D&D 5E Idea that will most players will hate, but I think addresses a mechanical issue in game

[jmartkdr2]

The (possibly really bad and unwanted) fix there could be to make casters have two stats too... wizards use intelligence to master understanding the formulae, but need willpower (wisdom) to power them; clerics use their attunement to the divine (wisdom) to gain the spells but their inner force (charisma) to power them, etc...

Which would only add to the "everyone needs 4+ ability scores over a threashhold" situation you're setting up with the original houserule. At some point, making it important for every character to have every ability score means everyone has flat 12's, thus reducing the already limited number of real choices compared the complexity of ability scores.

Or it's just dump-stat whack-a-mole.

 

[Oofta]

Well, I was approaching it from a realism angle.

If you want to look at the wreck of the Mary Rose (?) we know some longbows had a 120# pull. This is requires a monstrous amount of strength. There are plenty of power lifters that can jerk 300# over their heads*, but this is a sustained pull that the archer can still aim and take a considered shot, level or arced. Now, if you wanted to have a bow that did extra damage if you were really strong, that certainly has precedent in reality. It's just you have to be that strong to even use the bow properly.

Unless I misunderstand.

* Patton Oswalt has a funny anecdote about this, actually.

For what it's worth, I agree with the basic premise. The idea that a 30 pound draw weight bow can do as much damage at range as a bow with a draw weight over 100 has always struck me as a bit goofy.

So I considered a variety of options. Damage is limited strength mod times 2 (min +2), making longbows strength based and so on. In the end I just decided it wasn't worth it and made bows versatile as I mentioned earlier.

 

[Undrave]

This obsession with fighting against optimized character and min-maxed character... at some point the fear of those characters feel more intense than the love optimizers have for char op. You can't spend all your time trying to design them out of the game, it's impossible.

Actually, what if casters need Dex to aim touch and range spells, and casting stat for damage or what have you? Seems to balance out.

Then they would just pick Saving Throw spells, unless we go back to 4e's way of making every offensive action an attack.

I like the idea of casters needing to deal with Dex when making Spell Attacks.

That would just make DEX even more of a god stat.

The (possibly really bad and unwanted) fix there could be to make casters have two stats too... wizards use intelligence to master understanding the formulae, but need willpower (wisdom) to power them; clerics use their attunement to the divine (wisdom) to gain the spells but their inner force (charisma) to power them, etc...

It would be complicated, but I really don't see how it would be bad if martial characters had to use two stat per attack.

 

[payn]

Then they would just pick Saving Throw spells, unless we go back to 4e's way of making every offensive action an attack.

A martial can just hyper focus on damage or accuracy, though the wizard might be more optimal for sure. Tho, PF2 has shown there are ways to mitigate this.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Let me offer a different direction for your thought experiment, taken from 7th Sea Second Edition:

It is not the weapon that does the damage. It's the WIELDER that does the damage.

What this creates is a situation where just because someone is using a greatsword does not nessecarily mean they will out-damage a dagger wielder. If you're a superskilled swordsman, you will do every bit the same amount of damage as the superskilled archer, as the superskilled fencer, as the superskilled barfighter.

Or, bring back third-edition bows with the Strength mods, where your weapon has a 'cap', say +2. You need a Strength mod of +2 to even draw it back. But it will let you do that amount of damage extra with an arrow, whether you're at +2 or +4.

I know it's a thought experiment, but something else I wonder is if you've really drilled down on what you're aiming (no pun intended) for. Are you wanting more complexity at your table? Go for it - that's probably how 1e AD&D got weapon speed, init modifiers based on weapons, weapons vs armor. It doesn't need to be cast as 'New Players only want simple! 5e Players Mostly All Want Simple!' Sometimes, personally, I want complex - but sometimes I also remember that my particular table is full of people who no longer can/want to spend 10 hours together on a Saturday the way we did when we were in our twenties. YMMV

 

[Undrave]

Yes, I am not a fan of the all or nothing approach of Disadvantage or not wrt to Stealth/Armour. But as with all of this, how much realism is given up for playability? I have stated that I think WOTC has gone too far. Their sales dept says otherwise.

You could, instead of disadvantage, take away the DEX to Stealth and let them roll with only proficiency?

I have experience with Chainmail, OD&D, AD&D, the entirety of the Basic line, didn’t play 2E or 3E but was around for them, and have played WotC D&D since the launch of 4E. There was nothing to optimize until 2E sort of with kits then late 2E with Skills & Powers. The whole notion of builds and optimization didn't exist until then. At best you'd be able to pick a class that went well with your randomly generated stats...and try to convince the rest of the party to give you the magic items that worked best for your character...but that was the entirety of your "build". Optimization wasn't even really possible before that. It's a fact that the game has slid from challenging to utterly not challenging, just look at the proliferation of magic, hit point bloat, and superhero regeneration disguised as healing. It's a fact that the game has slid from vaguely sort of "realistic" in a few places here and there (encumbrance, reaction tables, slow healing, etc) to ignoring those few pockets of "realism" in favor of fantasy superhero play. So, while I get your need to be dismissive, you're also utterly wrong.

Too much simulationism makes for a boring game. Bad simulationism gives you FATAL. Too much abstraction detaches you from the characters. Characters who are straight lines are boring. Too many options becomes overwhelming.

It's a balancing act and WotC found the balance that works for them and their massive audience.

Adding an "Accuracy" stat and then detaching hit bonuses for Str/Dex (Str only applying to damage rolls - ranged or melee, Dex only applying to AC) might be an alternate way to go, but feels like adding Comliness to the ability array.

You could just make it a function of class/proficiency then. Same with AC really. Then attributes become less about optimization and more about unique ways to express your character.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

This obsession with fighting against optimized character and min-maxed character... at some point the fear of those characters feel more intense than the love optimizers have for char op. You can't spend all your time trying to design them out of the game, it's impossible.


Then they would just pick Saving Throw spells, unless we go back to 4e's way of making every offensive action an attack.

That would just make DEX even more of a god stat.


It would be complicated, but I really don't see how it would be bad if martial characters had to use two stat per attack.

I think the natural extension of this is that every class, be it martial, arcane caster, religious caster, CHA based caster, whatever, would need to deal with 2 abilities when calculating a "to hit", and "to damage". But then we are faced with spells with a DC....

Also, if I run with the idea that all classes need to factor in 2 abilities when calculating any offensive action in the game, be it martial or a spell, what is the point of the exercise? What do I gain from doing this? I am not saying there are valid reasons to force all players to factor in 2 abilities into their primary focus of dealing damage, or fulfilling an offensive action. I am just trying to get my head wrapped around all the cascade effects of such a change.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Personally... if I wanted to reduce the power of the DEX stat, rather than adjust the attack roll part of it, I'd remove adding DEX to Armor Class. That'd take care of everything.

As it stands, AC isn't really an Armor class... it's an 'Armor + Dodging Class' when you get to add your DEX to AC. So don't allow that. Make AC just about how strong your armor protection is to ward off blows. And anything related to dodging should and would only come out of your Dexterity Saving Throws.

Once you do that... all these players who go DEX-heavy because it's a so-called "super-stat" will start to come to a whole different conclusion when they get smacked around in melee combat.

 

[Vaalingrade]

INT to AC would be my preferred way to cut Dex a bit.

Not a fan of DEX to insert heavy thing A into skull B though. It takes more than brute strength, yes, but leverage isn't dexterity IMO.

 

[FrozenNorth]

A martial can just hyper focus on damage or accuracy, though the wizard might be more optimal for sure. Tho, PF2 has shown there are ways to mitigate this.

As set up, giving up damage for accuracy will always be better than giving up accuracy for damage (since a +1 to hit is more valuable than a +1 to damage).