Making ability scores more about the character concept.

[Blue]

A number of years ago, my oldest daughter (still quite young) asked me what I was doing while I was making a D& character. I told her a little about it and she wanted to try, so she started telling me her ideas. They didn't fit any of the classes - even with multiclassing it wasn't there because the ideas were unfettered by the containers we normally think things of. So I figured I'd explain classes. We went through them all and she liked druid. But she wanted her druid to be a bit foolish and headstrong (long Wis), but wil amazing agility, like Peter Parker. (Not like Spidey, like Peter. Still not sure the difference.)

So that's what I really want to be able to do with ability scores - take any combination of class and ability scores and make a viable character. I want the low Wisdom, very high Dex druid to be on an even playing field with other combinations.

 

[Krachek]

That was my thought too, although it doesn't exactly removes the problem, it only prevents the effect.

We can't change the whole game.
But imposing feat rather than ASI would certainly produce more variety.
Otherwise data from DnD beyond show that people usually max out their main stat before choosing others options.
And people usually play around level 1 to 10. Leaving no place for a lot of feats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Something seems off with the way that every fighter ends up with 20 Str, every wizard has 20 Int, every cleric has 20 Wis, and every warlock 20 Cha.

I've been thinking about this and I finally realized what seems off about it: "every." A given party shouldn't have multiple STR fighters or wizards or warlocks. It should maybe have a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, a wizard, & warlock (or sorcerer or paladin or bard). And, yeah, the, one will be really strong, the other really quick, the other really smart, and the last incongruously likeable-yet-annoying-as-heck.

You're not going to have a party of 5 fighters going "hey bro' why are we all so buff?"

 

[TwoSix]

I see any stat as valid.

Str -> The fighter hits harder.
Dex-> The fighter hits more accurately.
Con-> The fighter's relentless assault tires the enemy while the fighter endures.
Int -> The fighter knows the enemies weak points.
Wis -> The fighter's perception allows him to spot weaknesses.
Cha -> The fighter's feints and tricks the enemy into overextending.


With my suggestion, there are now 6 different flavors of fighter (plus all the combinations). All balanced.

It would certainly make warlord design easier.

 

[TwoSix]

I've been thinking about this and I finally realized what seems off about it: "every." A given party shouldn't have multiple STR fighters or wizards or warlocks. It should maybe have a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, a wizard, & warlock (or sorcerer or paladin or bard). And, yeah, the, one will be really strong, the other really quick, the other really smart, and the last incongruously likeable-yet-annoying-as-heck.

You're not going to have a party of 5 fighters going "hey bro' why are we all so buff?"

The way 5e is set up right now, though, it's fairly easy to not get that spread of stats. I've had parties with no one having an Int or a Str higher than 10.

Personally, I think a party with a buff rogue, a smart fighter, wise wizard, and a stealthy, athletic paladin sounds pretty fun.

 

[jgsugden]

I've toyed around with a more complex combat and spellcasting system aimed at these concerns. Basically, you add a "secondary" ability score for everything you do in combat (attacks, spells, class abilities) that has a real impact. This doesn't reduce the importance of primary stats, but does differentiate PCs based upon their other stats - and opens the door to certain builds where the secondary ability score might be more important to a fighting style than the primary ability. Thus, a rogue, fighter or ranger might elect to have a low strength, high dexterity but even higher intelligence as it serves his fighting style.

The system is CUMBERSOME right now, but I like the feel of it. I have not touched it in a while, but I may dig it back out and look for more ways to streamline it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The way 5e is set up right now, though, it's fairly easy to not get that spread of stats. I've had parties with no one having an Int or a Str higher than 10.

You could have that in any ed, I think. For instance, I was in a long and successful 3.5 campaign in which my half-orc Barbarian1/RogueX had the highest INT in the party - at 12.

Personally, I think a party with a buff rogue, a smart fighter, wise wizard, and a stealthy, athletic paladin sounds pretty fun.

Are they still those classes, though? OK, I admit 'wise wizard' is a legit archetype, but, yeah, the D&D classes are a little straightjacketed that way. I mean, in 3e, you could have had a smart (INT 13) fighter using Expertise, and a ... well, no that's about it, really. In 4e you could have had a Brutal Rogue (STR secondary, but still DEX primary), a Tactical Warlord (INT secondary), an Orb Wizard (WIS secondary), and a stealthy, athletic Avenger, I suppose. In 5e, the DEX paladin isn't entirely pointless, it throws away the odd class feature but the STR/DEX choice for weapon-users is seamless enough it'd work, not so much with the rogue, though.

 

[mellored]

The balance baked into the system comes from some particularly powerful classes, I.e paladin or Druid needing multiple good stats. Having to make tough choices balances these classes.

That's fair. But can be fixed with feats, while still keeping ability scores seperate.

New Feats:

MOAR POWER (replaces +2 to primary stat)
You gain +1 to hit, damage, and DC's.

Toughness: (already exists, close enough to +2 Con)
You gain +2 HP per character level.

Improved Aura of Protection (prerequisite paladin 6)
Increase the bonus from aura of protection by 2.

Improved Bardic Inspiration (prerequisite bard)
Increase the number of bardic inspiration dice you have by 2.


So now, you still have the same combat-mechanical choice of +1 to-hit/damage, +5 aura, great weapon master, inspiring leader, and so on. But it still keeps your ability score free for the character concept.

Similarly caster stats prevents multiclassing casters ruling the roost.

Trading high level spells for low level spells is generally not a great trade.

 

[TwoSix]

Are they still those classes, though? OK, I admit 'wise wizard' is a legit archetype, but, yeah, the D&D classes are a little straightjacketed that way. I mean, in 3e, you could have had a smart (INT 13) fighter using Expertise, and a ... well, no that's about it, really. In 4e you could have had a Brutal Rogue (STR secondary, but still DEX primary), a Tactical Warlord (INT secondary), an Orb Wizard (WIS secondary), and a stealthy, athletic Avenger, I suppose. In 5e, the DEX paladin isn't entirely pointless, it throws away the odd class feature but the STR/DEX choice for weapon-users is seamless enough it'd work, not so much with the rogue, though.

Well, that's kind of the argument the OP is making, right? To what degree should class identity be derived from their stat dependency? If you used OP's suggested rules to divorce class from stat dependency, would anything bad happen?

I'd argue no, not for my play style, but I've always been an advocate that a) class is purely a metagame construct and should be open to broad reskinning, and b) stats should really be descriptive and not determinative.

 

[Rossbert]

The problem with Dexterity narratively is, people who know how to fall dont know how to jump, and people who know how to balance dont know how to climb. It is absurd.

Slight tangent this isn't quite as absurd as it looks like up front. In track they coach on long jump and high jump, but nothing on rolling with a fall. In my personal experience I have a fairly decent ability to balance (years of dance classes) but I lack the ability to climb anything more than a beginner level wall.

Anecdotal, sure, but does make me feel it isn't completely ridiculous.