D&D 5E (2024) The impact of reducing Ability Scores?

[Maxperson]

A truly stupid idiot would not be able to beat a genius in one out of every 5 tests of intelligence. And "luck" would not be the answer to explain why they do.

That's why it's a game and not real life. Games have to be balanced in a way that real life isn't.

An 8 is Forest Gump. A 6 is dumber than that. Balance means that every once in a while Gump beats Einstein.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's why it's a game and not real life. Games have to be balanced in a way that real life isn't.

An 8 is Forest Gump. A 6 is dumber than that. Balance means that every once in a while Gump beats Einstein.

I ain't arguing the game... I'm arguing the poorly-described narrative.

 

[Horwath]

How often are extended competitions asked for though for most checks? I would submit rarely.

A portcullis is blocking a path... the DM asks for a Strength check. The "buff superman" with the 20 STR rolls a 4 for a total of 9... and the STR 5 "weakling" rolls the 19 and gets a 16, thereby raising the gate because the DM doesn't ask for an extended check in that situation. Thus, that tells me that it's not the ability score that is determining how strong these two PCs are... it's the d20 roll. The d20 roll is what gave that one PC the power to lift it and didn't do the same for the other. Even with the supposed bonus of the supposedly "buff superman's" high strength score.

we get a lot of group checks to describe some extended activity.
IE: stealth, 6man party, we need 5 successful stealth checks, every stealth that beats DC by 5 or more adds extra success.
with DC 15, party with higher DEX will get more successful encounters than a lower DEX party.

But I'll be honest here... my quibble isn't the numbers themselves. It isn't the fact that it's the die roll that really shows us how much a PC is on a thing. But rather my quibble are that people try and define and describe their characters based on their ability scores. Because those descriptions just aren't right. The fact is, you aren't an "idiot" with a very low Intelligence score, you aren't a "clumsy oaf" with a very low Dexterity score. Rather, you are merely just less of those things than someone else might be. Someone else will usually be more charismatic than you... but it doesn't mean you are therefore "repellent" with your 6 CHA. Because once out of every 5 rolls you're still hitting that DC 15 check.

will have to run the numbers again with 3d6 variant instead of d20 for skills.

now about describing, yeah, it's not perfect but it is good enough of a descriptor.

and you are comparing yourself to best in field as an adventurer.
with 8 DEX you are not really noticeable clumsier comparing to average Joe, but next to DEEX 20 rogue? yes you are.

and 8 CON is perfectly fine for your village, sure you might get bedridden for couple more days a year than someone with 14 CON, but in the end, it will matters very little, but for adventuring? that is very problematic. especially on levels 5+

and it gives headache to DMs for making encounters.
that is why in 5E(and earlier) with pointbuy we see CON as the "14 stat", little investment, but nothing special.
you need con, but you dont need too much CON, you need to be within your group.

and I have seen that in this 12 years of 5E, 90% of characters made is with 14 CON,
9% are 12-16 and 1% is everything else.

because here 8 vs 20 is a HUGE difference.
5th level wizard with 20 con is a tank, while 8 CON is a one-shot target
it's 47 vs 17 HP.
"average" fighter with 14 CON has 44HP, a barbarian has 50.

with 14 CON, that is 32HP. with then 12 or 16 CON, that moves is to 27 or 37 HP. Much more manageable spread of HP.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm not denying the 18 INT person is smarter. But I'm saying the 6 INT person is not an "idiot" or "moron" or any of the other descriptors people keep using to describe characters with low stats.

People keep insisting that ability scores define the level of which a character is at for that ability. That 18s and 20s make them the best of the best in their fields, and 4s, 5s, and 6s make them complete and utter schmucks. But that's just not true. Not when you add up to 20 additional points to their score. A person with a 5 DEX is not as agile as someone with a 13... but they are still plenty agile on their own-- easily hitting DC 15 checks on 17+. So if you want to define your character as truly "clumsy"... just having a 5 on score alone ain't going to do it.

we should of never shied away from having substantial modifiers, i mean yes, we don't want the numbers to get stupid big, but if a smart guy really is a smart guy i think they ought to have like, a flat +12 bonus to INT skill checks before dice are involved, (just to clarify i don't mean +12 on all INT checks, we don't need wizards throwing out fireball with a +12 to hit), otherwise the d20 is just way too swingy a factor.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

How often are extended competitions asked for though for most checks? I would submit rarely.

A portcullis is blocking a path... the DM asks for a Strength check. The "buff superman" with the 20 STR rolls a 4 for a total of 9... and the STR 5 "weakling" rolls the 19 and gets a 16, thereby raising the gate because the DM doesn't ask for an extended check in that situation. Thus, that tells me that it's not the ability score that is determining how strong these two PCs are... it's the d20 roll. The d20 roll is what gave that one PC the power to lift it and didn't do the same for the other. Even with the supposed bonus of the supposedly "buff superman's" high strength score.

But I'll be honest here... my quibble isn't the numbers themselves. It isn't the fact that it's the die roll that really shows us how much a PC is on a thing. But rather my quibble are that people try and define and describe their characters based on their ability scores. Because those descriptions just aren't right. The fact is, you aren't an "idiot" with a very low Intelligence score, you aren't a "clumsy oaf" with a very low Dexterity score. Rather, you are merely just less of those things than someone else might be. Someone else will usually be more charismatic than you... but it doesn't mean you are therefore "repellent" with your 6 CHA. Because once out of every 5 rolls you're still hitting that DC 15 check.

This is why lifting a portcullis should have a DC of 20 to 25.
And only someone with high strength or training can do it given some time.

If you take vanilla 3e and look at everything that way, the skill system makes sense.
DC for good locks were DC 25 and above. So even a rogue (at low level) should usually just take 20 to open the lock.
Later they can take 10.

 

[CreamCloud0]

This is why lifting a portcullis should have a DC of 20 to 25.
And only someone with high strength or training can do it given some time.

If you take vanilla 3e and look at everything that way, the skill system makes sense.
DC for good locks were DC 25 and above. So even a rogue (at low level) should usually just take 20 to open the lock.
Later they can take 10.

i've mentioned this before but i think 5e ought to of used a DC scale of 5-40, given that's pretty much the maximum you can get,

like: d20(20) +stat mod(5) +proficiency(6) +expertise(6) +bless(4) =41,

of course that is a level 17+ character with a 20 stat, expertise and magical assistance, but it shows you the furthest point for what is attainable and lets you plot everything else on that scale using that maximum as a reference.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you are looking for something lower power which doesn’t limit your characters ability to progress, how does the following sound as an option?

I think it's ok... there are few things in 5e which require minimum ability scores so most options are still open to player characters.

I guess the question is what would the consequences of this be?

Obviously lower success probabilities on any tasks. Less amount of times certain specific abilities can be used before resting (when based on ability modifier). Less number of prepared spells, which reduces flexibility somewhat.

Would everyone just drop Charisma and Intelligence and you’d end up a party of Neanderthals.

This already happens fairly often...

Would having a primary ability score two points lower put you off playing the game, if everyone else is in the same boat?

Not me, I used to play BECMI with ability scores rolled with 3d6 in order...

I think the lower end scores. The 7s could be accompanied by an additional roleplaying Flaw. Something that if brought to the table could result in Inspiration being granted,

This is still my favourite way of granting Inspiration, and it would be a good idea to make it a selling point for a campaign with such rules variant.

 

[NotAYakk]

As a DM you are in nearly complete control over monster Saves, HP, ATK and Damage. You can literally take the foes that the PC fight and scale those values up to a pretty high degree.

The default Guard NPC is +3 ATK, 4 damage, 16 AC, 11 HP, average saves of +0.5. You are free to ignore those stats, and you can choose that to represent anything from a peasant handed weapons to a spear-holding bumpkin to a trained professional soldier.

For other humanoid foes, you are free to make their stats higher than the default in the game. You can choose that your typical Orcs can do 2d12+6 damage, have +8 ATK modifier with advantage, and have 80 HP. That is utterly within your job description.

AC, on the other hand, for humanoid foes is controlled by armor tables; giving foes AC without enchanting their armor is a bit sus, and in theory armor worn by foes should be capable of being worn by PCs.

For monstrous foes, you can even do the same to AC; who besides you decides if the scales of this monster are AC 12, 16, 20 or 24? Nobody does.

So almost everything that attributes modify is something you can scale on "team monster"s side, except AC (assuming you are fighting humanoid foes sometimes).

Skill DCs are also almost entirely under your control.

Lowering attributes lowers PC damage, AC, ATK and save DCs, ans well as saving throw modifiers. It also has some effect on attribute checks. Of these, everything except ATK (which opposes AC) is something you can just tweak in the opposite direction on team monster.

So really, lowering attributes? It just changes how good plate armor is. It makes light armor PCs worse compared to heavy armor PCs. There is also some impact on MAD classes who use attributes unconventionally (monks and paladins mostly), and reduces the spell slots prepared for a few classes by 1 or 2.

It also makes heavier weapons better relative to lighter weapons, while also making two-weapon fighting worse, the dueling fighting style better, interception fighting style better, protection worse, expertise better, guidance cantrip better, bless spell better, melee characters generally worse (compared to spellcasters, whose damage output depends less on attribute modifiers). A myriad of knock-on effects which I'm sure you could justify as being what you intended by cherry picking some.

The largest effect, honestly, is that lowering ATK (and save DCs) makes +X magic implements and weapons more powerful. Accuracy is already extremely under-costed in 5e D&D, and by lowering base accuracy you make it even more valuable.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

5.5 is criticized as being the most powerful edition of the game so far. Which might be challenge if you want to play in something like a Ravenloft campaign, where unbridled heroic power might limit the options for interesting encounters. If you are looking for something lower power which doesn’t limit your characters ability to progress, how does the following sound as an option?

Much of heroic power is tied to ability scores - HP, damage dealt, saving throws, spell DC etc. While at the same time multi-ability score dependency has become less prevalent with the many subclasses and spells that grant primary ability scores to damage and to hit.

You could just reduce the points buy but another option is to increase the cost of higher points. Keep your 27 point buy but have stats start at 7 instead of eight and increase the scaling.

8 - 1 point
9 - 2 points
10 - 3 points
11 - 5 points
12 - 7 points
13 - 9 points
14 - 11 points

This will give you and average of 10-11 and allow people to push their stats to a maximum of 16 (with background bonus) but only if they trade in some significant weakness elsewhere.

I guess the question is what would the consequences of this be? Would everyone just drop Charisma and Intelligence and you’d end up a party of Neanderthals. Or would niche protection become a bigger thing as players specialize in one area alone?

Would having a primary ability score two points lower put you off playing the game, if everyone else is in the same boat? For the purposes of the discussion if you’re looking for a heroic game then obviously this isn’t going to be something you would want, so that kinda goes without saying.

I think I'd rather use existing point buy, and just remove background ASIs, if I wanted that effect.

 

[TheSword]

As a DM you are in nearly complete control over monster Saves, HP, ATK and Damage. You can literally take the foes that the PC fight and scale those values up to a pretty high degree.

The default Guard NPC is +3 ATK, 4 damage, 16 AC, 11 HP, average saves of +0.5. You are free to ignore those stats, and you can choose that to represent anything from a peasant handed weapons to a spear-holding bumpkin to a trained professional soldier.

For other humanoid foes, you are free to make their stats higher than the default in the game. You can choose that your typical Orcs can do 2d12+6 damage, have +8 ATK modifier with advantage, and have 80 HP. That is utterly within your job description.

AC, on the other hand, for humanoid foes is controlled by armor tables; giving foes AC without enchanting their armor is a bit sus, and in theory armor worn by foes should be capable of being worn by PCs.

For monstrous foes, you can even do the same to AC; who besides you decides if the scales of this monster are AC 12, 16, 20 or 24? Nobody does.

So almost everything that attributes modify is something you can scale on "team monster"s side, except AC (assuming you are fighting humanoid foes sometimes).

Skill DCs are also almost entirely under your control.

Lowering attributes lowers PC damage, AC, ATK and save DCs, ans well as saving throw modifiers. It also has some effect on attribute checks. Of these, everything except ATK (which opposes AC) is something you can just tweak in the opposite direction on team monster.

So really, lowering attributes? It just changes how good plate armor is. It makes light armor PCs worse compared to heavy armor PCs. There is also some impact on MAD classes who use attributes unconventionally (monks and paladins mostly), and reduces the spell slots prepared for a few classes by 1 or 2.

It also makes heavier weapons better relative to lighter weapons, while also making two-weapon fighting worse, the dueling fighting style better, interception fighting style better, protection worse, expertise better, guidance cantrip better, bless spell better, melee characters generally worse (compared to spellcasters, whose damage output depends less on attribute modifiers). A myriad of knock-on effects which I'm sure you could justify as being what you intended by cherry picking some.

The largest effect, honestly, is that lowering ATK (and save DCs) makes +X magic implements and weapons more powerful. Accuracy is already extremely under-costed in 5e D&D, and by lowering base accuracy you make it even more valuable.

All sounds good to me. There are four PCs to track their character’s stuff and one DM to track every other creature in the world. Makes sense to reduce the PCs a smidgen than increase everyone else.