D&D 5E Removing Ability Score from offense

[dregntael]

I like the idea since it allows for more diverse character concept (the charismatic barbarian, the strong monk, the intelligent fighter, ...) without making you feel like you're not making full use of your class abilities. It also mostly solves the problem of racial stat bonuses pushing players to certain race/class combos, in a better way (IMO) than just allowing moving the stat bonuses.

If you want to stay close to the current math, the easiest thing is to start out with a +3 bonus at level 1 which increases to +4 at level 4 and +5 at level 8. But I bet it wouldn't break the game either to do what you propose and have it increase at levels 3/7/11/15/19.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thinking about this again, there might be no harm at all just having everyone start at +5 to hit and end at +11 (i would not assume magic items).
Likewise Spell Caster DCs should go from 13 to 19.
Just balance some feats around it and you are done. Probably You should still give +1 to hit for every 2 points of strength/dexterity above 20 and -1 for every 2 points below 10.
That way you still have some modifier for exceptional low or high stats.

 

[Horwath]

Double proficiency bonus on attack rolls/save DCs, proficiency bonus on damage rolls instead of ability modifiers.

that would give spread of +4 to +12 from level 1 to level 17 and damage bonus of +2 to +6, without any magic OFC

 

[Laurefindel]

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?

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

 

[Helldritch]

I fail to see the gain in this. What would it accomplish? What is wrong in having high stat having an actual impact on the game? If they don't have any bearing, why should we have stats in the first place?

Stats are a great way to define a character and whether they are high or low, they give a player a good idea of what the character is able to do. It also creates expectations that high stats are beneficial and low stats ate detrimental.

The asymetrical bonuses of 1st and 2nd editions have always been seen as weird and illogical. A return to this method would certainly not be welcomed. I think that limiting a stat to a max of 18 should accomplish the goal you have in mind.

 

[TwoSix]

I fail to see the gain in this. What would it accomplish? What is wrong in having high stat having an actual impact on the game? If they don't have any bearing, why should we have stats in the first place?

Stats are a great way to define a character and whether they are high or low, they give a player a good idea of what the character is able to do. It also creates expectations that high stats are beneficial and low stats ate detrimental.

The asymetrical bonuses of 1st and 2nd editions have always been seen as weird and illogical. A return to this method would certainly not be welcomed. I think that limiting a stat to a max of 18 should accomplish the goal you have in mind.

It moves the importance of the stat to skills and saves, not attacks. This lets you play a intelligent swordsman, a wise wizard, or a charismatic rogue without losing ground in your main combat feature.

If this doesn't immediately strike you as a good thing to enable, than I imagine such a rule change would not be your preference.

 

[Helldritch]

It is not the stats that prevent you from playing an intelligent fighter or a charismatic barbarian, it is the point buy and the standard array. These two methods makes it so that a player will always chose the stats that are the most relevant to their class and role.

Your best bet would be to roll stats in place and allow modifications on a 1 for 2 basis as in OD&D.
This would mean that character generation would look like this choose race. Choose class. Roll stats in place and then adjust for race and modify stats if needed on the lower a stat by two to raise one by one. You will the see a greater variety of characters but a lot of unhappy players. Well until they swallow the pill and see things your way.

 

[TwoSix]

It is not the stats that prevent you from playing an intelligent fighter or a charismatic barbarian, it is the point buy and the standard array. These two methods makes it so that a player will always chose the stats that are the most relevant to their class and role.

Your best bet would be to roll stats in place and allow modifications on a 1 for 2 basis as in OD&D.
This would mean that character generation would look like this choose race. Choose class. Roll stats in place and then adjust for race and modify stats if needed on the lower a stat by two to raise one by one. You will the see a greater variety of characters but a lot of unhappy players. Well until they swallow the pill and see things your way.

So why not simply disconnect the connection between a stat and a class? I think you're arguing for a rationale for leaving them connected, but I'm not sure.

 

[Helldritch]

In reality, I am saying that variety will be better served with the OD&D method than a disconnected stat method that is proposed here.

To ensure even more variety, I would remove the condition that sneak attacks must be made with finesse (dex based) weapons and allow sneak attacks to be made with any weapons. Strong thieves could be a thing with this.

As I stated previously, stats create expectations and it is logical that a strong person strikes harder than a weak one. The proposed approach does promote a bit more diversity but at the cost of logic and natural expectations. Having the way I proposed would allow a lot of diversity but at the cost of a lot more randomness.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Personally, I've stopped having races grant ability score bonuses. I have a primary bonus (+2) tied to class, and the secondary bonus (+1) tied to their background. Each class and background offers two options out of the six possible ability scores to affect, and you can't double up on the same bonus to get a +3 to a stat. For me, this lets a PC get to feel competent in their class, as well as decouples race and class to open up new combinations that might otherwise be less likely to happen. Personally, it works really well at my table, and I haven't felt like it encourages or rewards min-maxers. But then again, I'm never worried about min-maxers. As long as everyone is having fun and there is an equal share of the spotlight (which I feel is largely the DM's job anyway) then let people min-max. Min-maxing isn't inherently bad nor the "wrong" way to play.