D&D 5E Remove stat bonus from damage

[dkyle]

Are you implying there would be no bonuses to damage? That would be a mistake.

If that's directed to me, absolutely not. Classes, specialties, spells, and maneuvers would all be able to provide bonuses to damage, as they currently do. I'd probably add a little more to Fighters, to make up for the loss of damage from STR. And I'd give Rogues a way to boost AC to make up for losing DEX to AC.

I'm only talking about ability scores here.

And if that's directed to the OP, well, same applies pretty much. He's only talking about ability scores.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

If you remove the impact of ability scores from all combat-related numbers then.. yeah.. there's not much point in having a fighter with more than 10 strength? You can certainly change the impact the scores do have, but not remove them entirely.

 

[dkyle]

If you remove the impact of ability scores from all combat-related numbers then.. yeah.. there's not much point in having a fighter with more than 10 strength?

To be better at breaking down doors, jumping over wide gaps, climbing sheer cliffs, whatever other Skills the DM deems to be primarily an expression of strength.

I think a lot of Fighters would be high strength, since it's the most obvious roleplaying choice, but why enforce it by punishing all other roleplaying choices?

You can certainly change the impact the scores do have, but not remove them entirely.

Why not? What bad thing happens when you remove the impact of ability scores from combat, and let combat stats rest on class and specialty?

 

[Steely_Dan]

Ability scores are one of the (the) cornerstones of this edition (attacks, checks, saving throws, DCs, etc), I doubt they will take away modifiers completely.

Expertise dice are what's trivialising Dex/Str mod to damage.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

You get a disconnect. You have a high brute strength, but when you hit someone with a club it has the same effect as that weedy guy you went to fighter school with. You have a high dexterity, but you can't for the life of you avoid dart traps any better than the clumsy waitress. You have a high constitution, but when you and your unhealthy friend both ingest poison, you're no better at coping with it.

Either you accept that abilities in some way represent your natural (or trained perhaps) talent at things, or they don't. Should you smash up an altar more effectively because you're strong? Then why can't you smash up a golem better? Or a goblin?

 

[timASW]

You get a disconnect. You have a high brute strength, but when you hit someone with a club it has the same effect as that weedy guy you went to fighter school with. You have a high dexterity, but you can't for the life of you avoid dart traps any better than the clumsy waitress. You have a high constitution, but when you and your unhealthy friend both ingest poison, you're no better at coping with it.

Either you accept that abilities in some way represent your natural (or trained perhaps) talent at things, or they don't. Should you smash up an altar more effectively because you're strong? Then why can't you smash up a golem better? Or a goblin?

Completely agree. That sort of disconnect would drive me up the wall.

But then I'm pretty much at a 180 from the OP here. I LOVE that they are slowing and reducing the bonuses from leveling up and relying more on your physical stats.

Natural talent and training are BOTH equally essential being very succesful in any physical activity like fighting or sports.

Thats why you dont see scrawny pro athletes and fighters. Even the smaller guys are in extreme physical condition for their build because you need it for those sorts of activities.

 

[tomBitonti]

To say, adding damage from str has these problems:

*) Str "double dips" to improve attacks: Higher attack bonus and more damage!

*) Str overwhelms the value of the weapon. The difference between 1d6 and 1d8 is tiny compared to +6 (or +9) that a high strength raging barbarian has (from 3E).

On the other hand, high strength means:

*) Faster attacks, which will be harder to dodge.

*) Higher energy attacks (either faster or more massive). Either way, more damage.

Plus:

*) Str benefiting both attack bonus and damage is well entrenched in the game system.

3E tried to balance this by making Str a higher value stat. That is, as a racial bonus, Str was valued at twice other stats. That didn't really work, since point allocations didn't work with the higher valuation, neither did the allocations every four levels, nor did stat bonus items.

Somewhere in this mix, there is Power Attack, which lets you trade attack bonus for damage.

Since stats have largely moved away from a bell curve interpretation of the old stat generation (roll 3d6), instead having more of a linear feel, I'm ... maybe ... OK with having Str provide a linear bonus. That is, providing a bonus only to attack bonus, but with an automatic power attack type ability to allow convertion of the strength bonus from an attack bonus to a damage bonus.

However, there are other non-linear ability bonuses: Dex for both AC and ranged attack bonus, or as a finesse bonus to melee. Should finesse when applied to melee not also be linearized, so that if you apply finesse to a melee attack you lose the same from your AC?

TomB

 

[UngeheuerLich]

right now dexterity is not quadratic but cubic: it adds to attack, damage and AC (and initiative too)

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Dexterity is a bit of a monster stat. You get more to hit (with admittedly weaker weapons), and more damage (presumably this is your precision) but you're also harder to hit (dodging, sure) and faster on the draw (this also makes sense).

Strength needs to catch up a bit, and the obvious way to do that is to make heavy armour strictly better than medium and light - you need the strength just to carry the plate. I would not object to equipment having attribute requirements - it could enhance class-equipment connections and make use of odd ability scores.

 

[dkyle]

You get a disconnect. You have a high brute strength, but when you hit someone with a club it has the same effect as that weedy guy you went to fighter school with.

Raw brute strength does not imply being able to use a club effectively in combat.

That "weedy" guy could easily have better training and battle instincts.

And this is not new to D&D. Go back to the very original D&D, and you'll find that a 3 STR Fighter is exactly as effective at killing goblins as an 18 STR Fighter. The higher STR Fighter only gains XP faster.

Even as late as 2E, a 6 STR and 15 STR character deal exactly the same amount of damage with a club.

You have a high dexterity, but you can't for the life of you avoid dart traps any better than the clumsy waitress.

Maybe you have really quick fingers, but not very fast at jumping out of the way. Maybe you are rather oblivious, and don't notice the trap until too late.

There are all sorts of ways a character could be good at Dexterity-based skills, but lousy at practical application of it in combat situations.

And again, in the original D&D, Dexterity had nothing to do with dodging things like traps. That was all about your class.

You have a high constitution, but when you and your unhealthy friend both ingest poison, you're no better at coping with it.

The long-term effects of poisons would reasonably be the domain of Skills.

But I think it's entirely reasonable that, for the short duration of a combat, the training and battle-readiness of the combatant could mean more than pure healthiness.

Either you accept that abilities in some way represent your natural (or trained perhaps) talent at things, or they don't. Should you smash up an altar more effectively because you're strong? Then why can't you smash up a golem better? Or a goblin?

But why should "smashes altar effectively" necessarily imply "smashes goblin effectively"? They are very different targets. Smashing an altar is a pure expression of strength. Hitting a goblin effectively involves varying degrees of accuracy, force, tactics and perception.

And not tying Strength to Fighting ability mechanically doesn't mean that you can't, within the story, tie them together. A player can easily say that a lot of his Fighter's talent comes from his brute strength. But another player could say that his Fighter mastered an ability for pin-pointing strikes through accuracy or tactics.