D&D 5E Removing Ability Score from offense

[Cadence]

Well - that's the point of the houserule, isn't it? To make the charisma barbarian as effective in combat as the strength one? That way we have barbarians with different point spreads that str-con-dex-doesn't matter.

Does it make strength a really bad stat to take a high value in in general? Dex and Con still help on defense, Intelligence helps

All the talk about moving ability score bonuses around in the Race/Lineage system, and issues of minmaxing, has got me thinking. What if we removed offensive power from ability scores?

Here me out, this is going to get weird. So, when you compare PC math using point buy to the CR scale in the DMG, it strongly looks like the game assumes you're starting with a 16 in your primary offense stat and increasing at 4th and 8th and then probably getting +1/+2/+3 weapons at some point. This is based on looking at the PC proficiency plus ability scale compared to the monster AC scale. Monster attack to player AC is similar.

This means if you start below 16 or you don't raise your offensive stat to 20, you may feel a little more misses than ideal. 5% here and there isn't much, but there's also player perception going here.

Tying offense to ability scores also makes it difficult to balance the ability scores. Intelligence and Charisma mean a lot less to people who don't have class abilities tied to them.

So what if we removed ability scores to offense entirely? What if your offensive oomph just came from your class level. A level 8 rogue is a great combatant because they're a level 8 rogue, not specifically because they're agile.

How would this work? Well, we already have a scaling proficiency bonus. Proficiency bonus goes from 2 to 6 instead of 2-3 to 5, so the scaling is really similar. Prof scales at 5, 9, 13, 17, so slotting in another scale at the midpoints (3, 7, 11, 15, 19), at somewhere in there, is possible. This would definitely not be for 5E proper, but maybe something that could be thought of for 6E or a fully variant system.

So what about ability scores differentiating characters? Won't this make everyone the same? Well, first of all, having fighters use Str or Dex for offense doesn't create varied characters, people still push for those stats to be high. What if, instead, we had feat/talent trees tied to the different ability scores (like 3rd edition feats, but build them up) so that an Intelligent fighter would play differently than a Strong fighter?

Now, what about spell casters? The caster classes are really tied to their primary ability score. An unintelligent Wizard might feel weird, but maybe they just tried harder, or maybe they figured things out on their own and they do them in their own way. A level 10 wizard is a good wizard, whether or not they're hyper intelligent or not.

Just a thought that could make the game more balanced, make builds more interesting and fun to put together, vary characters more, and make it easier for new players by removing trap builds and making more race/class combos work.

What do you think?

The feat tree idea seems really important if going this route - and seems to open a lot of cool design space.

Would Dex still affect initiative and ac and Con still affect hitpoints? (If so, does Str become not very useful?)

 

[Cadence]

Well - that's the point of the houserule, isn't it? To make the charisma barbarian as effective in combat as the strength one? That way we have barbarians with different point spreads that str-con-dex-doesn't matter.

So the things that make a strong barbarian demonstratively strong would be carrying capacity and strong man competition type things. So I guess my question is, does the change make strength significantly less useful in adventuring than Dex (stealth, armor class, initiative+ acrobatics, sleight of hand), Con (hit points + staying awake and drinking lots of beer), Int (knowledge and investigation), and Wisdom (perception, survival, medicine, charm saves)?

 

[DND_Reborn]

What I understood it that if stats are decoupled from offensive powers, then having a low(er) stat doesn't penalize you as much if racial modifiers are fixed and cannot be swapped

This way you can play a half-orc wizard without feeling gimped or having to swap your +2 STR to +2 INT

Ok, I guess that makes some sense.

But wouldn't this just make it so no one would have to put a high number in an ability score really? I mean, I know most help out with a skill or more, and I assume saves wouldn't also depend on this, but you could have a decent STR fighter using a finesse weapon with a DEX 10 (in heavy armor) and still basically rocking a +5 to start with on their attacks? Then they could put the extra points in bumping other scores to improve their non-proficient saves.

Ex. Half-Orc Fighter with STR +2 and CON +1
STR 13
DEX 10
CON 14
INT 13
WIS 14
CHA 13

Wears chain mail and shield for AC 18, with a decent CON, and uses a Rapier as finesse to use DEX for attack rolls.

With this idea, won't his attack roll be +5 and eventually like +11 or 12 or something? But now he benefits a +1 to INT and CHA saves and checks and a +2 to WIS save and checks (for things like Perception...).

I understand the goal of this idea and played with a similar idea a long time ago of just using double proficiency bonus for attack rolls, but I saw weird things happening in the process.

Am I missing something?

 

[Helldritch]

The answer is yes. It makes strength a non desirable stats. The barb does not wear armor, so the carrying capacity is a moot point. But the other stats takes quite a jump in usefulness and desirability. The strength barb will all but disappear with this rule.

I would not use such a rule just because of that. But if you want to use it, go ahead. I was just warning you of the possible consequences.

 

[Bawylie]

All the talk about moving ability score bonuses around in the Race/Lineage system, and issues of minmaxing, has got me thinking. What if we removed offensive power from ability scores?

Here me out, this is going to get weird. So, when you compare PC math using point buy to the CR scale in the DMG, it strongly looks like the game assumes you're starting with a 16 in your primary offense stat and increasing at 4th and 8th and then probably getting +1/+2/+3 weapons at some point. This is based on looking at the PC proficiency plus ability scale compared to the monster AC scale. Monster attack to player AC is similar.

This means if you start below 16 or you don't raise your offensive stat to 20, you may feel a little more misses than ideal. 5% here and there isn't much, but there's also player perception going here.

Tying offense to ability scores also makes it difficult to balance the ability scores. Intelligence and Charisma mean a lot less to people who don't have class abilities tied to them.

So what if we removed ability scores to offense entirely? What if your offensive oomph just came from your class level. A level 8 rogue is a great combatant because they're a level 8 rogue, not specifically because they're agile.

How would this work? Well, we already have a scaling proficiency bonus. Proficiency bonus goes from 2 to 6 instead of 2-3 to 5, so the scaling is really similar. Prof scales at 5, 9, 13, 17, so slotting in another scale at the midpoints (3, 7, 11, 15, 19), at somewhere in there, is possible. This would definitely not be for 5E proper, but maybe something that could be thought of for 6E or a fully variant system.

So what about ability scores differentiating characters? Won't this make everyone the same? Well, first of all, having fighters use Str or Dex for offense doesn't create varied characters, people still push for those stats to be high. What if, instead, we had feat/talent trees tied to the different ability scores (like 3rd edition feats, but build them up) so that an Intelligent fighter would play differently than a Strong fighter?

Now, what about spell casters? The caster classes are really tied to their primary ability score. An unintelligent Wizard might feel weird, but maybe they just tried harder, or maybe they figured things out on their own and they do them in their own way. A level 10 wizard is a good wizard, whether or not they're hyper intelligent or not.

Just a thought that could make the game more balanced, make builds more interesting and fun to put together, vary characters more, and make it easier for new players by removing trap builds and making more race/class combos work.

What do you think?

I think you might benefit from developing your stats-as-prerequisites idea further, rather than divorcing abilities from combat bonuses.

If we had ability scores as gates to better weapons and armors, better feats, and better spells, we’d well on our way.

that 20 str (10 Int) fighter can snag the best weapons and armor while the 14 str fighter with 14 INT can get decent gear but ALSO grabs some tactics that are unavailable to the 20 str/10 Int fighter.

You’d really need to build out a lot of the rest of the kit, But you’d get your differentiation and customization. And you could even have cross-discipline options for generalists.

 

[NotAYakk]

I have done something similar back in 4e; I called it "presumed accuracy".

The idea is that a level X character is presumed competent at combat. So instead of to-hit being (proficiency + attribute + magic), it was just X, where X was determined by level.

I did make magic items give a flat +1 to hit (instead of up to 6), features that added to accuracy still worked, and there where accuracy boosting feats (which added +1, instead of the scaling +1 to 3 in the base 4e game).

Note that I kept stat-bonus-to-damage alone.

---

Doing this in 5e should work.

The easiest method is to say double proficiency to hit and for save DCs.

I'd keep stat-to-damage. A barbarian with 14 strength deals 1d12+4 with the greataxe, but hits just as often as the barbarian with 20 strength.

Something would have to be done for spellcasters, as their stat is mainly used for setting DCs.

Idea 1: All spellcasters add stat-to-damage once/turn.

Idea 2: All spellcasters get extra spell slots equal to their spellcasting stat modifier. These slots recharge on a long rest. Their level is equal to your tier (L 1 from 1-4, L 2 from 5-10, L 3 from 11-16, and L 4 from 17-20) as expressed by your (as if multiclass calculated) "spellcaster + pact magic" level.

Idea 3: All spellcasters add their spellcasting stat modifier to concentration saving throws

Idea 4: When you cast a level X spell, you can set your AC to 10+X+spellcasting stat until the end of your next turn.

these all make a spellcasting stat tempting, but not overwealming in power.

 

[Helldritch]

Ok, I guess that makes some sense.

But wouldn't this just make it so no one would have to put a high number in an ability score really? I mean, I know most help out with a skill or more, and I assume saves wouldn't also depend on this, but you could have a decent STR fighter using a finesse weapon with a DEX 10 (in heavy armor) and still basically rocking a +5 to start with on their attacks? Then they could put the extra points in bumping other scores to improve their non-proficient saves.

Ex. Half-Orc Fighter with STR +2 and CON +1
STR 13
DEX 10
CON 14
INT 13
WIS 14
CHA 13

Wears chain mail and shield for AC 18, with a decent CON, and uses a Rapier as finesse to use DEX for attack rolls.

With this idea, won't his attack roll be +5 and eventually like +11 or 12 or something? But now he benefits a +1 to INT and CHA saves and checks and a +2 to WIS save and checks (for things like Perception...).

I understand the goal of this idea and played with a similar idea a long time ago of just using double proficiency bonus for attack rolls, but I saw weird things happening in the process.

Am I missing something?

Again, yes. By removing the stats from combat you create the problem not only with strength but with every single stats. Intelligence becomes irrelevant for wizards, charisma is not even needed for charisma based characters and so on.

The solution of a more randomized character creation is a better approach in my opinion. (I described it earlier) and it works. The downside is that your character might not have the exact stats that the player might wish. But the variety of characters will increase dramatically.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Again, yes. By removing the stats from combat you create the problem not only with strength but with every single stats. Intelligence becomes irrelevant for wizards, charisma is not even needed for charisma based characters and so on.

The solution of a more randomized character creation is a better approach in my opinion. (I described it earlier) and it works. The downside is that your character might not have the exact stats that the player might wish. But the variety of characters will increase dramatically.

Well, like I mentioned I've looked into a concept similar to this one, and found it lacking and unreasonable. But, if someone else can make it "work", kudos to them!

 

[jmartkdr2]

So the things that make a strong barbarian demonstratively strong would be carrying capacity and strong man competition type things. So I guess my question is, does the change make strength significantly less useful in adventuring than Dex (stealth, armor class, initiative+ acrobatics, sleight of hand), Con (hit points + staying awake and drinking lots of beer), Int (knowledge and investigation), and Wisdom (perception, survival, medicine, charm saves)?

It depends on how much athletics comes up - it's a very useful skill to have, and can be used proactively by the player. (Much more so than most other skills - athletics only requires an enemy no more than one size category larger than you to be useful)

If you're really worried about players only using houserules to optimize, and not using them to make different characters, then you probably shouldn't be using houserules at all. But in my experience the majority of players don't want to be optimal, they just don't want to get left behind. So making it so that no arraignment of ability scores will leave them behind means they'll just play a bigger variety of characters.

On the other hand, dex to AC is to powerful already, so coupling this with a fix for that is probably a good idea as well.

EDIT: it's also already true that you don't need to be strong to do high damage with weapons - you need to be strong OR agile OR magical. Why is it that barbarians with rapiers can hit hard without being brawny? And why would allowing them to instead use intellect be so game-breakingly bad?

 

[Xeviat]

In OD&D, if I recall correctly, the only modifiers you got were from magic item bonuses, though your level affected the numbers needed to roll. So it's not without precedent.

The questions I have next are what happens to the damage bonus? What about skills? Are they likewise uncoupled or do you keep your stat bonuses there?

I'd still apply ability bonus to skills and defenses, as well as adding it as a requirement for feats/talents/whatever the system ended up using for differentiation (maybe there'd be prerequisites for weapons based on sizes?). Damage ... maybe I'd make that proficiency bonus (it's reasonably comparable to ability bonus, it just goes a little higher and starts at a flat 2).