OneDnD Reducing ability score impact.

Clint_L

Hero
One D&D is just 5e with a few tweaks. Like Tasha's, etc. They aren't going to radically change ability modifiers because it wouldn't be backwards compatible. I don't see them touching ability scores at all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
What is the goal of this exercise? If it is simply to reduce the +benefit, why not just limit ability score max to 18 or even 16 (gives you the +3 max of pre-3e D&D). 5e would still work just fine (even better in some people's opinion) with lower stats.
 

Horwath

Hero
What is the goal of this exercise? If it is simply to reduce the +benefit, why not just limit ability score max to 18 or even 16 (gives you the +3 max of pre-3e D&D). 5e would still work just fine (even better in some people's opinion) with lower stats.
I completely agree with 18 cap on ability scores.

Might introduce some AC 13+dex light armor with some higher cost 300+GP or similar to compensate for lack of +5 dex mod to AC.
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
I have suggestion that simply replaces ability modifier with proficiency bonus in all except ABILITY checks:

Any changes will apply to konsters too don't forget. Your storm giant should have more chance of breaching armour than a halfling. The bonuses to attack that giants get is game changing but no bonuses at all would be too far the other way. Half your bonus rounded up and +4 at 20 might be better. I would probably say that strength should be the only thing that adds to damage though.
 

Horwath

Hero
The bonuses to attack that giants get is game changing but no bonuses at all would be too far the other way. Half your bonus rounded up and +4 at 20 might be better. I would probably say that strength should be the only thing that adds to damage though.
damage can also be described as precision, I.E. an archer hitting a more vital part of the body. But that could also be described with damage roll.
1 or 12 is very different result and both can come from same wielder.

maybe better solution would be that all weapons deal fixed base damage and every point of attack roll over AC adds 1 or 2 damage.
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
damage can also be described as precision, I.E. an archer hitting a more vital part of the body. But that could also be described with damage roll.
1 or 12 is very different result and both can come from same wielder.

maybe better solution would be that all weapons deal fixed base damage and every point of attack roll over AC adds 1 or 2 damage.
Yeah, I understand the logic behind dex to damage but earlier editions didn't have it and some of the damage potential is already priced into the dice. If you are looking for ways to reduce ability score inflation, it's low hanging fruit. That little arrow is doing more damage than a short sword.
 

Horwath

Hero
Yeah, I understand the logic behind dex to damage but earlier editions didn't have it and some of the damage potential is already priced into the dice. If you are looking for ways to reduce ability score inflation, it's low hanging fruit. That little arrow is doing more damage than a short sword.
one could argue that it's easier to block or parry a sword than an arrow, yet both use same attack and target same AC.
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
one could argue that it's easier to block or parry a sword than an arrow, yet both use same attack and target same AC.
Yes there were tables giving penalties and bonuses for different weapons against different armour types in 1e. More realistic perhaps but pretty much nobody used them. Realism that over-complicates the game has always had a very small following. If reducing ability score impact is the goal, broad brush and simple is how you have to go.
 

Horwath

Hero
Yes there were tables giving penalties and bonuses for different weapons against different armour types in 1e. More realistic perhaps but pretty much nobody used them. Realism that over-complicates the game has always had a very small following. If reducing ability score impact is the goal, broad brush and simple is how you have to go.
That kind of complexity only works in PC game where software calculates those attacks and damage in an instant.

I agree that those tables are nice in theory and pain to use in practice.

maybe we could add that some armors give DR against certain attacks. one or max two types of damage and 1 or 2 points reduced per attack max.

I.E: fullplate could reduce slashing and piercing damage by 2.
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
That kind of complexity only works in PC game where software calculates those attacks and damage in an instant.

I agree that those tables are nice in theory and pain to use in practice.

maybe we could add that some armors give DR against certain attacks. one or max two types of damage and 1 or 2 points reduced per attack max.

I.E: fullplate could reduce slashing and piercing damage by 2.
I think the game already covers this on the sly. By giving fighter characters that are more likely to wear heavier armour more hit points, it simulates a very basic form of DR for the armours they are most likely to wear. HP Cover a lot of bases and some people try to pigeonhole them into one thing.
 
Last edited:

My knowledge of the editions of DnD before 4E is mostly just zeitgeist osmosis, but considering Crawford's works sit in the OSR vein, that doesn't surprise me much.
yeah, there were whole charts though, so things were diffrent...

str gave A bonus to damage then a lesser one to attack, but had the ability to do feats of str... int had what the max level... you know what I am linking a page or two

 

One D&D is just 5e with a few tweaks. Like Tasha's, etc. They aren't going to radically change ability modifiers because it wouldn't be backwards compatible. I don't see them touching ability scores at all.
TBH the ability scores changed in 2000 and have not since, so I doubt WotC will ever go back to TSR stats
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
TBH the ability scores changed in 2000 and have not since, so I doubt WotC will ever go back to TSR stats
In fairness, the most common bonuses in 1e were 15 +1 to 18 +3 which would basically be similar to 50% of the current bonuses in 5e rounded down. Saving throws would scale with DCs but my concern would be that many monsters, who struggle to hit now when PC ACs are 20+ would be even more ineffective. You would probably need to cap magic armours at +1 and consider how monks and barbarians would be affected in comparison. I'm not sure it's worth it overall.
 




tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Is there a need to reduce ability score impact? I have not heard of this before.
Yea kinda. Back in 2e & earlier you could do roll stats & usually nobody cared if Bob's were slightly (or not so slightly) better. There was also the secondary effect that after the primary stat or maybe two players could arrange the rest however even if that meant a flavorful splash if it wasn't a rather high roll. When 3.x shifted +1/-1 from ~15/~6* to 12/8 for +1/-1 it narrowed the dead zone of even from being several points to being two points & suddenly it made a huge difference where you placed any attrib. Even widening it from 12/8 to 14/6 for +1/-1 would do a lot to minimize pressure players feel to minmax their way of chargen because four of the 6 in a standard array are +/-0 & doing a lot of scraping to scrounge up an extra +1 quickly runs into "Is a +1 really worth that pound of flesh?". Doing so would have the secondary benefit of expanding the system math allotted to magic items

* Each attrib varied slightly & they did a lot of things.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top