D&D (2024) Reducing ability score impact.

[Clint_L]

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.

 

[dave2008]

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]

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]

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

Using abilities for only ability checks.

Yes, an idea to remove most effects from abilities so the only affect ability checks/skills. Have abilities only have mostly RP value. all combat is based on your level. In all other aspects of the game; attacks, saves, damage and DC's, ability mod would be replaced by your proficiency bonus...

www.enworld.org

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.