D&D 5E Removing Ability Score from offense

[Cadence]

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.

So the Barbarian who focuses on Charisma does as much damage as the Barbarian who focuses on being strong (which usually has a visualization of being more damaging)? Same as fighter with Intelligence vs. fighter with strength? Why aren't the exceptionally strong barbarian and fighter worth keeeping?

 

[Helldritch]

So the Barbarian who focuses on Charisma does as much damage as the Barbarian who focuses on being strong (which usually has a visualization of being more damaging)? Same as fighter with Intelligence vs. fighter with strength? Why aren't the exceptionally strong barbarian and fighter worth keeeping?

My point exactly. Making a barb with a strength of 4 would be perfectly fine... a bit strange don't you think?

 

[jmartkdr2]

So the Barbarian who focuses on Charisma does as much damage as the Barbarian who focuses on being strong (which usually has a visualization of being more damaging)? Same as fighter with Intelligence vs. fighter with strength? Why aren't the exceptionally strong barbarian and fighter worth keeeping?

He's a much angrier barbarian, represented by the bigger force of personality. Ergo, the rage is making up for the lack of obvious muscle.

Also, and not to call you out personally because a I see this a lot in these conversations - this houserule doesn't prevent you from playing a strong barbarian if you want. It just means other versions are possible.

 

[Cadence]

He's a much angrier barbarian, represented by the bigger force of personality. Ergo, the rage is making up for the lack of obvious muscle.

Also, and not to call you out personally because a I see this a lot in these conversations - this houserule doesn't prevent you from playing a strong barbarian if you want. It just means other versions are possible.

It means your not stronger (in terms of where it matters most in the game) than the charisma one though, doesn't it?

 

[jmartkdr2]

It means your not stronger (in terms of where it matters most in the game) than the charisma one though, doesn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "in terms of where it matters most in the game", so I don't know the answer to your question.

 

[Helldritch]

It means your not stronger (in terms of where it matters most in the game) than the charisma one though, doesn't it?

Exactly. So why should you ever make a strong barbarian if strength gives you nothing? Dump strength, boost wisdom and you have a barb or fighter that has a nice way to circumvent one of the class weaknesses. This means that You will no longer see barbs or fighters with high strength score as strength would not be useful anymore. Not only that, but raising strength would be detrimental as putting more points in wisdom would alleviate a barb weakness, that is wisdom saves... When you have nothing to loose and everything to gain from a method, it is a no brainer to do this.

 

[Cadence]

I'm not sure what you mean by "in terms of where it matters most in the game", so I don't know the answer to your question.

I should have been more specific, as I think @Helldritch saw, I meant combat. That isn't necessariliy the most important part of the game (exploration, social are cool too). But for strength, combat sure feels like the key reason it's useful in most settings.

If I rephrased, "It means your 'strength barbarians' punches and sword swings and attempts to hack down monsters hit no harder than do those of the barbarian who specialized in intelligence, or wisdom, or charisima though, doesn't it?"

 

[BlivetWidget]

If I rephrased, "It means your 'strength barbarians' punches and sword swings and attempts to hack down monsters hit no harder than do those of the barbarian who specialized in intelligence, or wisdom, or charisima though, doesn't it?"

How "hard" you hit isn't what's important. How effectively you hit is. In that sense, yes, that's what's being argued. Given equal level, the smarter barbarian knows where to hit. The charismatic one knows how to distract the opponent enough to get past their defenses. The stronger one can hit harder. All can achieve the same result.

A barbarian still has reason to have good strength. If you want to grapple, shove, etc, those depend on your strength. So naturally, the stronger barbarian will be better at those things. It just frees the player to make choices that aren't in that one specific direction.

 

[billd91]

I should have been more specific, as I think @Helldritch saw, I meant combat. That isn't necessariliy the most important part of the game (exploration, social are cool too). But for strength, combat sure feels like the key reason it's useful in most settings.

If I rephrased, "It means your 'strength barbarians' punches and sword swings and attempts to hack down monsters hit no harder than do those of the barbarian who specialized in intelligence, or wisdom, or charisima though, doesn't it?"

It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing - but it would mean that those different choices didn't mean much in that particular aspect of the game.

The reason I say it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing is because we already see games that do this. Take your average superhero game - chances are characters in the same super group, built on the same points, are going to do roughly similar damage - just in different ways. If you wrote up Storm in Champions, her lightning bolts are probably going to do 10 to 12d6 of damage. Captain America, slinging his shield, is probably doing a similar amount - he's just buying it through strength, martial arts, and a weapon. That's how you usually build balanced groups of superheroes in a superhero game. It's certainly convenient for the players and for the GM to do things that way. You could do the same for D&D...

... but I'm not sure why you'd want to do that. D&D is what it is and there are a lot of people who like it the way it is (or within a few degrees of it). Change too much of D&D and it's not the same game. Not every game has to follow the same structure or make the same sorts of choices meaningful the way other games do.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I should have been more specific, as I think @Helldritch saw, I meant combat. That isn't necessariliy the most important part of the game (exploration, social are cool too). But for strength, combat sure feels like the key reason it's useful in most settings.

If I rephrased, "It means your 'strength barbarians' punches and sword swings and attempts to hack down monsters hit no harder than do those of the barbarian who specialized in intelligence, or wisdom, or charisima though, doesn't it?"

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.

If you think that having more barbarian options is a bad idea, then of course you shouldn't use a houserule designed to achieve that goal. I thought that went without saying, but I guess I'll say it: if you disagree with the purpose of a houserule, don't use it. But not liking the direction of the change isn't really a critique of the method - or at least not a useful one.