D&D 5E Strength is agile

[ChrisCarlson]

And sometimes i'm not sure if the difference is great enough.

Given 5e's bounded accuracy and benchmarks, how much greater a differentiation would you have preferred?

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Given 5e's bounded accuracy and benchmarks, how much greater a differentiation would you have preferred?

Well.... the current mechanics favor proficiency over ability bonus at a ratio of 6:5, while i would rather see it closer to 3:2 or perhaps even more in favor of training...... BUT, with a catch. If in this case we'd say the ratio can be brought up to 8:5, those extra +2 proficiency points could only be acquired through some sort of extra training. Think of the weapon specialization bonuses of old, or the skill expertise of the rogues today. Only it wouldn't be general (as weapon proficiency is for fighter classes today), but only would apply to some chosen weapons/skills. Or maybe even armors.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Well.... the current mechanics favor proficiency over ability bonus at a ratio of 6:5,

This is only true at the highest levels of play. For example, in the early game, it is 2:3 favoring ability scores (or potentially even more if you roll for stats instead of use point buy/array).

while i would rather see it closer to 3:2 or perhaps even more in favor of training...... BUT, with a catch. If in this case we'd say the ratio can be brought up to 8:5, those extra +2 proficiency points could only be acquired through some sort of extra training. Think of the weapon specialization bonuses of old, or the skill expertise of the rogues today. Only it wouldn't be general (as weapon proficiency is for fighter classes today), but only would apply to some chosen weapons/skills. Or maybe even armors.

Doing so, do you envision the benchmark TNs remaining as they are now? Or do the TNs raise slightly to meet them (or some portion of them)?

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

This is only true at the highest levels of play. For example, in the early game, it is 2:3 favoring ability scores (or potentially even more if you roll for stats instead of use point buy/array).

Indeed. And it bothers me. Even at those highest levels as it now stands, a completely untrained character with exceptional talent is almost as good as a demi-god of skill and expertise. As mentioned, i would give even more significance to the proficiency bonus, but i am afraid of unbalancing the game.

Doing so, do you envision the benchmark TNs remaining as they are now? Or do the TNs raise slightly to meet them (or some portion of them)?

To answer this, i think we will need at least some level of long term play tests. As i don't plan on giving these extra 2 proficiency points lightly (most classes would get to pick 2 or maybe 3, skills/weapons/armors to use them on) my hunch is that it wouldn't upset the balance too much. However, a hunch isn't enough, especially in the long run and with cumulative effects these proficiency points could have with certain feats, maneuvers or spells.

EDIT: Not to be taken in a wrong way. I like the bounded accuracy and the proficiency system. I actually love it. I just think it treats most of the classes a bit too even-handedly for flavor. I just try to implement a bit variety in it.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Indeed. And it bothers me. Even at those highest levels as it now stands, a completely untrained character with exceptional talent is almost as good as a demi-god of skill and expertise.

Is that demi-god of skill not naturally gifted at all? So, like a 10 stat? Is that the issue? A 20 wisdom PC can have a +5 medicine skill compared to this 10 WIS trained PC's +6? Though you did mention expertise, so that 10 WIS character actually has a +12 medicine vs. the other guy's +5. That's not "almost as good" to me. Not considering BA.

Still, without expertise, I rather like that the peak natural talent can reach near to an average person's maximum potential training. Especially given the genre. And the breadth of what skills represent in 5e (more like life-learned as opposed to any kind of formal schooling/teaching, per se).

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Is that demi-god of skill not naturally gifted at all? So, like a 10 stat? Is that the issue? A 20 wisdom PC can have a +5 medicine skill compared to this 10 WIS trained PC's +6? Though you did mention expertise, so that 10 WIS character actually has a +12 medicine vs. the other guy's +5. That's not "almost as good" to me. Not considering BA.

Or a 20Str brute compared to the lvl 20 weapon master, but yes, pretty much so. I am considering purely the average 10 for the sake of the mathematics. But, now that you mention expertise, maybe it's precisely this i would use to augment differentiation. What if all the classes could pick at least one expertise point as some level, for at least one skill or weapon? However not in the current form, as doubling the proficiency bonus is not what i have in mind, just adding a point or two on top of it. Doubling would be just..... dunno.... game breaking i guess.

Still, without expertise, I rather like that the peak natural talent can reach near to an average person's maximum potential training. Especially given the genre. And the breadth of what skills represent in 5e (more like life-learned as opposed to any kind of formal schooling/teaching, per se).

This is exactly why i would use these proficiency points sparingly. BA works perfectly for the most part. There is almost no need to change how that works. But to make classes (and different characters within a class) stand out a bit, i would allow them to sort of "specialize" in a limited way. If you put it that way then yes, perhaps add some "formal" education to them

 

[ChrisCarlson]

“5e's skill system is the worst form of skill system, except for all the others.” ― Winston S. Churchill

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

“5e's skill system is the worst form of skill system, except for all the others.” ― Winston S. Churchill

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Thanks, OP, for the cool pictures. Those were fun to look at. Unfortunately, as others have noted, they don't prove the point. Acrobatics requires strength and balance and coordination. You could make a case for including str & dex in acrobatics-type checks, but leaving out the dex component doesn't make sense at all. Frex wikipedia says Leonid Taranenko had the heaviest clean and jerk ever in competition, about 590 lbs, but I didn't see anything there about his great prowess as an acrobat.

As a side note, a good case could be made for separating dexterity into agility (large motion coordination) and dexterity (fine motor skill) but the impact in play isn't big enough that many people care to do so.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Perhaps, just as an academic exercise, we should maybe arbitrarily assign a bit different methods of using the stats for determining to hit and damage bonuses. One of my major gripes in the melee system has since the early ages been the reliance on Str. I get that strong people can hit harder, but especially in armed fighting, harder does not mean more accurate (just look in system for the power attack feats). I know finesse weapons partially address this issue, but not completely.

It helps if you think about a fight not just being an exercise in chopping wood, but attempting to kill an actively-resisting opponent. Particularly when you bear in mind that in D&D, harder does mean more accurate when it comes to the "to hit" roll if your opponent has armour/tough skin and muscle etc.

The control you have over a weapon is determined by the forces that you can exert on it. A stronger person can exert greater force. This means the weapon moves faster, changes direction more suddenly, and needs less of a swing to generate a damaging blow.
Skill is probably a bigger factor, and reflexes can certainly help - particularly when reacting to and avoiding your opponent's attacks. But even before we get into situations where you are directly exerting yourself against your opponent, or D&D's AC system where beating through armour can be part of the "to hit" roll, Strength is the secondary governing factor.

Even with smaller, lighter weapons, athleticism has a large influence on your ability to make a strike, since you will often be required to move your body quickly to move through your opponent's guard to get in reach, and then quickly move out again. (Or trying to stay within her reach as she tries to make distance between you.)

There is a point at which you have to be strong enough to effectively wield a weapon, but unless you're talking ridiculously huge and over-the-top fantasy weapons, that strength is well within the capability of adventurers. You can definitely still use a historical longsword/greatsword with a Str of 8: it will just move slower, you'll not be able to control your swings very well, and its more likely to bounce off even weak armour. There is no "threshold Str" however, at which you suddenly become more capable with it and above which you don't become better. As you become more athletic, and able to generate more power, your capability to hit your opponent continues to increase.

There is a place for Finesse in the system: its a fantasy game, and many people will generate characters based on media tropes rather than gritty realism. If you're going to start adding more complicated rules however, you need to ask yourself "What do I wish to achieve with these?" Balance? Realism? Personal preference? etc.