D&D 5E Remove stat bonus from damage

[MoonSong]

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.

I have some similar ideas on removing dexterity from damage, but for very different reasons.

I at first didn't understood why armor made you harder to hit, but then it all became clear to me. Plate armor doesn't make you easier to be hit, it makes you easier to be touched.

When a fighter attacks an unarmored opponent, the only other factor beyond the normal assumed dodginess of everything (the base 10) is that opponent's agility to avoid the blow (the dex mod), if the fighter swings faster than that, she indeed has touched him, and since he has no further protection, he receives the full impact and is hit.

When the same fighter attacks an armored opponent, she not only needs to swing fast enough to touch him, but also strong enough to penetrate the armor and cause damage (and thus make a hit). On this conditions a heavier armor will have the effect of making it harder for you to dodge out of the way, and thus you'll be easier to be touched, but the protection it provides makes it harder for you to take damage (to be hit)

Attacking with a light weapon has similar complications, but instead of swinging with force, the swing has to be controlled so it lands on the right spot, an unprotected part of the body or a joint between the armor. However strength still is a factor to define how hard she hit, no amount of nimbleness will enhance how hard she hits.

I'm all for removing dex from damage all together, but srt makes sense

 

[Blackwarder]

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

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

I really like that.

I'm all in favor of this table Advancment for abilities.

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.

I totally missed that you add your Dex mod to ranged damage rolls, I mean what the frack? You already got an advantage by being able to take cover and no expose your self far away from the enemy, Dex bonus to damage is dumb.

Same goes to ability bonus to magic attacks, I am smarter than you so my fireball that explode directly I top of the target is hotter than your fireball that explod directly on top if the target?????? Huh?

Warder

 

[Lanefan]

A number of points here:

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.

Bell-curve for the win; if nothing else, it's realistic.

(IMO) there has been too much stat inflation.

Agreed. In most cases 3-18 should be the limits, with Strength being an oddball.

Part of the problem, I think, is that 3e unified the stat modifier system. In 1e Dex 17 gave you a 3 point AC benefit but Str 17 gave you +1/+1 to hit and damage. In 3e a 17 gives you +3 across the board any time that ability becomes relevant; yes it's simple, but it doesn't work.

Also remember that in 1e the to-hit mod. and damage mod. didn't go up together - Str. 18 gave +1/+2, 18.00 gave +3/+6 (I think, going by memory here), with a gradated series of modifiers for the various other 18.xx's. My poitn is the numbers were different; again unlike 3e where the same modifier always applies to both.

Damage modifiers
A long time ago we realized there was a believability disconnect when someone had a high damage modifier - +3 from Str., +2 from spec., +2 from magic - it made no sense that you either did 8 or more damage or none at all. So we put in a "minimum damage" rule: if you roll '1' on your damage die (or all 1's if multiple dice) then you add it all up and roll a die of that size to see what damage you actually did. So if you roll '1' and your modifiers add to +10 then you'd roll a d11 for your actual damage on that hit.

It's not perfect, but it at least gives a chance for a mighty swing to still only do 1 point damage; again realistic.

Weak Fighters using Dex. for damage bonus
Bad.

Dex. giving bonus to hit on missiles makes sense; you could maybe talk me into designing a to-hit Dex. bonus on a backstrike or sneak attack as well. But damage? That comes mostly from brute force, i.e. Strength, with the skill element reflected in level (you do that damage more often) and weapon focus/specialzation/whatever-it's-being-called-this-week (your skill makes it hurt a bit more).

Lan-"strength lets you give it out, dexterity lets you not take it back"-efan

 

[Steely_Dan]

Are abilities adding to magic attacks, I thought spells now have set damage?

 

[timASW]

Are abilities adding to magic attacks, I thought spells now have set damage?

I did too, I'm pretty sure its adding to DC's still. I can see how it could add to damage though. your better at casting spells. I've done something like that several times before and it worked out okay.

 

[ren1999]

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

They are both essential. But because there are ability increases when characters level-up, that means that level bonuses are baked into the ability bonuses. It does mean that fighters will be favoring increases to strength, but that is as it should be.

 

[ren1999]

No, i explicitely said, that the bonus to damage will come from expertise dice!

O.k. I don't like the idea. Increased expertise dice increases as the characters level-up. That means that all bonuses to damage would only be a result of higher levels.

Instead, because we are awarded with bonuses to ability as we level-up, the ability score itself includes a level bonus to damage.

This is also why we could ditch the 1/2 level bonuses to all rolls including damage from 4th edition.

I don't like your idea here, but keep the ideas flowing because some of your ideas I like.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=70707]dkyle[/MENTION], interesting suggestion. I like the way it gives a precise mechanical role for abilities. And 4e has shown me that getting rid of ability modifiers from combat would be a good thing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am sad to see, that the poll result suggests, that ditching the modifier is a bad idea.
I believe, that it would be the best way of reducing hp bloat.

As I said in the other thread, where meals himself states, that not adding ability modifier to damage, i could imagine following:

A rogue with sneak attack adds his dexterity modifier to damage (as he makes use if his good precision) and a fighter can add strength to damage (because of his extraordinary strenght!!!)

Notice, how I added an old feature of ADnD 2nd edition back in, which made the fighter an extraordinary combatant!!!

 

[Rhenny]

I posted this in another thread, but it applies here too.

I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of damage modifiers for weapons if different weapons were rated for use by minimum strength or dexterity.

For example, make most of the 1d4 and 1d6 weapons usable by anyone. Rate most of the 1d8 weapons and finesse weapons as needing a STR or DEX score of 13+ to wield effectively. 1d10 weapons needing STR 16+. 1d12 weapons STR 17+...or something like that. Then, stronger PCs will do more damage. More dexterous ones might be able to use a better rapier doing 1d8 instead of a normal one that does 1d6.

I'd even take it a step further and tool weapon damage so that it isn't as swingy. I'd make light weapons do 2d4. Medium 2d6. Heavy 2d8. Most damaging weapons 3d6. This would make damage more reliable, but still random.

These are just some ideas.