.

 

[Stormonu]

Of course. But I think you missed the point of the discussion and why I removed CON and DEX from the list.

No, I understood. Its just a bit of a sigh that "everyone needs CON" but about the only use it has is for hit points. It's become the dump stat you can't dump of 5E.

 

[Horwath]

No, I understood. Its just a bit of a sigh that "everyone needs CON" but about the only use it has is for hit points. It's become the dump stat you can't dump of 5E.

so true,
As I mentioned, it's the main reason it is the "14 stat", not too much, not too little, and when everyone has the same or close to it; 12-14-16, it's less of a headache for DM to plan encounters,
imagine planning damage dealing encounters for 8 CON wizard together with 18 CON barbarian.
even at 5th level the difference is huge, 17 HP vs. 60 HP, on average wizard can tank 0 fireballs while barbarian can with rage after round 1, maybe even 6

and if both have 14 CON it's 32 HP vs. 50 HP, much more manageable.

 

[ezo]

sure, but then as I said, there is not much left for CON to do,
No HP mechanics, no skills, just saves and some off chance to be used in some ability count?

That's because the design gave it HP, so they didn't give it much else. Definitely one of the two important saves (along with Wisdom).

Now, we use CON bonus to grant extra levels of Exhaustion for free, and we incorportate Exhaustion into more aspects of the game.

in last 3 campaigns, 16 characters, 15 with 14 CON, one(barbarian) with 16 CON.

Well, that is anecdotal, of course.

According to the poll our other DM ran here a while ago, CON 14 or higher was about 72%.

D&D 5E - What's Your (Character's) Constitution Score?

The title says it, but this is a 5E thread so PLEASE only respond for 5E characters you've played or are playing currently. Thank you! :) It can be a current character or a favorite character, multiple characters (up to 6 votes), but please only vote once for each PC and use their current...

www.enworld.org

Well, single ability dependency can open up more room for other abilities.
If you remove CON and you need only 1 ability, other 4 can be in various combinations and that gives lots of different characters of same class and/or race.

You don't need to remove CON, just untie the HP bonus from it. I mean, for many PCs, INT, CHA, and even STR are just as "pointless" as CON without HP would be.

No, I understood. Its just a bit of a sigh that "everyone needs CON" but about the only use it has is for hit points. It's become the dump stat you can't dump of 5E.

Ok, just checking. Yes, I totally agree.

 

[Undrave]

Personally, I think it’s a fool’s errand to try and ‘design out’ optimization. No matter how much you take out of the game, people will hate being mediocre at stuff and find ways to optimize for what they want to do. You make everything MAD then the optimizers will find the best combination of stats with what you give them. People will continue to chase specialization because they like being good at their chosen expertise.

You might be able to convince players to make more well-rounded characters if you introduce stronger systems for assisting in an action, so that the more team member who can join in the better.

 

[Horwath]

Personally, I think it’s a fool’s errand to try and ‘design out’ optimization. No matter how much you take out of the game, people will hate being mediocre at stuff and find ways to optimize for what they want to do. You make everything MAD then the optimizers will find the best combination of stats with what you give them. People will continue to chase specialization because they like being good at their chosen expertise.

You might be able to convince players to make more well-rounded characters if you introduce stronger systems for assisting in an action, so that the more team member who can join in the better.

point buy increasing cost is one tool to have more balanced characters, you get more if you do not "greed" on your primary/secondary ability.

It would be even easier if you remove +2/+1 step and just increase and modify point buy pool

3: -9 pts - optional
4: -6 pts - optional
5: -4 pts - optional
6: -2 pts - optional
7: -1 pts - optional
8: 0 pts
9: 1pt
10: 2 pts
11: 3 pts
12: 4 pts
13: 5 pts
14: 6 pts
15: 8 pts
16: 10 pts
17: 13 pts
18: 16 pts
19: 20 pts - optional
20: 24 pts - optional

pool: 40pts

*optional: I would nod advise on buying 20 at 1st level, so players can look forward to something later on
as for really low scores, it's just too much min maxing potential, but if someone really want's it....

the higher you go, more you pay for same increase in score.

 

[Staffan]

Or keep Con, and remove its influence on HP.

You could reduce its impact, like in 4e. In 4e, PCs started out with a good chunk of hit points, 10 to 15 depending on class, and added their Constitution score to that total. But they didn't get more hit points per level from Con (though it also affected their healing surges per day).

 

[Undrave]

point buy increasing cost is one tool to have more balanced characters, you get more if you do not "greed" on your primary/secondary ability.

It would be even easier if you remove +2/+1 step and just increase and modify point buy pool

3: -9 pts - optional
4: -6 pts - optional
5: -4 pts - optional
6: -2 pts - optional
7: -1 pts - optional
8: 0 pts
9: 1pt
10: 2 pts
11: 3 pts
12: 4 pts
13: 5 pts
14: 6 pts
15: 8 pts
16: 10 pts
17: 13 pts
18: 16 pts
19: 20 pts - optional
20: 24 pts - optional

pool: 40pts

*optional: I would nod advise on buying 20 at 1st level, so players can look forward to something later on
as for really low scores, it's just too much min maxing potential, but if someone really want's it....

the higher you go, more you pay for same increase in score.

That's already how point buy works.

Again, I don’t think this would stop optimizers. You’re not going to design SAD out unless you design your game so wide range of skills are optimal. Problem with that approach, of course, is that the characters might end up being too similar.