Should mods to hit be dropped from ability scores?

[Abstruse]

Can't disagree more. Tying attack bonuses to an attribute makes perfect sense from a story standpoint. A character with higher intelligence is going to have a better chance at hitting someone with a spell. A character with higher strength is going to have a better chance at powering through someone's defenses. Etc. etc.

It makes sense from a game balance standpoint. It defines the character's archetype based on their capabilities. And with the new Attribute Check system, it's a lot harder to justify using anything as a dump stat. Every stat now has some importance. You max out Strength to 18, you can hit harder and more accurately but you sacrificed on your Dex or Con at 13 when it could've been 15, which impacts what your character can do other than insert a sharp metal stick into another creature. And if you dump a stat too hard to get that bonus, you're going to completely screw yourself on saves for that stat.

And having a bonus to-hit based off an attribute has been in the game since 1st Edition if not earlier (never played OD&D so I can't say if it was in there). High Strength has always given a boost on to-hit and damage on melee, and a high Dexterity has always given a boost on to-hit for ranged. Taking that away is stripping out something that's been in this game for decades that works perfectly just as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix iit.

 

[Blood & Bones]

I was just thinking about this, that one of the biggest incentives to min/max is the accuracy bonus/saving throw DC mods that comes from having high ability scores. I'm really happy that they are flattening the math in the upcoming 5e, but I'm concerned that in doing so each plus to hit is going to become even more important creating an even greater incentive to min/max scores. I'm thinking perhaps to hit and spell dc mods should be dropped from the list of things affected by ability scores. Opinions?

As stated earlier, min/maxing has always existed and probably always will. We can knock it back a great deal, but without turning D&D into a game of chess, we'll never see it completely wiped out.

In my opinion, the damage done to the system by omitting accuracy & save bonuses is greater than the min/maxing issue. I would be afraid that the math would be come too flat - so flat that it would feel like one character is the same as another. A little min/maxing means that the players are interested in the game, but if characters are all the same in battle, then you'll lose a large number of players who want to excel in battle.

 

[Stormonu]

I wouldn't mind seeing Strength mods being removed from damage, if we're seeking flatter math scores in the area of scaling damage.

Really, dealing 1d4+4 damage with a dagger is a bit ridiculous - the strength modifier in this case is more efficient than the weapon itself.

 

[Oni]

My personal view is I agree with the reasoning behind your idea. Mods to hit will become very important. However, no matter what you do to a system, there will always be min-maxing going on. There is a subset of players (I couldn't even begin to tell you how large it is) that derives a lot of enjoyment out of optimizing their PCs in every way they can. And good for them, by the way. They are enjoying the game in their own way--this is not a slam.

I'd vote to keep those modifiers in place as they are because it just makes sense to me that they exist in the first place. I don't believe those modifiers will be so destructive as to warrant removal.

My aim isn't to get rid of min/maxing, that's both impossible and not entirely desirable. I just feel that plus to hit is just too potent, and so the incentive becomes far too high to min/max in that particular way. 4e also had this issue, because of how tightly balanced the math was, plus to hit was king, and if you didn't make a character with certain minimum scores in whatever stat governed their accuracy then you were basically shooting yourself in the foot, it wasn't just that it was a good idea, it was that the system made people feel like they had to make their characters a certain way, and I consider that a very bad thing.

Accuracy and power are already represented with damage mods, why the need to double dip with accuracy mods as well?

 

[Oni]

And having a bonus to-hit based off an attribute has been in the game since 1st Edition if not earlier (never played OD&D so I can't say if it was in there). High Strength has always given a boost on to-hit and damage on melee, and a high Dexterity has always given a boost on to-hit for ranged. Taking that away is stripping out something that's been in this game for decades that works perfectly just as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix iit.

Yes, it's been around a long time, the problem is that plus to hit has become more and more important, it skews the game IMHO.

 

[deadwor1d]

I wouldn't mind seeing Strength mods being removed from damage, if we're seeking flatter math scores in the area of scaling damage.

Really, dealing 1d4+4 damage with a dagger is a bit ridiculous - the strength modifier in this case is more efficient than the weapon itself.

This is where we get complicated. I agree that 1d4+4 == holy crap damage for a dagger. To keep it simple, 1d4+4 works just fine. The more complicated house-ruler (or game designer) will say something like: Ok, you can't get more from your strength modifier on any particular weapon than half of it's potential damage yield from dice alone. Which, to me, makes sense. But I wouldn't want to adjudicate something like that at the table. Personal preference. Others LIKE that level of detail in a fight. Which is also cool.

 

[pemerton]

I'm thinking perhaps to hit and spell dc mods should be dropped from the list of things affected by ability scores. Opinions?

Yes. It's one of the obvious flaws in 4e.

Keep the stat bonus to damage, but make "to hit" a fixed bonus (perhaps modified by class features eg fighters get a +1 on weapon attacks, thieves +1 on stealthy attacks, etc).

 

[Abstruse]

Yes. It's one of the obvious flaws in 4e.

So it was a flaw in 4e, but no problem whatsoever in Pathfinder, 3.5, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, B/X, etc.? Because ability scores modifying to-hit, damage, and saving throws has been in the game in every single edition.

 

[the Jester]

One thing I really like about eliminating bonuses for ability scores is that it opens up the option of a return of ability damage, which I'm quite fond of.

The problem with ability damage is recalculating everything all the time. If you can come up with a good method for ability-based saves without bonuses from stats (roll under stat, maybe? -though I'd prefer to keep "higher roll is better"), you've eliminated all of that.

 

[pemerton]

So it was a flaw in 4e, but no problem whatsoever in Pathfinder, 3.5, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, B/X, etc.? Because ability scores modifying to-hit, damage, and saving throws has been in the game in every single edition.

In AD&D the maximum to hit bonus from STR, short of 18/51 or better, was +1. In OD&D I believe it was the same. In B/X it was up to +3, true - and B/X also has semi-point-buy for stats - meaning that B/X also tended to have very skewed stats, with high prime reqs and low everything else.

I can't comment on 3E/PF, not having played enough of it, but I have seen it suggested that it suffers from a bit of a scaling issue, not unlike 4e.