D&D 5E The tyranny of small numbers

[DND_Reborn]

I would rather see them go 1-by-1
...
9: -1
10: +0
11: +1
12: +2
...
15: +5, MAX without magic

This would only aggravate the issue as myself (and others) see it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Depending on how you generate ability scores, it can also make the a bit better at a lot of other things. We use point buy, sometimes my PCs don't have optimized primary stats because I want to contribute elsewhere. Maybe I want to have a dex based PC that doesn't completely suck at strength or have a charismatic fighter.

And that’s an absolutely valid choice.

In general I don't like playing stupid PCs because I want to actually play my PC as written, not just ignore that 8 intelligence.

As is that, though personally as a DM I don’t require any particular roleplaying choices based on ability scores.

You know what? Nobody notices. It doesn't really make that much of a difference. I'm still successful 95% of the time (actually a bit more because a 20 always hits) I would have been with that +1. In the meantime my PC is not min/maxed to the point I can't contribute out of combat. That matters to some of us.

If the 5% isn’t even noticeable to you when it’s missing from your primary stat, it’s certainly not going to make you unable to contribute out of combat when it’s missing from a secondary stat.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Even if 18 capped at +3, and you went with the Basic

13-15: +1
16-17: +2
18-19: +3
20: +4 (optional?)

Even something like increases on the odds instead of the evens:

13-14: +1
15-16: +2
17-18: +3
19-20: +4 (optional?)

Either way, decreasing ability modifiers and increasing proficiency allows for leveling to naturally offer more benefit towards keeping the numbers viable in the long term.

And yes, it makes feats more interesting if ability modifier increases were every three points instead of every two. Then you could have:

0 - 2: -3
3 - 5: -2
6 - 8: -1
9 - 11: +0
12-14: +1
15-17: +2
18-20: +3

The above would be my personal preference. Then allow proficiency to range from +2 to +8, keeping the +11 "maximum".

How you handle Expertise with such changes depends on if you want to keep BA at 30 or allow it to go higher...


You just aren't getting the point...

A reduction of +5 to +4 isn’t much and won’t curb stat padding.

World Without Numbers has a max stat of 18 and it gives a +2. Max penalty is -2 at 5(I think). Stats just don’t make as much of a difference. I like it a lot and you don’t feel robbed if you roll a low stat. Proficiency comes from other aspects of the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

What's hilarious is that if your new players don't frequently watch D&D YouTube channels or go on reddit and don't get that advice they keep up just fine with the optimizers who do.

Unlike with 3e, where if you make a suboptimal characters and as you level up your "luck" seems to be getting worse and worse (because you aren't keeping pace with increasing AC of threats - which feels like bad luck if you don't analyze it and realize what's happening), with 5e it doesn't matter. You can sit an optimizer next to a non-optimizer and in general they're both doing fine even as the optimizer gets that extra 5% here or there. If you start from a baseline of hitting roughly 60% of the time and difficulties to hit don't scale with level, optimization just doesn't have that much impact at the table. (In fact my little optimizer is a bit frustrated with 5e at this point because optimization just doesn't give them the benefits at the table that they think they should be getting. Ah the teenager learning about how uniform distributions are not bell curves via experiential learning is a joy to watch...)

it was fairly simple to shift the scales of intraparty balance back then as opposed to now though. Sure there's a point where you need to ask if the player was deliberately trying to fail just so they could claim they suck or something but there were enough dials the GM could adjust & ways to impose use restrictions to gate the use of things when awarding magic items that the underpowered PC would be likely to get a cool thing that brings them up. PunPun might be able to make some investments to use it but those would come with opportunity cost & the item will need to be replaced eventually anyways. Now it's just going to go to PunPun unless the gm does something like "requires attunement by bob" because there's really only one dial no real restrictions & the item probably won't be replaced.

You could sit an optimizer next to a non-optimizer before because the disparity could be bridged in various ways instead of simply being widened

 

[Maxperson]

So, if you're a Fighter, right. At levels 1-5, you get to do one thing each turn. You have an attack bonus of 5. So you have a good chance to miss AC's above 17, which you will encounter (unless you're an archer). And if you miss, outside of your once every handful of fights (depending on short rest) Action Surge, that's it, sit down, you did nothing.

That kind of play is pretty dreadful, really, and I hate that it's so hard coded into the system. So yeah, I would like to have the best chance to hit, and the lowest chance to whiff and do nothing. What's wrong with that? I'm making a choice by doing that, by not getting cool Feats (if allowed) or shoring up other ability scores.

Just for kicks, I went through the MM through the letter G looking at CR 1 or lower monsters. This was the breakdown of AC's

15 and under: 25(most of these were 13 or lower, many in the 9-11 range)
16: 2
17: 2
18: 1

I also noted that even at CR 8 and lower a huge number, perhaps even a majority, were at 15 or lower. You don't need to start at 18 or even 16 to hit most of the time in encounters.

A lot of people seemed overly impressed with the "The extra +1 is +351578% more damage!!" And ignore that it amounts to only a few extra points of damage per round, or a slightly less chance for the monster to succeed in the save, and maybe an extra use of an ability that doesn't do much.

 

[Horwath]

You just aren't getting the point...

Maybe

But, if players want to optimize characters around their primary ability, they will not be fooled by relatively smaller impact of ability bonus vs proficiency bonus.

Anyone who knows basics of math will see that every 1 point of ability bonus less from maxed, reduces efficiency of their character by certain percentage.

If it goes from 60% to 55% it's 9%, if it goes from 50% to 45% it is 11%

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe

But, if players want to optimize characters around their primary ability, they will not be fooled by relatively smaller impact of ability bonus vs proficiency bonus.

Anyone who knows basics of math will see that every 1 point of ability bonus less from maxed, reduces efficiency of their character by certain percentage.

If it goes from 60% to 55% it's 9%, if it goes from 50% to 45% it is 11%

The percentage is deceptive, though. It still only amounts to a few points per round in either direction. Not enough to have meaningful impact in the vast majority of encounters.

 

[Horwath]

This would only aggravate the issue as myself (and others) see it.

why?

just make ASI +1 to one ability of full feat. Or two half feats together without any ability boosts.

rolling can be modified for abilities, same as point buy.

And it would be more intuitive. 10 is +0, 11 is +1, 12 is +2, etc...

Or are we talking about 3-18 sacred cow here?

 

[DND_Reborn]

A reduction of +5 to +4 isn’t much and won’t curb stat padding.

I agree, it isn't much, which is why I included this:

0 - 2: -3
3 - 5: -2
6 - 8: -1
9 - 11: +0
12-14: +1
15-17: +2
18-20: +3

The above would be my personal preference.

I think maxing out at +3 is fine, personally, but you need the 18 to get it.

But, if players want to optimize characters around their primary ability, they will not be fooled by relatively smaller impact of ability bonus vs proficiency bonus.

It isn't an issue of "fooling" them, but showing them that proficiency keeps up (practically) on its own, and they don't need to max out ability to keep pace.

Anyone who knows basics of math will see that every 1 point of ability bonus less from maxed, reduces efficiency of their character by certain percentage.

Sure, I won't debate that point! But with a wider spread, getting each additional +1 costs more and more. It becomes a question of diminishing returns.

why?

just make ASI +1 to one ability of full feat. Or two half feats together without any ability boosts.

rolling can be modified for abilities, same as point buy.

No, it is more because you are keeping the maximum ability modifier at +5, that is the issue.

Myself, I would like to see +3 while @TaranTheWanderer would like to see +2...

Or are we talking about 3-18 sacred cow here?

Shrug

Not sacred to me, but trying to work within the current framework, sure.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think it would be cooler if proficiency came with leveling and higher stats came with flavourful abilities.

Like, a 15 in dex gives you an extra 5 feet of movement and a 15 in strength boosts your jumping or something. Idk. Just throwing random ideas. Nothing combat oriented or super powerful but just neat minor abilities.