D&D 5E Removing Ability Score from offense

[Xeviat]

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?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

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?

 

[TwoSix]

My OSR/5e hack does something similar. Characters can use their proficiency modifier instead of their normal stat for attacks, damage, and special effect DCs. Characters benefit slightly from a higher stat at lower levels, but ultimately they don't need them.

 

[jasper]

5% is a lot for a house loan. For a game not so much.

 

[BlivetWidget]

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.

I like it, and your example doesn't seem weird to me at all. Taking school as a reference point (you know, that time you were numerically compared to the people around you), I would argue that I outperformed my peers largely due to being more studious rather than being more intelligent (whatever that really means as a general term). Motivation and training, IMHO, absolutely plays a greater role in overall success IRL than a person's "stats". You can generally modify your approach to a problem to make better use of your strengths.

Another benefit of your suggested method is that it frees you up to put points towards stats for the skills you want. Granted, my vision of a wizard would still motivate me to put points into Intelligence because I want to be an arcanist, but for certain wizard schools, wisdom or charisma may be more natural fits.

 

[TwoSix]

Another benefit of your suggested method is that it frees you up to put points towards stats for the skills you want. Granted, my vision of a wizard would still motivate me to put points into Intelligence because I want to be an arcanist, but for certain wizard schools, wisdom or charisma may be more natural fits.

Enchantment/Charisma and Divination/Wisdom definitely come to mind.

 

[Minigiant]

Well in D&D when it comes to ability scores, there are the 3 options of Nature vs Nature. Either you assume that your primary ability score bonus is supposed to be above, below, or the same as your class level based bonus.

The question is how far do you good. Still having your prime ability mod still affect your damage rolls, saves, and DCs is still enough to continue stereotypical character building patterns.

Fighters will still go for 20 Strength or Dexterity. Casters will still have 20s in their spellcasting ability score.

 

[Ancalagon]

In the GLOG, you to hit number is not dependent of your stat or your class. It increases bases on level. Everyone fights more or less the same, save for the fighter (and fighter-ish) classes that have special bonuses (like more damage or more attacks). Strength adds to damage, and dex add to AC and/or movement.

So it has been done, and it works. Keep in mind though that the max AC achievable without magic is 17 (plate = 16, shield is +1).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you look at the ADnD charts, your to hit bonus was always only half your damage bonus from strength rounded down.
So it is not without precedent.
So if you do it that way, there is no to hit difference between 14 Str and 16 Str (both +1) Having a 20 only gives +1 to damage above 18, so you are not too hard pressed to raise it above 18, allowing you to focus more on feats or different ability scores.
So what you need to be on par with the expected +5 to hit is starting with +4 proficiency bonus to hit. You only need a single extra +1 proficiency bonus on your way. My longstanding suggestion is increasing to hit at 3,7,11,15,19.
You should probably rebalance great weapon mastery to reduce proficiency bonus to hit by half and add it as bonus damage to balance the fact that you pay less to get it (and in the end it is -4 or -5/+9, which is still good! (Depending on the wording, you round up or down!)

 

[DND_Reborn]

What if we removed offensive power from ability scores?

You certainly could, but why? What would be the purpose of the change? As I see it, you are possibly gaining a +1 or maybe +2 bonus to your total modifier by the end of the game compared to if you begin at 16 (+3) and don't bump it.

FWIW we use a modifier proficiency progression from +2 to +8, capping abilities at +4 for a while. We did it because we felt proficiency should count for more in the game. The difference between a level 1 pc (+2) and level 18 (+8) of +6 feels better than the RAW difference of only +4.

So, why do you want this? From your OP I just don't see a big reason for it? Can you elaborate more please? Maybe some concrete examples?