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

[jasper]

Remember when starting stats could be low as 3!

I remember no one played those.

 

[tetrasodium]

Unfortunately, reducing efficacy on the player side is making it easier on the GM but the players feel it more keenly. Whereas if you just ramped up every enemy, the players might feel like the world is a lot more lethal, if all DCs were upped things would feel more difficult, but that would involve the DM changing literally every monster and challenge. It might be a simple change, for example, adding 3 or 5 to everything (attack rolls, damage, DCs, AC), but it's a lot more fiddly.

So yeah adjusting player characters is definitely the easiest way, but you're going to see a lot of pushback in the forums of public opinion. Usually it's a similar conversation to the player versus DM agency debates.

If you're running in person, adjusting every number for enemies and difficulty might not be that big of a deal. But if you're running online with things being automated, something as simple as adding a +2 or + 3 to all hits is a bit of a pain in the butt. But you need to edit every stat block you come across.

It's not about making it easier for him controlled monsters. The downshift carves out room for magic items the players can proactively quest for.

It would be better to also shift proficiency bonus growth from 2 at 1st then +1 5/9/13/17 to something that carves out an extra 3 or so points by tier 3 or so of play, but that's really a weight that wotc needs to provide or it looks like the gm is nerfing players just to give it back over time rather than "hey guys this is also a totally valid way to play & run the game and not some kind of evil deviant abusive BadWrongFun your gm is trying to trick you into". The difference between those two is who is being unreasonable when a player decides "this can't be fun and can't work" then choices to deliberately play ensures the prophecy comes true at the table they are undermining.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Reducing modifiers by a point or two doesn't really mean much when you are still adding upwards of 20 points to it via the die roll.

That's the thing... A PC's Strength isn't "+3". Their Strength is actually "4-23". That is the complete range of what your Strength could be at any moment in time. For another character their Strength could be "2-21" (for a +1 modifier). A third could be "-1 - 19" (for a -1 modifier). So it is hard to think of a character being a "weakling" with like a -2 modifier when they can still get 17s and 18s and beat out the so-called "strong characters" on any random day.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I remember no one played those.

No one can still play them.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Reducing modifiers by a point or two doesn't really mean much when you are still adding upwards of 20 points to it via the die roll.

That's the thing... A PC's Strength isn't "+3". Their Strength is actually "4-23". That is the complete range of what your Strength could be at any moment in time. For another character their Strength could be "2-21" (for a +1 modifier). A third could be "-1 - 19" (for a -1 modifier). So it is hard to think of a character being a "weakling" with like a -2 modifier when they can still get 17s and 18s and beat out the so-called "strong characters" on any random day.

You dispense wisdom. I see things in new light now.

 

[Horwath]

Reducing modifiers by a point or two doesn't really mean much when you are still adding upwards of 20 points to it via the die roll.

That's the thing... A PC's Strength isn't "+3". Their Strength is actually "4-23". That is the complete range of what your Strength could be at any moment in time. For another character their Strength could be "2-21" (for a +1 modifier). A third could be "-1 - 19" (for a -1 modifier). So it is hard to think of a character being a "weakling" with like a -2 modifier when they can still get 17s and 18s and beat out the so-called "strong characters" on any random day.

yes and no.

if you have a bunch of "fighters" with 8 STR and a group of fighters with 16 STR and they both try to defeat a sane enemy,
Sack of HP of 120 and average AC of 15

1st group has attack of +1 and damage(good ol longsword) of 1d8-1
that is 35% hit rate with average damage of 1,45 per swing

2nd group has attack of +5 and damage of 1d8+3
55% hit rate with average damage per swing equals to 4,35

that comes down to:
1st group needs 83 attacks on average to bring the enemy down
2nd group needs 28 attacks

the 1st group needs 3x the attacks as the 2nd group for the same enemy, so yeah, they are a bunch of weaklings.


now, sure, there is an off-chance that they can roll like mad bat out of hell and beat the 2nd group, but that is not something you can count on.

 

[DEFCON 1]

yes and no.

if you have a bunch of "fighters" with 8 STR and a group of fighters with 16 STR and they both try to defeat a sane enemy,
Sack of HP of 120 and average AC of 15

1st group has attack of +1 and damage(good ol longsword) of 1d8-1
that is 35% hit rate with average damage of 1,45 per swing

2nd group has attack of +5 and damage of 1d8+3
55% hit rate with average damage per swing equals to 4,35

that comes down to:
1st group needs 83 attacks on average to bring the enemy down
2nd group needs 28 attacks

the 1st group needs 3x the attacks as the 2nd group for the same enemy, so yeah, they are a bunch of weaklings.


now, sure, there is an off-chance that they can roll like mad bat out of hell and beat the 2nd group, but that is not something you can count on.

I would submit that attack skill and raw Strength are not the same thing.

When a -1 modifier Strength character can defeat a +4 modifier Strength character 1 out of every 4 rolls (give or take), I would not say one's a strongman and the other's a weakling. They both have strength.

The modifier only gives you 5 points of difference in Strength, whereas the die gives you 20 (4 times as much difference). To me... that tells me your d20 is way more of your Strength determiner that what your score is.

 

[Horwath]

I would submit that attack skill and raw Strength are not the same thing.

When a -1 modifier Strength character can defeat a +4 modifier Strength character 1 out of every 4 rolls (give or take), I would not say one's a strongman and the other's a weakling. They both have strength.

The modifier only gives you 5 points of difference in Strength, whereas the die gives you 20 (4 times as much difference). To me... that tells me your d20 is way more of your Strength determiner that what your score is.

yeah, if we are talking about a single roll for a thing.
a lucky punch or similar.
what if it's extensive competition?

let's say arm wrestling?
and you need 3 won opposite rolls in a row to win?
8 vs 20 STR now drops into 1,5% chance of happening.

and more the extended competition is, more is completely unlikely that the that much weaker opponent will win at anything.

 

[tetrasodium]

Reducing modifiers by a point or two doesn't really mean much when you are still adding upwards of 20 points to it via the die roll.

That's the thing... A PC's Strength isn't "+3". Their Strength is actually "4-23". That is the complete range of what your Strength could be at any moment in time. For another character their Strength could be "2-21" (for a +1 modifier). A third could be "-1 - 19" (for a -1 modifier). So it is hard to think of a character being a "weakling" with like a -2 modifier when they can still get 17s and 18s and beat out the so-called "strong characters" on any random day.

It means a whole lot when the PC has magic items & is adding 5-24 up to 7-26 rather than the "4-23" you noted but didn't detail. That's not saying there is merit in detailing it, just that it's assumed valid & not disputed. Those few points keep the rolls within the realm of the system's math

 

[DEFCON 1]

It means a whole lot when the PC has magic items & is adding 5-24 up to 7-26 rather than the "4-23" you noted but didn't detail. That's not saying there is merit in detailing it, just that it's assumed valid & not disputed. Those few points keep the rolls within the realm of the system's math

I'm just referring to actual strength (or any of the six scores.) Magic items or bonuses for class features or whatnot aren't a part of that.

People keep saying things like having a bad score like a 6 INT means their character is a moron and that PC should be roleplayed like they are a moron, while the character with an 18 INT is a brainiac. But that's just not true. A 6 INT (-2 modifier) character is only 6 points behind an 18 INT (+4 character) and can easily be "smarter" than that supposed brainiac on any given day whenever they are making INT rolls and adding up to 20 additional points to their totals. Yes, the 6 INT "moron" will lose a lot of the time... but not every time. And there's no rhyme nor reason as to when that "moron" might be smarter than the "brainiac" because it's all completely random when that spark of intelligence will kick in. Which is why I claim that ability scores do not in any way accurately portray how a PC actually is when talking about their strength, or intelligence, or charisma, or whatever, because on any given day at any given moment, the brainiac will be made a fool by the idiot on any random incident or subject.

The modifiers are just not high enough relative to the die roll that gets added to it to portray the ability's use.