D&D 5E Remove stat bonus from damage

[Storminator]

I'd much rather see the modifier chart changed to something more like BD&D (as I recall it . . . the past is hazy).

If all the modifiers were a point or two smaller then getting the bonus on attack and damage wouldn't be that big a deal.

PS

 

[CAFRedblade]

I wouldn't be against removing it from the attack bonus, and only applying it towards damage, for any ability score. Str, Dex, Int...
The only bonus for accurate attacks comes from the class, and helps show the learned skills through that..
Perhaps as an optional house rule.

I'm hoping that with rolling of stats being the prime method, we won't see as many 16 through 18's in characters as with 4ed... not to say the dice might not roll really well.

Heck, I may even re-introduce an old 2ed house rule of allowing extra damage based on the difference of the ac to the to hit result for DND Next.
Rolled a 24, against AC 18, that's an extra 6 hp damage..

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

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.

Then why do you want strength to have an effect on your ability to break down doors? The weedy guy might be an expert in carpentry. You either accept that both skill and talent play a role in both combat and other activities, or you do away with ability scores - that's a different game altogether.

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.

I'm not wholly familiar with the original fighting man so I can't comment on that. For 2E though, note that they decided that very weak and very strong characters should deal more damage? There's an ability component and a skill component (weapon specialization).

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.

Well what I take from that is that maybe we should use dexterity and strength together to see how effective you are at hitting goblins (I think this has been done somwhere?). You're right that smashing an altar is a pure expression of brute strength, but then taking the extreme position that hitting a goblin is a pure expression of skill - that it doesn't matter how strong you are, you'll hit it with a force based on how much sword-fighting you've done, and you'll hit accurately for the same reason, ignoring that you're naturally dextrous.

Currently the Fighter can trivially pick between dexterity and strength, I quite like this.

 

[dkyle]

Then why do you want strength to have an effect on your ability to break down doors?

Because that would be the specific point of having the Strength ability exist. To use for skill rolls where strength is the dominant force. That would be the role of the mechanic.

Same reason we have attack bonuses for rolling to-hit, and damage bonuses for adding to damage rolls. That's what those mechanics are there for.

The weedy guy might be an expert in carpentry.

Then the weedy guy would probably have a skill of some sort for carpentry, and the DM could allow him to apply it, if the DM felt is was relevant.

You either accept that both skill and talent play a role in both combat and other activities

I absolutely accept that.

I just don't think it's necessary to mechanically model skill and talent separately in all cases, and for talent at non-combat tasks to necessarily be the same as talent for combat tasks.

or you do away with ability scores - that's a different game altogether.

Not necessary. Ability scores are a perfectly fine mechanic for making skill rolls.

For 2E though, note that they decided that very weak and very strong characters should deal more damage? There's an ability component and a skill component (weapon specialization).

Yes, they do express it mechanically as ability component and skill component. But it's hardly necessary to split out ability and skill mechanically for it to make sense in the fiction of the world. If the mechanics only say what the net result is, and not, specifically, how it's arrived at through ability and skill, what's wrong with that? Why can't one player say "my fighter is awesome because he's super strong" and another say "my fighter is awesome because he has exceptional training", and have them arrive at the same place in terms of combat effectiveness, without needing to jump through mechanics hoops like "Weapon Finesse"-style feats and/or specific weapon choices? What's wrong with writing "Fighter" on your sheet, and letting that establish that, yes, you are indeed good at fighting?

But my point was, with 2E, given that is 6 and 15 being equivalent for damage, is it really such a stretch for Next to have 10 and 18 be equivalent for Fighters, in terms of their combat effectiveness? Is it really the case that 6 being just as effective as 15 is true to DnD, but 10 being as effective 18 (or even 16 being as effective as 18) is not?

Well what I take from that is that maybe we should use dexterity and strength together to see how effective you are at hitting goblins (I think this has been done somwhere?).

But that's needlessly complicated. There's no need to go through all of that just to arrive at a to-hit number.

You're right that smashing an altar is a pure expression of brute strength, but then taking the extreme position that hitting a goblin is a pure expression of skill - that it doesn't matter how strong you are, you'll hit it with a force based on how much sword-fighting you've done, and you'll hit accurately for the same reason, ignoring that you're naturally dextrous.

Having accuracy be based on class does not imply that, in the fiction of the world, strength and dexterity don't matter. It's just that their effect is included, if the player wants, with the abilities gained from class and specialization. Or they could say that their Fighter gets most of their effectiveness from superior tactics or situational awareness.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I actually like having a bit of non-variable padding to attack damage. It's nice to know that if I smack a guy with my greatsword, I'm doing AT LEAST 5 damage. But there's no reason that low-level monster damage and hp has to play by the same rules; let an ogre with a longsword deal 1d12+0 damage rather than 1d8+4, if that makes the game more interesting for players.

 

[Gorgoroth]

..

Very intriguing ideas here.

I would say, they should remove DEX mod to damage, only, and leave strength alone. Even if you are Dextrous and using a light blade, being able to stick it in deeper into the ogre should benefit from a higher strength. You've already aimed it well, now stick it in, twist the knife. THAT takes a strong arm!

I've often thought that, from a modelling reality point of view, your ability to land a blow with any given weapon should depend on a few things:

1) your dexterity
2) your skill at said weapon, and at fighting in general
3) your strength to a certain extent when using heavier weapons only
4) the dexterity of your foe and their shield or parry bonus

So a high strength would be needed to wield a two-handed sword or axe without a to-hit penalty (or even at all), but a very high dexterity would provide a boost to-hit.

THEN damage is only str-based ability boost and weapon and expertise.

So there is incentive to boost both your strength, and your dex, if you're a melee or a ranged combatant.

This kind of system only works with armor-as-DR though, since you will really want a high str to overcome plate armor. If it costs 5000gp, only 1/10000 soldiers should have it.


What I'd do, if I were redesigning a new edition, is put +1 to each stat bump and skip the even-level-only nonsense (so that a 19 strength is better than an 18), beyond 14, similar to 1st edition. So like others said here, you get AC and to-hit bumps from high dex.

Aside from that, I doubt any of these ideas will make it into 5e, without making Dex even more of a God-stat.

Wearing plate should make you EASIER to hit, but take less damage. So a "Dodge" stat that would be tied to Dex, and AC now becomes DR, tout court.

Edit : I detest that weak fighters can boost Dex only and skill come out on top of every fight, statistically. Adding Dex mod to damage is lame!!! on top of boosting AC, and to-hit. Expertise dice make heavy weapons + str a very pointless option compared to finesse weapons + dex + light armor.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'd much rather see the modifier chart changed to something more like BD&D (as I recall it . . . the past is hazy).

Yeah, for Str, Dex, and Con you get:

9-12: +0
13-15: +1
16-17: +2
18: +3

I really like that.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm cool with removing ability modifiers from damage. Let modifiers apply to attacks, checks, and saves, and let damage be measured in dice.

 

[tomBitonti]

Yeah, for Str, Dex, and Con you get:

9-12: +0
13-15: +1
16-17: +2
18: +3

I really like that.

That goes back to the old bell-curve meaning of the stats. I'm OK with that, but the trend has been to give the values a more linear feel. Actually, I would prefer that stat bonuses be kept small. I'd rather players be limited to, say, 14 in their primary statistic, only later pushing their abilities to their full racial limits at higher levels. (IMO) there has been too much stat inflation.

Thx!

TomB

 

[howandwhy99]

This is part of the attempt to make the game easier to play by making it more consistent. Unfortunately, I think this consistency is in the wrong area. It's simplifying game rules rather than the in-world sensibility (which used to be the same thing, I know).

A Melee Damage Bonus from a stat modifier I can see. It's +STR when pushing a sword through your enemy's guts.

A Ranged Damage Bonus from a stat might be due to a Called Shot or Sneak Attack damage to vital organs. Ranged Attack Bonuses from DEX have made sense for archers trying to hit their targets, but a Ranged Damage Bonus means... what? A substitute for attacking certain body components?

A Magic Damage Bonus from a stat modifier is the biggest problem. Magic isn't about damage and isn't an attack. It can be an attack, but it was treated radically different than combat attacks. It was a world altering effect that occurred regardless of an opponent being affected or not. A Damage Bonus due to being smarter or wiser means... what? I don't know.