Some abilities seem a lot less useful than others

[ambartanen]

So this definitely isn't a new problem for the system but the usefulness of the different abilities is quite imbalanced in 5e. So here's how I see the applications of the abilities:


Dexterity: used for rogueish skills, especially stealth and acrobatics so the most likely to be used in combat; primary attribute for monk, rogue, most rangers, some fighters; likely attribute of choice for anyone who wants to be a melee-capable bard, warlock, sorcerer or wizard; saves are very useful and widespread, primary way to reduce damage from non-attack sources; determines initiative order; determines armor class.
Wisdom: used for perception and insight which are the most rolled checks and used for the players to be aware of and in control of their surroundings; also used for animal handling, healing, and survival which are situationally useful; primary attribute for the cleric and druid; important for the monk and ranger; saves are very useful and widespread, failing them often leads to being taken out of the fight entirely.
Charisma: used for all abilities to do with social interaction which is what many non-combat challenges are centered around; primary attribute for the bard, sorcerer, and warlock; important for the paladin; saves seem rare (are there any?).
Strength: used for athletics which is situationally useful; primary attribute for barbarians, most paladins and fighters, some rangers and clerics; can be used to make a melee capable bard, warlock, sorcerer or wizard; save is relatively rare but can be used to overcome some movement restrictions in combat.
Intelligence: used for knowledge abilities which come up quite often; primary attribute for the wizard; saves seem rare (are there any?).
Constitution: determines hit points and used to save against poison and disease; no associated classes; useful for most characters.


I've tried to order them in (perceived) order of versatility. The top three I have no problem with- they all come up in a variety of situations and are useful to a variety of classes. Strength, I believe, is a bit less useful but it still comes up a fair amount and quite a few character concepts are likely to focus on it. The last two, however, are a lot more limited in two very different ways.

Constitution is good for everyone- more hit points, better resistance to certain effects. Unfortunately, it is an entirely passive attribute meaning that it can almost never be used proactively. Some things like holding your breath or going without sleep can be a choice of the character rather than dictated by circumstances but that situation arises almost never so it hardly seems to count. So this is my complaint- it's a boring attribute, every build's second or third choice but no one's first.

Intelligence is really good for a wizard and someone having the knowledge abilities is really good for the party but that's it. The ideal use of the attribute is to have one really smart wizard that knows stuff and actually has an additional use for it while everyone else just uses it as a dump stat. The only reason for having more than one smart character is roleplaying (many players don't enjoy playing stupid characters) and while that is a very good reason, it still bothers me that it gives very little mechanical benefit.

So... do you think I am right in thinking some abilities are more useful than others? If so, is that a problem? How would you go about addressing it?

I had the idea that removing the dexterity bonus to initiative would be nice since hand-eye coordination never made sense to me as a measure for how ready you are to act. Now that it was ruled a dexterity check, though, my idea is pretty much ruined.

[rollingForInit]

I was very disappointed when they dropped bonus languages based on Intelligence modifier. That really made the ability more appealing to take for a non-Wizard. A Fighter would basically just take it for fluff (I want my character to be smart).

All abilities should give something that makes it appealing for characters that won't use it for combat, in my opinion. Languages were a great thing for Intelligence.

[Callin]

Constitution is also for making Concentration Checks. Honestly I think it depends on the Class as to what is most useful.

[Grynning]

There is the fact that all attributes can be called out as saving throws now, though from the stuff we've seen Intelligence and Charisma saves are pretty rare.
I get why they got rid of Int to languages (plenty of smart people are monolingual, and plenty of average people can speak 3-4 languages) but yeah, no one but Wizards (and Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters) get much out of it right now.

Side note: I also think the Linguist feat is a pretty unimpressive way to gain languages; no one wants to burn an ability score bump for 3 languages especially when you can magic your way around language barriers fairly easily (Old One Warlocks can communicate with anyone in 30 ft regardless of language at level 1, for instance). I think the feat should let you add like, 5 languages, and also give you the ability to make an Int check to have basic comprehension of any language after listening or reading for a minute or so (not realistic, but this is high fantasy, so w/e). Other characters should be able to have a couple extra languages from their backgrounds (some backgrounds add languages, but only the "scholarly" ones...it seems likely to me that a mercenary or outlander would have a variety of spoken languages as well, for example).

[Giant2005]

I agree. Intelligence being so crappy is the biggest deterrent to being a Wizard imo.

[Sir_Leorik]

Bonus languages based on Intelligence were dumped in 4E. Intelligence is needed for lots of skills. A party without at least one person skilled in Investigation will have trouble with traps.

Strength is important for melee attacks with non-finesse weapons, which means Barbarians, some Bards, some Druids, some Clerics, most Fighters, Paladins, and some Rangers depend on Strength for their attacks.

Constitution modifier is added to Hit Dice when healing during a short rest.

If you really want to see how relevant an ability is for your character, check chapter 7 of the PHB.

[rollingForInit]

Bonus languages based on Intelligence were dumped in 4E. Intelligence is needed for lots of skills. A party without at least one person skilled in Investigation will have trouble with traps.


It existed in the playtest for 5e, but was dropped for the basic rules.

Every ability score except for constitution is used for skills. Investigation is important, for sure. But so is Wisdom (Perception) and Strength (Athletics). Dexterity is all-important because of AC and intiative. Constitution have no skills, but you get HP and it's important for Concentration (which, really, should be considered a skill you can be proficient in). Strength sets your carrying capacity.

I would like to see more features tied to ability scores. Languages for Int was great. Should've been stuff like that for Cha and Wis as well, instead of removing it.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Well as noted not like this is a new thing. Can anyone think of a game where there weren't dump stats for a lot of classes/builds? Otherwise would probably be MADness for everyone.

I think this is kinda the nature of the beast when it comes to stats. There's still a case that someone in the party should always have a decent Int and Cha with the associated skills but they are going to be near useless for everyone else unless the DM is going out of their way to make that happen by breaking up the party and running independent challenges or some such.

I'll point out to any HRs proposed to Int you are going to very possibly give Wizards a direct boost. They don't even have to prepare ritual spells remember, so are they hurting for utility? Something to keep in mind, unless Wizards aren't getting played or something.

I'll put some platnium on the notion that there will be a lot of Int saves associated with psionics as the game puts more things out. What else is a Mind Flayer's blast going to save against?

On a different note I've thought for awhile Initiative should maybe be its own stat with progression by class... but I can see why you wouldn't want to do that from a 5E perspective. Moving it around would just shift the problem (because everyone has uses for going first) and generalizing would basically say you want random order. Which is perhaps worth considering but probably won't make everyone happy because again everyone has uses for going first so its arguably a legit thing to devote part of you build to. And probably (should) be a serious choice for a caster in particular, since they don't get Con save proficiency and don't have the best HD.

[Kurald Galain]

Well as noted not like this is a new thing. Can anyone think of a game where there weren't dump stats for a lot of classes/builds?

Easily, yes. In classic games like GURPS, White Wolf, and even 3E, you dump stats because you want to specialize in another stat; whereas in 4E and 5E, you dump stats because that particular stat does absolutely nothing for you. The first case is a tradeoff, the second case is not.

[Grynning]

Yeah there's a difference between certain characters dumping stats to min-max, and there being stats that are just universally able to be dumped. You see that a lot in video game RPG's where certain skills and abilities are literally never used so guides will tell you to never put points in them. That's kinda how Int seems to be in 5E...unless you are a wizard.
I wouldn't be so sure about Mind Flayer stuff requiring Int saves. Every other mind control type effect in the game so far is a Wisdom save, with a couple Cha saves sprinkled in here and there (like the Umber Hulk's gaze).

Note on Investigation - It is used to locate a couple of specific magical traps, but most of the time trap-finding is just a Perception check. So again, you can function as the scout/trapfinder fine with a low Int, you might just get caught by magic now and then.

[Tengu_temp]

I agree. Intelligence being so crappy is the biggest deterrent to being a Wizard imo.

The problem with intelligence being so crappy is not that it's a deterrent to wizards. The problem is that if you don't have intelligence-based casting, the stat is pretty much pointless for you. That's not good design.

[Person_Man]

Yeah, this issue was pointed out early and often in the play test.

In theory the idea of "any ability score can be used for a Saving Throw" would go a long way towards equalizing things. But when allocating Saves, they generally made decisions based on tradition or simulationist concerns. But even if Saves were more equally distributed, there would be a huge disparity between abilities which provided bonuses that everyone actively use all the time (AC, Initiative, to hit, damage, Perception, Stealth) and abilities which are only useful if an enemy targets them or in niche DM driven situations (Saves, Lore, etc).


Related Problem #1: It's a massive waste of resources to have both high Strength and high Dexterity. You either have:

High Dexterity and use light armor/mage armor/unarmored class bonus (most optimal, since Dex is also used for Initiative, common Saves, Stealth, Acrobatics), and low Strength (since you have no need for it).
High Strength and use heavy armor and weapons (less optimal, though you can get slightly better damage output with certain builds, and its useful for Athletics/Shove/Grapple checks), and low Dexterity (since your AC and to-hit and damage are covered by Str).
Low-mediocre Str and Dex and use medium armor (and you use some form of magic for attacks). This is the fallback option for people who roll poorly, or just want to max out their casting ability score and Constitution (hit points/Concentration) first.


A high ability score should never be "wasted" or pointless.


Related Problem #2: Most races provide +2 to one ability score and +1 to a second ability score. If those ability scores don't match the needs of your class, you are nerfing your build by playing that race.


I'm hoping that in 5.5 or 6E D&D, they make a real effort to equalize the ability scores and remove racial ability score bonuses.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Easily, yes. In classic games like GURPS, White Wolf, and even 3E, you dump stats because you want to specialize in another stat; whereas in 4E and 5E, you dump stats because that particular stat does absolutely nothing for you. The first case is a tradeoff, the second case is not.

White Wolf? Never played oWoD with Appearance then? I always made a point to always make it a 2 (or 3-4 if it was my high category) just because it was extremely worthless. And in nWoD (to my distate so I never played much) they twiddled the mechanics and reduced starter levels hard enough you had to do some min-maxing to get a decent pool or accept even in your specialties you'd fail a lot, and you'd always have areas you'd have just stat rolls of 1-2 in. And both did your dump statting for you with the stat categories getting different selected amounts.

Oh and its patently false you get nothing for your dump stats in 5E. Any with a high Int get boosts to the 5 skills it covers and saves no matter how rare. Every class can use High Elf and a Background gets proficiency in all 5 too if they want. You're playing with a Sorc/Warlock over a Wizard that may well make sense for every class too so somebody has the knowledge role covered.

I certainly don't expect many or most to make that choice but your "absolutely nothing" dichotomy is total bunk as far as 5E goes.

The real "problem" such as it is comes simply that D&D is still built around going around killing stuff, everything not useful there or basic survival is radically less useful most of the time unless the DM is going out of their way to play up needing that.

Which if they are lore is just a sidequest away at worst, because what DM is going to halt the plot entirely because you can't solve a puzzle? Not many, so raw knowledge is always the poor man for anyone not casting from it since you can't really stop metagame knowing about your enemies anyways. Social arena can be a bit better, but its still a select interest too since skill there by its nature has to be "just helping" not winning outright lest it become Diplomancing.

[TheOOB]

Having abilities that you can ignore and not have it ruin your character is a feature, not a bug. Int, Cha, and to a lesser extent Str can be very useful to some characters, but to others they are not that useful unless you want or need your character to be able to make certain skill checks.

[Shining Wrath]

There is the fact that all attributes can be called out as saving throws now, though from the stuff we've seen Intelligence and Charisma saves are pretty rare.
I get why they got rid of Int to languages (plenty of smart people are monolingual, and plenty of average people can speak 3-4 languages) but yeah, no one but Wizards (and Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters) get much out of it right now.

Side note: I also think the Linguist feat is a pretty unimpressive way to gain languages; no one wants to burn an ability score bump for 3 languages especially when you can magic your way around language barriers fairly easily (Old One Warlocks can communicate with anyone in 30 ft regardless of language at level 1, for instance). I think the feat should let you add like, 5 languages, and also give you the ability to make an Int check to have basic comprehension of any language after listening or reading for a minute or so (not realistic, but this is high fantasy, so w/e). Other characters should be able to have a couple extra languages from their backgrounds (some backgrounds add languages, but only the "scholarly" ones...it seems likely to me that a mercenary or outlander would have a variety of spoken languages as well, for example).

Linguist Feat gives you +1 to INT, so you're giving up +1, not +2. If your INT score is odd and you aren't going to keep increasing it (i.e., not SAD:INT), Linguist might be a better choice.

EDIT: The wild card as to INT utility is the Investigate skill. In the fluff at the start of the PHB it shows Investigate being used to determine if those are statues, or gargoyles. If Perception is "You notice a statue" and Investigate is "Looking more closely at the statue, you realize it has scruff marks that show it sometimes moves", Investigate might be pretty damn important.

[ambartanen]

Person_Man, I noticed those too. The Str/Dex dichotomy annoys me in particular because someone who is both strong and coordinated should be a better warrior. Of course, my preferred approach to that is to just merge the three stats and call them Physique. Alas with the 5e setup that would make the stat all too useful. At least for the second problem I might just rule racial ability bonuses away and just let everyone choose a +2 and a +1 no matter what race they are.


White Wolf? Never played oWoD with Appearance then? I always made a point to always make it a 2 (or 3-4 if it was my high category) just because it was extremely worthless. And in nWoD (to my distate so I never played much) they twiddled the mechanics and reduced starter levels hard enough you had to do some min-maxing to get a decent pool or accept even in your specialties you'd fail a lot, and you'd always have areas you'd have just stat rolls of 1-2 in. And both did your dump statting for you with the stat categories getting different selected amounts.
Yes, a particular character will have "dump" stats in that they aren't equally good at everything but the stats themselves are all equally useful. Having played quite a bit of nWoD and Exalted, there are no obvious dump stats in those. Also true for other games with stats I can think of off the top of my head (which is currently Fallout and ECLIPSE phase)- each stat lets you do a number of things. In 5e though non-wizards have no mechanical benefit to raising their intelligence if there is already a wizard in the party.


Oh and its patently false you get nothing for your dump stats in 5E. Any with a high Int get boosts to the 5 skills it covers and saves no matter how rare.

But the wizard already knows more about everything than you do with you non-dump Int so the only reason to do that is if you don't have a wizard in the party at all and even then you will be taking a hit for the party and not actually making a good choice for your character individually.

I would also love to get one example of an Int save in 5e. Because it doesn't really give you a boost to a save if that save doesn't exist except in theory.


If you really want to see how relevant an ability is for your character, check chapter 7 of the PHB.
Yeah, thanks a lot, I already know what stats are used for. Some of them are just used a lot less than others. I am not sure what you think Investigation has to do with traps though. They are discovered with perception in this system and disabled with dexterity checks so intelligence never comes up in their context.


Constitution is also for making Concentration Checks. Honestly I think it depends on the Class as to what is most useful.
So which class will make Constitution their highest attribute? And which non-wizard class will bother to make intelligence at least their second highest attribute?

I suppose an arcane trickster might actually bother making intelligence their second highest stat but even for an eldritch knight it's at best of tertiary importance.

[hawklost]

......

But the wizard already knows more about everything than you do with you non-dump Int so the only reason to do that is if you don't have a wizard in the party at all.

I would also love to get one example of an Int save in 5e. Because it doesn't really give you a boost to a save if that save doesn't exist except in theory.


The Spell Maze, requires a DC 20 Int check or you are trapped in a maze, each turn requires another DC 20 check to escape or until the spell ends.

[Shadow]

Note on Investigation - It is used to locate a couple of specific magical traps, but most of the time trap-finding is just a Perception check. So again, you can function as the scout/trapfinder fine with a low Int, you might just get caught by magic now and then.

I already use them differently at the table.
You can use either percep or invest to find it (percep has the advantage here because it is also passive).
If it is mechanical or magical (pretty much everything except spike/pit traps covered wth branches), you need to roll investigation to figure out how it works, and then you can try to disarm it. If you fail the invest roll, you have disadvantage to disarm it.

Perception, Investigation & thieves' tool
One lets you find it passively or actively, one lets you find it actively and also lets you understand it, and one lets you bypass it.

[Shining Wrath]

I already use them differently at the table.
You can use either percep or invest to find it (percep has the advantage here because it is also passive).
If it is mechanical or magical (pretty much everything except spike/pit traps covered wth branches), you need to roll investigation to figure out how it works, and then you can try to disarm it. If you fail the invest roll, you have disadvantage to disarm it.

Perception, Investigation & thieves' tool
One lets you find it passively or actively, one lets you find it actively and also lets you understand it, and one lets you bypass it.

Again, almost the first paragraph in the PHB is the use of Investigation to examine something closely and figure out if it's what it looks like. I think the distinction might be Perception is being alert to your environment, Investigation is understanding what it is you are seeing.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Yes, a particular character will have "dump" stats in that they aren't equally good at everything but the stats themselves are all equally useful. Having played quite a bit of nWoD and Exalted, there are no obvious dump stats in those. Also true for other games with stats I can think of off the top of my head (which is currently Fallout and ECLIPSE phase)- each stat lets you do a number of things. In 5e though non-wizards have no mechanical benefit to raising their intelligence if there is already a wizard in the party.

No mechanical benefit you care about you mean. Its still there you just don't feel its enough.

I guarantee if I wasn't the smart-guy in nWoD party I don't think any amount of play would lead me to not have rolls in the smart guy categories so low I would strive to never have to make them. Same for if I wasn't the resident tough guy, maybe a token dot in Brawl. If I had enough points I'd generalize sure but that's a down the road or advanced start kinda thing. They don't give my concept a benefit so I dump them, and yeah if I have to make one I fail because its unmodified. Actually probably poorer odds then a -1 penalty on a d20, but I'm not running the math.

Yeah hypothetically those stats have uses but not for my build. So the difference is immaterial.

Its a point-buy system not a class based one so a bit more hypothetical use comes with the territory but for WOD hits a limit sooner or later when its not part of your supernatural abilities. I'm under the impression Exalted is less about stats and how your particular auto-win amazingly epic abilities match up to other auto-win amazingly epic abilities and being good at "regular" challenges is like a trivial devotion of your character for those world breaking champions of whatever they feel like. So I'm not betting on much connection to the core mechanics of WW products, but hey maybe Exalted can still fail to climb a wall or whatever.

I find the notion of averting dump stats nothing more then nitpicking at best or meaningless fantasy to be rightfully disregarded. Because for all stats to be good and all stats to be achievable you would be jack of all trades, master of all.


But the wizard already knows more about everything than you do with you non-dump Int so the only reason to do that is if you don't have a wizard in the party at all and even then you will be taking a hit for the party and not actually making a good choice for your character individually.

Well given that the Wizard can't have more then six skills everybody but Bard/Rogue/Ranger not so much. He might, might, start with 18 if we roll stats but in practical terms is going to be 16-17. I can even see toughing it out with a 15 for various reasons.

Since prof is identical and if you do this why not a 14 from somewhere, the difference comes to 1-3 points. Substanial but I don't know if its so overwhelming I'd ditch my character in disgust over it. I'd get more use out of Headband of Intellect if one popped up late enough after all. And the Wizard has to devote 5/6 potential skills to it, maybe he'd rather play against type too and take a bunch of non-Int skills and wouldn't like to potentially hamper the party?

Now my question for you is what exactly can you change that doesn't fall into your same trap? Wizard is always gonna be about Int right? Therefore always going to be maxing and therefore getting more benefit right?

Gotta be a class feature then. Which in general terms isn't a bad idea... as a variant rule, homebrew, or later supplement class/archetype. Something like Warlord or true Gish class that uses Int a lot, well heck I suspect those might be coming.


I would also love to get one example of an Int save in 5e. Because it doesn't really give you a boost to a save if that save doesn't exist except in theory.

Well they're not phrased as saving throws but...

Disguise Self, Major Image, Maze, Minor Illusion, Silent Image, Detect Thoughts, Seeming

The illusions you can see through with an Int (Investigation) check. Maze is DC 20 Int to get out of. Detect Thoughts you can defy with an opposing Int check.

Phantasmal Force IS a saving throw and an Investigation check if you fail.

You'll pardon me but I can't Ctrl+F the PHB yet so there may be more.


So which class will make Constitution their highest attribute? And which non-wizard class will bother to make intelligence at least their second highest attribute?

Wizard. I can see some appeal to say a point buy with two 15s or a roll that gives me two decent stats. Then add Dwarf or such. I'll take all that HP on a low HD class that needs to make Con saves thank you very much. Shore up the Int with increases later.

Honestly since HP is of universal benefit so I can see doing the same with any class depending on how stats are. I talk to the DM and their amenable to the idea of a stat item showing up I can leave boosting to fairly late or just not mind because say I've got a +1 sword and get that Con to 20 first.

[Tengu_temp]

I find the notion of averting dump stats nothing more then nitpicking at best or meaningless fantasy to be rightfully disregarded. Because for all stats to be good and all stats to be achievable you would be jack of all trades, master of all.


I can't even follow the logic in this statement. It's like you didn't even play any other games.

In 5e as it is right now, a fighter benefits much more from having 18 strength and 8 intelligence than from having 16 strength and 14 intelligence. This is not good design. Somehow, many other games manage to give the second character non-negligible benefits - even in DND 3e, the latter character gets more skill points and access to some good feats the former can't have. But 5e doesn't do that.

[ambartanen]

I find the notion of averting dump stats nothing more then nitpicking at best or meaningless fantasy to be rightfully disregarded. Because for all stats to be good and all stats to be achievable you would be jack of all trades, master of all.
Ok, so for you there is no difference between one character choosing a stat as their dump stat and 90% of all characters choosing that same one as a dump stat. If that's the case then having some stats just be less useful and interesting than others won't be an issue for you.



Since prof is identical and if you do this why not a 14 from somewhere, the difference comes to 1-3 points. Substanial but I don't know if its so overwhelming I'd ditch my character in disgust over it. I'd get more use out of Headband of Intellect if one popped up late enough after all. And the Wizard has to devote 5/6 potential skills to it, maybe he'd rather play against type too and take a bunch of non-Int skills and wouldn't like to potentially hamper the party?
Sure, it can happen. My idea was more along the lines of- one character knowing the answer will almost always share it with the others and therefore you don't need multiple people to know it so "knowing things" is something you do for the group as a whole and can get away with having just one character dedicated to it. At the same time everyone in the party wants to be good at perception, insight, acrobatics, athletics and stealth because you can't have someone else succeed at those things for you. You could theoretically get away with only having one character with social skills but once it comes to actually talking to NPCs everyone on the table usually wants to participate instead of having one player lead the whole conversation every time (not to mention there are four classes that need high charisma to function to only one that uses intelligence).

So far I've only made one character in 5e and it's a warlock with three "knowledge" skills so saying only the wizard knows things is a bit of an exaggeration. But still, even though I really prefer playing higher int characters so I can come up with complicated plans, I couldn't afford to buy more than 10 int because point buy made me realize how much more useful the other attributes are. I also kind of resent having to make a weaker character just because I don't want to roleplay someone stupid when being smart doesn't actually make me any better according to the system.


Now my question for you is what exactly can you change that doesn't fall into your same trap? Wizard is always gonna be about Int right? Therefore always going to be maxing and therefore getting more benefit right?

Gotta be a class feature then. Which in general terms isn't a bad idea... as a variant rule, homebrew, or later supplement class/archetype. Something like Warlord or true Gish class that uses Int a lot, well heck I suspect those might be coming.
I don't have any good solutions. If I had, I would have mentioned them at the start of the topic. Still, I am not trying to make wizards less about int (there are already wizard builds that can slum it with 8 int if they have to) but give intelligence more of an appeal as one of your average stats. Currently, given a 12, 12 and 8 to assign between dexterity, wisdom and intelligence, most players have a strong mechanical incentive to put the 8 in intelligence. Maybe it doesn't happen all that often in the real world (I wouldn't want to play an 8 int character for more than a few sessions) but it still bothers me. What bothers me even more is how boring and passive constitution is even though it's virtually guaranteed to be no one's dump stat.



Well they're not phrased as saving throws but...

Disguise Self, Major Image, Maze, Minor Illusion, Silent Image, Detect Thoughts, Seeming

The illusions you can see through with an Int (Investigation) check. Maze is DC 20 Int to get out of. Detect Thoughts you can defy with an opposing Int check.

Phantasmal Force IS a saving throw and an Investigation check if you fail.

You'll pardon me but I can't Ctrl+F the PHB yet so there may be more.
Maze is an intelligence check but let's say it's "close enough" for our purposes.
Detect thoughts is a will save and if you fail that save the caster learns whatever they wanted to. On subsequent rounds, after they've gotten what they wanted in the first place, you can use Int checks to kick them out of your head. I don't even understand why the attribute used suddenly switches but let's count it as a new use for int (even if int is the poor man's wis in this case).
The others are straight up uses of the investigation skill though. You don't get to count that as both a useful skill and saves cause it's the same thing.

So I can actually Ctrl+F through a PHB and these are all things (not just spells but all things) that mention an intelligence saving throw:
Alter Memories- the power a 14th level enchanter wizard gains that allows him to wipe memories of creatures he's enchanted. How good they are at wiping memories is actually based on their Charisma though.
Contact Other Plane- the caster performs a DC 15 intelligence save before they finish casting the spell and if they fail, they lose the spell, take 6d6 psychic damage and are driven insane. What?
Contagion- one of the effects gives disadvantage on intelligence saving throws. You don't actually need to make any intelligence saving throws though.
Feeblemind- actually requires an int save
Phantasmal force- actually requires an int save
Symbol- the insanity variant (one of eight symbols) requires an int save or you are driven insane. Maybe not a bad choice since virtually no one in 5e will have good int saves

So that's one rather situational effect and 2.125 spells. Still better than I expected. Maze is gonna be pretty brutal though as even wizards only have a 30% chance of succeeding and 95% of non-wizards will have 10% or less.



Wizard. I can see some appeal to say a point buy with two 15s or a roll that gives me two decent stats. Then add Dwarf or such. I'll take all that HP on a low HD class that needs to make Con saves thank you very much. Shore up the Int with increases later.

Honestly since HP is of universal benefit so I can see doing the same with any class depending on how stats are. I talk to the DM and their amenable to the idea of a stat item showing up I can leave boosting to fairly late or just not mind because say I've got a +1 sword and get that Con to 20 first.So your idea for a character that uses constitution is a wizard that decides to forgo intelligence? I find that very entertaining.

Seriously though, it's not you primary stat if you start promoting a different one over it at the first opportunity. I also wouldn't consider it your primary stat if you never actually use it to do anything. Sure, your 20 con/10 int dwarven wizard will have lots of hp but virtually everything they decide to do will either rely on intelligence or on no stat at all.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I can't even follow the logic in this statement. It's like you didn't even play any other games.

In 5e as it is right now, a fighter benefits much more from having 18 strength and 8 intelligence than from having 16 strength and 14 intelligence. This is not good design. Somehow, many other games manage to give the second character non-negligible benefits - even in DND 3e, the latter character gets more skill points and access to some good feats the former can't have. But 5e doesn't do that.

Oh gee sounds like he's not MAD then.

Maybe we should arbitrarily tie his HP or AC to Int so he doesn't take Dex and Con then. And do that for every class so they are magically spread around the stats, Wizard take Strength, Bard take Wisdom so he's not spoony. Etc.

It easy to sit back and claim bull crap nonsense like "not good design" when you pick apart one particular feature and take it in isolation. Much less having to fix it NOT isolation while ALSO remaining really simple and streamlined and sufficiently classical in aesthetic to fly in 5E.

You magically want every stat 'used equally' or somesuch nice sounding line but difficult to apply idea... you're not going to get it. Get over it. That would need a major revision of stat expectations or making the game more complicated by say resurrecting the 3.5 skill points.

You want something like a skill prof per Int bonus most like the past? OPed for Wizards (really to anything any stat) and undermines the deliberate spreading and destruction of Skill Monkey in 5E. Want some more graded mechanic its too complicated for the ability check section maybe sneak a variant in the DMG since its apparently going to be more like Unearthed Arcana in a lot of ways.

Anything you tie to Int generally raises a Wizards boat. Yes they deserve extra consideration, they are a core class and also the most famously powerful by design and mistake. Anything you do to Int raises their utility on top of ritual magic and casting.

You want more classes elsewhere to have features supported by Int? Not unreasonable. Of course only Warlock is the one you can really play with all that much because its the newest and least iconic. Maybe some archetypes sure but which ones do you discard and what do you replace them with? Most of them are for being fairly iconic specialties of their base classes. I suppose BM Fighters could be a good candidate but they already have an Int using archetype there. Maybe Lore Bard or a Cleric Domain would that satisfy? Only so much page space to go around and next to all the things that must be there this is of low importance.

I rather expect further classes to come out that use it since there are likely candidates, especially when they have more license to do new things and can add to a now out of focus stat in some way.

[Tengu_temp]

Jesus, you really do like to type, don't you?

I want every stat to be useful for every character. That doesn't mean I want them to be equally useful - a front-line character will prioritize strength and constitution, a spellcaster will need one or more of the mental stats - but I want all of them to do something no matter what character you play. Picking high intelligence for a fighter should give you some kind of non-negligible bonus, while picking low intelligence should penalize you in some way. DND 3e, nWoD, Exalted, Mutants and Masterminds - those are games that managed to do it. But 5e doesn't. Which is a failure of its design.

A game should intentionally encourage creating well-rounded jack-of-all-trades characters, not specialists. That's because even in a game that encourages versatility specialists usually have the advantage. Encouraging well-rounded characters is the only way to keep them viable - in a game that rewards heavy specialization, jacks-of-all-trades tend to be virtually useless.

[ambartanen]

You magically want every stat 'used equally' or somesuch nice sounding line but difficult to apply idea... you're not going to get it. Get over it. That would need a major revision of stat expectations...

Gee, almost like it would take a... new edition of the system to make a change that fundamental? And maybe some people are not happy that they had a chance to fix this problem of DnD that is a known issue for decades but they actually took a step back from their improvements in the previous edition.

[Shadow]

Gee, almost like it would take a... new edition of the system to make a change that fundamental? And maybe some people are not happy that they had a chance to fix this problem of DnD that is a known issue for decades but they actually took a step back from their improvements in the previous edition.

And that's one of the only things I dislike about 5e so far. But all the fantastic changes far outweigh this one (and the few others) in my mind.

[MeeposFire]

I like 5e a lot from the looks of it but I really dislike how int grants so little as it is traditionally one of my favorites stats to have high.

In most other editions high int can grant you many benefits that were worthwhile. The most commonly known one was languages in many of the oldest editions (not crazy good but at least it was something), skill points in 3e (very useful), and a number of benefits in 4e (AC, good skills, reflex defense though it was slightly behind dex in utility due to initiative). In 2e an often overlooked benefit was that a high int could grant you some nice bonus proficiencies early in the game. I liked playing 2e warriors and giving them high int over high str. I had found that in addition to being a bit more fun to role play it was also a powerful option as you could get a bunch of nice proficiencies that together could give you better combat bonuses than what you could get from just high str (outside of the small chance you got an 18 in str and you got a decent % roll then go high str otherwise I think int is a better stat to use).

I don't need a benefit to be super powerful but I would like to be able to play a character with good int, that is not the wizard (or wizard analogue), that is not completely hampered by that choice. Right now that is hard to do in 5e and I think it is something that should be adjusted.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Jesus, you really do like to type, don't you?

I want every stat to be useful for every character. That doesn't mean I want them to be equally useful - a front-line character will prioritize strength and constitution, a spellcaster will need one or more of the mental stats - but I want all of them to do something no matter what character you play. Picking high intelligence for a fighter should give you some kind of non-negligible bonus, while picking low intelligence should penalize you in some way. DND 3e, nWoD, Exalted, Mutants and Masterminds - those are games that managed to do it. But 5e doesn't. Which is a failure of its design.

A game should intentionally encourage creating well-rounded jack-of-all-trades characters, not specialists. That's because even in a game that encourages versatility specialists usually have the advantage. Encouraging well-rounded characters is the only way to keep them viable - in a game that rewards heavy specialization, jacks-of-all-trades tend to be virtually useless.

I get perverse pleasure out internet debates you are a sick and twisted pleasure, so yes I do like to type.
(Which strange because I do it badly and can't proofread for crap)

And while a nice idea on paper there simply isn't going to be something like that other then that future classes make more use of Int. Remember there isn't terribly much more benefit for using stats name Strength and Cha, giving you carrying capacity and the ability to not be a jerkass like me. If being the Face or the guy that hits things isn't your characters role there's little reason to take those. Wis is bailed out because of Perception but even with that and probably the lion's share or old will saves I think it will be rare to see it above a 12 without being the casting Stat.

Dex and Con are the only universal benefit stats, and truly only Con which is countered by being primary for nobody.

There isn't a "little extra" left to give Int I can conceive of since its traditional was skill points but after realizing Background exist I like the new skill system far far far too much to trade that. And Int can't really be compatible with that except in some very wonky fashion, or be really OPed. Tools or languages prof then maybe, those things you can buy in your downtime? Really kinda inconsequential don't ya think? It fulfills the "get something" but won't prevent widespread dump-statting methinks.

What's left? Nothing is my answer.


Gee, almost like it would take a... new edition of the system to make a change that fundamental? And maybe some people are not happy that they had a chance to fix this problem of DnD that is a known issue for decades but they actually took a step back from their improvements in the previous edition.

Not 5E. It had a clear and evident mandate to channel 3E if not AD&D so no such revision is possible.

Maybe if 5E succeeds then 6E or something like what I saw Mearls admit they should have done with 4E (side product!) in the first place will have that kind of latitude to question everything.

Actually really only the latter, 5E success will just confirm to WotC what works.
Its failure, well probably won't be 6E, maybe they mea culpa real hard and licence the brand to Paizo.

[Shining Wrath]

Jesus, you really do like to type, don't you?

I want every stat to be useful for every character. That doesn't mean I want them to be equally useful - a front-line character will prioritize strength and constitution, a spellcaster will need one or more of the mental stats - but I want all of them to do something no matter what character you play. Picking high intelligence for a fighter should give you some kind of non-negligible bonus, while picking low intelligence should penalize you in some way. DND 3e, nWoD, Exalted, Mutants and Masterminds - those are games that managed to do it. But 5e doesn't. Which is a failure of its design.

A game should intentionally encourage creating well-rounded jack-of-all-trades characters, not specialists. That's because even in a game that encourages versatility specialists usually have the advantage. Encouraging well-rounded characters is the only way to keep them viable - in a game that rewards heavy specialization, jacks-of-all-trades tend to be virtually useless.

For heaven's sake, why? Why can't I play the big dumb fighter, the frail brilliant wizard, the silent monk with reflexes like lightning? You say every class should have some use for every ability, you force every single class into MAD with all the crippling of character concepts that implies.

Therefore, it must be possible to have dump stats; for each and every class, there must be the possibility of not putting any points into one or more abilities. Not required, but possible. Therefore, jack-of-all-trades characters should be possible but not encouraged.

[Kurald Galain]

For heaven's sake, why? Why can't I play the big dumb fighter, the frail brilliant wizard, the silent monk with reflexes like lightning? You say every class should have some use for every ability, you force every single class into MAD with all the crippling of character concepts that implies.

Therefore, it must be possible to have dump stats; for each and every class, there must be the possibility of not putting any points into one or more abilities. Not required, but possible. Therefore, jack-of-all-trades characters should be possible but not encouraged.

Yes, of course. It's about giving classes and characters options. If no (e.g) fighter ever has a reason to take (e.g.) intelligence, then that reduces diversity.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Yes, of course. It's about giving classes and characters options. If no (e.g) fighter ever has a reason to take (e.g.) intelligence, then that reduces diversity.

Actually Fighters have plenty of reason, a whole archetype actually.

And its easy to demand options, its rather selfish to do so with a word and page count for a tradition breaking tertiary (at best) priority. Much of this book had to be there because it is fervently trying to cast Wish for a mutant crossover of True Resurrection and Reincarnation effect.

[Engine]

You say every class should have some use for every ability, you force every single class into MAD with all the crippling of character concepts that implies.

Tengu_temp didn't say that. He said that every ability should give you something; e.g. in 3.5 Intelligence gave you more skill points, more languages, access to some feats, yet you could still play the BDF: it was an option, not something you had to choose. In 5E, for a lot of classes, Intelligence does almost nothing; Tengu_temp (and I agree with him) would like to give every character some useful use for every ability score, not forcing every character into a MAD syndrome.

[Tengu_temp]

(Which strange because I do it badly and can't proofread for crap)

I can tell.


What's left? Nothing is my answer.

Just one idea would be intelligence-based maneuvers - for example, both feinting and the saving throw against a feint could fall under intelligence. Of course, here we stumble upon another problem with 5e's bad design - unless you're a Battlemaster, you don't get maneuvers.


For heaven's sake, why? Why can't I play the big dumb fighter, the frail brilliant wizard, the silent monk with reflexes like lightning? You say every class should have some use for every ability, you force every single class into MAD with all the crippling of character concepts that implies.

Therefore, it must be possible to have dump stats; for each and every class, there must be the possibility of not putting any points into one or more abilities. Not required, but possible. Therefore, jack-of-all-trades characters should be possible but not encouraged.

In a game where every stat is useful you still can play those characters. It's just that they have different strengths and weaknesses than a smart fighter or a muscle wizard. Different, instead of being mechanically superior to them in every way that matters.

[DeAnno]

Interesting Charisma Saving Throws:


Resisting unwilling Plane Shift (after a melee spell attack)
Teleporting out of Forcecage
Resisting Banishment

Banishment is actually very good this edition; it's one of the only save-or-sucks to survive the purge, is low level, and even multi-targets with scaling. Nobody is going to feat themselves into Cha saves either, so as long as you don't aim at a Cleric/Bard/Sorc/Pally you're golden.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Just one idea would be intelligence-based maneuvers - for example, both feinting and the saving throw against a feint could fall under intelligence. Of course, here we stumble upon another problem with 5e's bad design - unless you're a Battlemaster, you don't get maneuvers.

A terrible solution, like throwing a grenade to kill a fly.

-Too complicated that would consume a whole page minimum in the short & sweet combat section.
-Would radically change assumptions for combat across every class. Especially with sup dice interacting with other mechanics.
-You'd be creating paperwork for each class on top of their existing work
-You'd be MADing the guy most appropriate for them, the Fighter.
-You'd be obviating an archetype and thus need to replace it.
-You'd be destroying the simplicity of the deliberately simple Champion, unless they were so weak he doesn't need them.
-Many frankly don't make sense as general abilities anyone could have unless you actually don't understand the abstraction of combat rolls.
-Those that do Shove, Help, or Improvise are there for quite aptly.
-Maneuvers played that strongly will make some people think of something else. (I'm amazed I like the BM actually)
-All those crappy actions you used to be able to take? Yeah general opinion was they were crappy last I checked.

Finally and deserving special attention:

-You are attempting to emphasize the tactical gameplay in a book seeking to de-emphasize it!

Seriously you could not have had a worse idea to fill this nitpick. I would never buy one of your horrible products.

[Tengu_temp]

Way to try to sell your subjective opinion as a fact. 3/10 for effort.

I will just respond to the main point:


-You are attempting to emphasize the tactical gameplay in a book seeking to de-emphasize it!

This, I believe, is a colossal step backwards in 5e. If this game did it in order to promote a more open, creative approach to fighting, like in Fate or Burning Wheel, then I would understand, but no - it does so to appeal to grognards who want non-casters to have no options beyond auto-attacking. Watch out, in a moment someone is going to say that fighter is an intentionally simple class because it's for newbies and people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters!

[archaeo]

In a game where every stat is useful you still can play those characters. It's just that they have different strengths and weaknesses than a smart fighter or a muscle wizard. Different, instead of being mechanically superior to them in every way that matters.

Why is every stat being useful de facto good design? The other abilities certainly "do" more, in many fashions, and provide better defenses. But who has Int as their most important stat? Oh, right, the classes who can cast a spell to pass those checks instead of rolling an ability, or who can cast a spell to counter/avoid/reflect the attack they're hoping will miss.

Beyond that, can someone remind me why intelligence is useless again? The PHB shows me that you need it for arcana, history, investigation, nature, and religion. Is there a single campaign in the history of D&D where having those skills is unimportant?

But you're just complaining because there isn't enough incentive for other classes to take Int (or Cha). You say earlier, "A game should intentionally encourage creating well-rounded jack-of-all-trades characters, not specialists." But that's absurd; you're making a statement about game design as if it's factual instead of an opinion. I can think of dozens and dozens of fun, enjoyable games where it's just not true. 5e is not the Platonic ideal of TRPGs, sure, but I don't think its stat design is really so bad. It's a matter of balancing these numbers versus the class decisions versus the feat selection, etc., until you begin to recognize what a lot of moving parts are going on here.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Way to try to sell your subjective opinion as a fact. 3/10 for effort.

One's that are not so hypocritcially dismissed:

-Too complicated that would consume a whole page minimum in the short & sweet combat section.
-Would radically change assumptions for combat across every class. Especially with sup dice interacting with other mechanics.
-You'd be creating paperwork for each class on top of their existing work
-You'd be MADing the guy most appropriate for them, the Fighter.
-You'd be obviating an archetype and thus need to replace it.
-You'd be destroying the simplicity of the deliberately simple Champion, unless they were so weak he doesn't need them.
-Many frankly don't make sense as general abilities anyone could have unless you actually don't understand the abstraction of combat rolls.
-Those that do Shove, Help, or Improvise are there for quite aptly.

One that are but are still considering because I'm someone who successfully boycotted 4E but supported 5E:

-Maneuvers played that strongly will make some people think of something else. (I'm amazed I like the BM actually)

This last one I could have phrased differently but I still have seen plenty of complaints about analysis of 3E:

-All those crappy actions you used to be able to take? Yeah general opinion was they were crappy last I checked.

Opinion rather was divided on whether Pathfinder helped or hurt in particular that one.



This, I believe, is a colossal step backwards in 5e.

Way to try to sell your subjective opinion as a fact. 5/10 for effort.

You do have some technical correctness that it is trying to go back in time but its not how such a sentence would generally be interpreted.


If this game did it in order to promote a more open, creative approach to fighting, like in Fate or Burning Wheel, then I would understand, but no - it does so to appeal to grognards who want non-casters to have no options beyond auto-attacking. Watch out, in a moment someone is going to say that fighter is an intentionally simple class because it's for newbies and people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters!

Of course this is the grognard addition, it needed to be to survive. If you don't treat this from a marching order to save the franchise by conjuring all the OD&D it can as your first, second, and last priority you are failing and all your arguments approach "Die in a ditch D&D, Pathfinder wins!" by default.

And its working in my case, I hope it keeps working. I also note I don't mind also not being '3.75 for realz dis tiem' because it does some rather brilliant moves of design. Notably ones I never saw on the internet.

And the Fighter simple? Well I suppose if you play the Champion, though given that its Remarkable Athelete works with Initiative add some of those extra feats and it could get very interesting. Don't want that, play a BM or EK they're both great. Want to round off your character some, play a Half-Elf for two extra skills and have a minor in something on top of your background.

Only have to be a simple fighter if you want to be but the ones that don't manage to dance perfectly around being interesting without ever ceasing the core role of hitting things hard with your sword. Which is pretty upgraded with that third attack, much needed revisions to combat, and Action Surge. And feat bias too though that strictly speaking is there for anyone.

I think Fighter is easily the best martial around right now but that's more opinion since I see the Barb, Monk, and Paladin cases. I did dislike the skills until I got around to reading Backgrounds and realized it was only a small thing I suppose.

[Demonic Spoon]

But you're just complaining because there isn't enough incentive for other classes to take Int (or Cha). You say earlier, "A game should intentionally encourage creating well-rounded jack-of-all-trades characters, not specialists." But that's absurd; you're making a statement about game design as if it's factual instead of an opinion. I can think of dozens and dozens of fun, enjoyable games where it's just not true. 5e is not the Platonic ideal of TRPGs, sure, but I don't think its stat design is really so bad. It's a matter of balancing these numbers versus the class decisions versus the feat selection, etc., until you begin to recognize what a lot of moving parts are going on here.


Providing a reason to take every attribute is not the same as requiring that every character be well-rounded. If the abilities are properly balanced, characters with balanced attributes should be about as desirable as characters with sharply different attributes (e.g. the frail wizard)

[archaeo]

This, I believe, is a colossal step backwards in 5e. If this game did it in order to promote a more open, creative approach to fighting, like in Fate or Burning Wheel, then I would understand, but no - it does so to appeal to grognards who want non-casters to have no options beyond auto-attacking. Watch out, in a moment someone is going to say that fighter is an intentionally simple class because it's for newbies and people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters!

Personally, I think Sora's incorrect; 5e doesn't really go out of its way to deemphasize tactical combat. It offers a pretty full slate of martial classes along the continuum of tactical complexity; I suspect that Champion is obviously way down at the "dead simple" end, whereas Battle Master is def. at the high end (competing, maybe, with any Monk, which has a lot of options).

Unless, of course, by "tactics" you're actually just talking about "number of buttons martial classes get to press in combat," in which case, well, dang. Yes. Wizards get a bunch more buttons.


Providing a reason to take every attribute is not the same as requiring that every character be well-rounded. If the abilities are properly balanced, characters with balanced attributes should be about as desirable as characters with sharply different attributes (e.g. the frail wizard)

Are they not? A character with all 13s and 12s in their ability scores will only be, at worst, a single modifier point behind someone that started with a 15 in their primary stat. (Edit: except, of course, for the variant human, but I think this is hardly the biggest problem with giving a free feat at level 1.)

5e may not give you very many incentives to be well-rounded, but I still fail to see how that is objectively bad game design, or how "proper balance" is really so desirable. As I said above, intelligence and charisma have very good reasons for not being as "useful" outside of driving spellcasting stats: they drive spellcasting stats. 5e, for better and for worse, has to keep a lot of these sacred cows on life support in order to appeal to the people for whom said cows are sacred. Frankly, I think they did a bang-up job of keeping things reasonable within the constraints they have by writing an RPG with "D&D" on the cover.

[pwykersotz]

Theatre of the Mind tactics are vastly different from nuanced rules and positioning tactics, but both are very effective in their own way. I personally celebrate that the rules are simpler and more open. As a DM, I am the game designer. WotC created the framework for me to do this, since I don't have the time or skill to make an entire game from scratch by myself that would be nearly as complete. However, it also takes too much time to nuance and know every rule and to figure out the complex interactions in a rules heavy system. I tried to break into GURPS. I failed. It's still on the backburner for another day. But back to the point, I design the game. I make the campaign. I write the stories, and I build the sandbox. I want my tools to create streamlined and simple, but allowing for complex interactions as I see fit.

5e gives me this. No, it's not perfect. But it's the best I've yet seen. I consider 5e a massive step forward in many ways.

[rollingForInit]

Beyond that, can someone remind me why intelligence is useless again? The PHB shows me that you need it for arcana, history, investigation, nature, and religion. Is there a single campaign in the history of D&D where having those skills is unimportant?


It isn't that Intelligence is useless, just that other abilities are more useful. Intelligence has the knowledge checks, yes. Strength has carrying capacity, athletics, etc. Dexterity has AC, Initiative, as well as stealth, sleight of hand, etc. Wisdom has Perception, Insight, Animal Handling.

Most of the skills are important, and how important depends entirely on the adventure you're playing. Adding more perks to the ability scores that lack them would make more fun to created more unusual types of characters, and not feel mechanically punished for it.

[Knaight]

Well as noted not like this is a new thing. Can anyone think of a game where there weren't dump stats for a lot of classes/builds? Otherwise would probably be MADness for everyone.
Qin. WR&M. Legend of the Five Rings (to some extent). Tristat. Every ORE game. Most Fudge builds I've seen. I can continue for a while. MADness for everyone is pretty much the case - all abilities are useful for everyone, and while some abilities are more useful, having low abilities in anything will be a weakness.

I will say that this tends to happen a lot more with fewer attributes - The games listed above generally have 3-5, and I can't think of any games with 8+ which don't have dump stats.


For heaven's sake, why? Why can't I play the big dumb fighter, the frail brilliant wizard, the silent monk with reflexes like lightning? You say every class should have some use for every ability, you force every single class into MAD with all the crippling of character concepts that implies.

Therefore, it must be possible to have dump stats; for each and every class, there must be the possibility of not putting any points into one or more abilities. Not required, but possible. Therefore, jack-of-all-trades characters should be possible but not encouraged.
Nobody is saying you can't. We're just saying that the big dumb fighter's lack of intelligence will be detrimental to them, instead of it being almost completely irrelevant. The frailty of the wizard will pose a problem. The silent monk with amazing reflexes is going to have issues in social situations.

This is a good thing. If the big dumb fighter's stupidity never gets in their way, it hurts the expressiveness of the character. If a weakness* has been deliberately put there, it probably is because it's something the player cares about and wants to see come up in game, and having every stat count for every character works for that. Sometimes that's the most fun part. To use an example from one of my games - there was a monk of the martial type by the name of Silent Gecko Hunts Quietly. There were two main defining features to that character, that really stood out. One was his best skill, improvise weapon. I do mean "improvise" and not "improvised", the character had a habit of masterfully punching trees to get throwing spikes, of finding the branch best suited for a wooden sword and getting it in a handful of strikes, of battering down a gate by beating it into the shape of a hundred shruiken. The other big characterizing trait was a weakness. Silent Gecko Hunts Quietly could only talk in proverbs. This was really fun for everyone involved, and most of the time it was a detriment. The only people Gecko could communicate with effectively were other members of his order, and an assassin that the PCs tried to contract with who had picked up the skill.

That aspect was a lot of fun. Part of it was just that the player and I knew each other well enough to actually effectively communicate in proverbs we made up on the spot (while the rest of the group looked on in confusion), and part of it was that it was a weakness that got expressed all the time, and really helped center the character. Universal MAD is pretty much a good thing, provided that it's not a system where the lack of an attribute is downright crippling.

*At least an actual weakness, and not a weakness deliberately mitigated and only taken for points.

[Kurald Galain]

It isn't that Intelligence is useless, just that other abilities are more useful. Intelligence has the knowledge checks, yes. Strength has carrying capacity, athletics, etc. Dexterity has AC, Initiative, as well as stealth, sleight of hand, etc. Wisdom has Perception, Insight, Animal Handling.

Most of the skills are important, and how important depends entirely on the adventure you're playing. Adding more perks to the ability scores that lack them would make more fun to created more unusual types of characters, and not feel mechanically punished for it.

Yes. Also important is that you can generally choose which skills to use (e.g. if you're the knight in loud armor, then you're probably not going to solve problems through stealth), whereas you cannot choose which defenses to use (e.g. if somebody throws a fireball at you, well, hope you have a decent reflex save). Being unable to wield a sword is not a weakness if you've got some other means of attacking; whereas having low hit points is a weakness for everybody.

This means that the fact that "it boosts some skills" doesn't make intelligence a good stat; indeed, the fact that it doesn't do anything else makes it an utterly useless stat to most characters other than wizards.

And yes, there are numerous RPGs in the market that don't have this particular issue.

[ambartanen]

So it seems quite a few people don't see any problem at all in what I pointed out. Of the about half that agree there is a problem, some don't want to improve the usability of intelligence since it will boost wizards and the others don't have any simple suggestions for improving this. Seems to me like that part of the topic is pretty much exhausted.

I am a little surprised no one else finds constitution problematic. I'd really love to see a class that actually uses it for something proactive although I am not really sure what a class like that would look like. Maybe some kind of psychic* character that uses their own life force to power their abilities- lots of screaming when you activate powers and nosebleeds and the like after you put too much strain on yourself. Maybe some kind of wildshaper or shifter that transforms their body to turn it into a weapon or gain resistances**.

*I hope I am not stepping on psionics' toes here.
**And this definitely steps on the toes of the moon druid a little bit but I still think it's different enough.

[Morty]

I suspect that Champion is obviously way down at the "dead simple" end, whereas Battle Master is def. at the high end (competing, maybe, with any Monk, which has a lot of options).

Getting a handful of maneuvers from a limited, unchanging list is not even in sight of the 'high end' of complexity. The Battle Master maneuver set would be close to the raw basics in any system that doesn't intentionally seek to de-emphasize combat and resolve it in a very quick and abstract way. A mortal in nWoD or greenskin-dinner-to-be in WFRP can have roughly as many options.

As far as attributes go, I'm becoming increasingly convinced a class-based system might not even need them.

[Giant2005]

I am a little surprised no one else finds constitution problematic. I'd really love to see a class that actually uses it for something proactive although I am not really sure what a class like that would look like. Maybe some kind of psychic* character that uses their own life force to power their abilities- lots of screaming when you activate powers and nosebleeds and the like after you put too much strain on yourself. Maybe some kind of wildshaper or shifter that transforms their body to turn it into a weapon or gain resistances**.

*I hope I am not stepping on psionics' toes here.
**And this definitely steps on the toes of the moon druid a little bit but I still think it's different enough.

Most characters are already in great need of constitution - there isn't really a build around (other than Wild Shaping) that can forgo it. We don't need more reasons to take con like we do int.

[Logosloki]

Intelligence is a great stat - unless you are either not a wizard or only murderhoboing. Even the Player's Handbook has a short list of things that the DM could call an int check on like non-verbal communication, appraising an item, disguise, forging a document, lore about a skill or trade, winning a game of skill...

Int comes to play when you are playing a society game or a crime game (both as and against the criminals) or are playing in a group of six or greater where you can afford to start thinking about having a second or third face.

The only thing I would do would be to move religion to wisdom.

[Person_Man]

The Spell Maze, requires a DC 20 Int check or you are trapped in a maze, each turn requires another DC 20 check to escape or until the spell ends.

And remember, non-Proficient Saves don't scale. So non-Proficient enemies with 10 Int have just a 5% chance of resisting Maze or ending it each turn. This cuts both ways - a savvy arcane caster will basically use it to win any encounter against a unintelligent BBEG. But a savvy DM can use it to lock down an player who dumps/ignores Int, without necessarily killing them outright. (Which isn't necessarily fun to experience as a player, but its better then Save or Death).

But Maze is really a corner case. You're highly unlikely to encounter an Int or Cha Save as a player, especially at low-mid levels.



As far as attributes go, I'm becoming increasingly convinced a class-based system might not even need them.

Interesting. Can you elaborate on this point?




Theatre of the Mind tactics are vastly different from nuanced rules and positioning tactics, but both are very effective in their own way. I personally celebrate that the rules are simpler and more open. As a DM, I am the game designer. WotC created the framework for me to do this, since I don't have the time or skill to make an entire game from scratch by myself that would be nearly as complete. However, it also takes too much time to nuance and know every rule and to figure out the complex interactions in a rules heavy system. I tried to break into GURPS. I failed. It's still on the backburner for another day. But back to the point, I design the game. I make the campaign. I write the stories, and I build the sandbox. I want my tools to create streamlined and simple, but allowing for complex interactions as I see fit.

5e gives me this. No, it's not perfect. But it's the best I've yet seen. I consider 5e a massive step forward in many ways.

If you're big into Theatre of the Mind and sandbox, narrative driven gameplay, you might want to check out FATE (http://www.faterpg.com/). It's awesome for that purpose (Though not particularly good at traditional dungeon crawling fun or tactical combat. I've also found that its nearly impossible to find someone to play with outside of a convention).

[Morty]

Interesting. Can you elaborate on this point?

It's something I've seen mentioned, by Obryn in particular, and it's a point of view I'm increasingly leaning towards. Basically, if we have a system of classes which delineate your character's core competencies, do we really need a separate set of fiddly bonuses? A wizard can be assumed to be smart enough to learn magic spells and make them work on people and objects, can't she? Likewise, a rogue who invests hia proficiencies, whichever system we use for those, in certain skills, should be assumed to be athletic enough to climb up a wall, nimble-fingered enough to open a padlock and persuasive enough to convince the night guard that he's fully authorized to be in the palace in the middle of the night.

So why not just say that a level 10 wizard can cast spells up to level 5, and has X slots for it? Or that a level 10 Fighter deals the higher of 2d12 +4 damage with each attack, and can learn up to X maneuvers? At most I'd use ability scores as prerequisites, to differentiate between, say, a warrior who favours power and one who favours quickness and a cleric who favours wisdom and one who favours charisma (making her more of a mystic savant than a traditional clergywoman). But that can be accomplished through different means as well. I don't think it's a new idea either - older editions of D&D didn't rely as much on ability bonuses, by the looks of it.


If you're big into Theatre of the Mind and sandbox, narrative driven gameplay, you might want to check out FATE. It's awesome for that purpose (Though not particularly good at traditional dungeon crawling fun or tactical combat. I've also found that its nearly impossible to find someone to play with outside of a convention).

Dungeon World, which I've recently discovered, is also a very good system for this purpose.

[ambartanen]

But Maze is really a corner case. You're highly unlikely to encounter an Int or Cha Save as a player, especially at low-mid levels.
It's not an Intelligence save but an intelligence check. Why? I have no idea.


Interesting. Can you elaborate on this point?
I'm not the one that brought it up but here's my stab at an explanation. A class is just supposed to be a bundle of abilities and skills that represent a certain archetype. A tribal berserker who is almost unstoppable in a fight, a bookish type who spends most of her time unraveling and rearranging the laws of physics, a shady criminal always ready to stab you in the back or steal your belongings, a travelling musician that can enchant you with just the sound of his voice and so on. Each class usually has one or two attributes that define them- strength and constitution as a barbarian, intelligence as a fighter, dexterity as a rogue, charisma as a bard and so on. Now the system allows you to allocate your attributes against the archetype's expectations- a strong dumb wizard who whacks people over the head with a big stick and has little academic interest in gaining new knowledge, a charismatic barbarian proficient with musical instruments who can recite odes, a mastermind criminal running a gang without ever getting his hands dirty and so on. Wouldn't you be better off choosing a different class or maybe a multiclass to represent those concepts rather than creating a character who completely goes against the archetype of the chosen class? The whole point of having classes is to describe your characters concept with a single word but making a strange (and often very mechanically inferior) build means they fail at that.

Incidentally, I much prefer classless systems because characters that can even partially be described with a single word quickly get boring once you start reusing words.


If you're big into Theatre of the Mind and sandbox, narrative driven gameplay, you might want to check out FATE (http://www.faterpg.com/). It's awesome for that purpose (Though not particularly good at traditional dungeon crawling fun or tactical combat. I've also found that its nearly impossible to find someone to play with outside of a convention).

I've been trying to get my group to play FATE for over half a year now. We actually got as far as making the setting and characters twice but real world stuff keeps coming up and the game falls apart before it even starts. They are not nearly as excited about it as I am though. One of the players straight up told me that there's no opportunity for optimizing and too much thinking involved as criticisms of the game. :(

[archaeo]

It isn't that Intelligence is useless, just that other abilities are more useful. Intelligence has the knowledge checks, yes. Strength has carrying capacity, athletics, etc. Dexterity has AC, Initiative, as well as stealth, sleight of hand, etc. Wisdom has Perception, Insight, Animal Handling.

Most of the skills are important, and how important depends entirely on the adventure you're playing. Adding more perks to the ability scores that lack them would make more fun to created more unusual types of characters, and not feel mechanically punished for it.

Would it be problematic to give Int all these defensive bonuses/skills when all the classes that are likely to have high Int are also likely to have spells that give incredible defensive bonuses/skills?

Edited to add: I think this is emblematic of lots of the arguments going on about balance, inasmuch as it takes a single component of the system, analyzes it outside the context of the rest of the system, and finds it wanting.


Getting a handful of maneuvers from a limited, unchanging list is not even in sight of the 'high end' of complexity. The Battle Master maneuver set would be close to the raw basics in any system that doesn't intentionally seek to de-emphasize combat and resolve it in a very quick and abstract way. A mortal in nWoD or greenskin-dinner-to-be in WFRP can have roughly as many options.

Apologies, but I still fail to see how more options==more complexity.

However, since we're unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this, it doesn't seem particularly worthwhile to argue over it. I hope the DMG has a suite of options that will make the Battle Master perform more to your liking; I sincerely hope Mearls & Co. haven't buried their heads in the sand on this issue, as you certainly aren't alone in finding the Fighter's tactical complexity wanting.


As far as attributes go, I'm becoming increasingly convinced a class-based system might not even need them.

I actually don't disagree with this at all, and think attribute scores are kind of a big waste of time, but D&D is not exactly moving forthrightly into the future of game design here, are they. The "D&D" label is more of an albatross around designers' necks than anything else, because they're not designing a game, they're curating a cultural touchstone. I think you sort of have to cut Mearls & Co. some slack for not trying to be revolutionary here.

[Person_Man]

It's something I've seen mentioned, by Obryn in particular, and it's a point of view I'm increasingly leaning towards. Basically, if we have a system of classes which delineate your character's core competencies, do we really need a separate set of fiddly bonuses? A wizard can be assumed to be smart enough to learn magic spells and make them work on people and objects, can't she? Likewise, a rogue who invests hia proficiencies, whichever system we use for those, in certain skills, should be assumed to be athletic enough to climb up a wall, nimble-fingered enough to open a padlock and persuasive enough to convince the night guard that he's fully authorized to be in the palace in the middle of the night.

So why not just say that a level 10 wizard can cast spells up to level 5, and has X slots for it? Or that a level 10 Fighter deals the higher of 2d12 +4 damage with each attack, and can learn up to X maneuvers? At most I'd use ability scores as prerequisites, to differentiate between, say, a warrior who favours power and one who favours quickness and a cleric who favours wisdom and one who favours charisma (making her more of a mystic savant than a traditional clergywoman). But that can be accomplished through different means as well. I don't think it's a new idea either - older editions of D&D didn't rely as much on ability bonuses, by the looks of it.

Smart points. I think I'd enjoy a game like that as well. Just dump Ability Scores and derived statistics entirely, assume that players are capable of anything a normal humanoid can do without checks, and provide Legend-like tracks of abilities that auto-scale with levels.

But such a game would basically involve dumping almost all of the simulationist aspects of the game. I'm fine with that, since I've never cared for them. But they're a big part of the "traditions" of D&D, which so many people complained about losing when 4E came out.

[Morty]

I'm not the one that brought it up but here's my stab at an explanation. A class is just supposed to be a bundle of abilities and skills that represent a certain archetype. A tribal berserker who is almost unstoppable in a fight, a bookish type who spends most of her time unraveling and rearranging the laws of physics, a shady criminal always ready to stab you in the back or steal your belongings, a travelling musician that can enchant you with just the sound of his voice and so on. Each class usually has one or two attributes that define them- strength and constitution as a barbarian, intelligence as a fighter, dexterity as a rogue, charisma as a bard and so on. Now the system allows you to allocate your attributes against the archetype's expectations- a strong dumb wizard who whacks people over the head with a big stick and has little academic interest in gaining new knowledge, a charismatic barbarian proficient with musical instruments who can recite odes, a mastermind criminal running a gang without ever getting his hands dirty and so on. Wouldn't you be better off choosing a different class or maybe a multiclass to represent those concepts rather than creating a character who completely goes against the archetype of the chosen class? The whole point of having classes is to describe your characters concept with a single word but making a strange (and often very mechanically inferior) build means they fail at that.

I'm not sure if this is how I'd put it. My intention is assumption of competence and keeping fiddly bonuses manageable, not archetype protection. Besides, removing ability scores from the equation might make classes more amenable to different interpretations.


Incidentally, I much prefer classless systems because characters that can even partially be described with a single word quickly get boring once you start reusing words.

So do I, but we're talking about a class-based system here, so might as well try to make it work.



Apologies, but I still fail to see how more options==more complexity.

However, since we're unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this, it doesn't seem particularly worthwhile to argue over it. I hope the DMG has a suite of options that will make the Battle Master perform more to your liking; I sincerely hope Mearls & Co. haven't buried their heads in the sand on this issue, as you certainly aren't alone in finding the Fighter's tactical complexity wanting.

I don't have terribly high expectations on this score, but I'm willing to be surprised. You're also right in that we're not going to agree, and this isn't this thread's topic anyway.


I actually don't disagree with this at all, and think attribute scores are kind of a big waste of time, but D&D is not exactly moving forthrightly into the future of game design here, are they. The "D&D" label is more of an albatross around designers' necks than anything else, because they're not designing a game, they're curating a cultural touchstone. I think you sort of have to cut Mearls & Co. some slack for not trying to be revolutionary here.

Now, that I certainly agree with. I do wonder, sometimes, if Mearls et al maybe wanted to do something new, but the overwhelming feedback made them turn back to more of the same. Given the fate of expertise dice, it's not impossible. It's hard to judge their motives.


Smart points. I think I'd enjoy a game like that as well. Just dump Ability Scores and derived statistics entirely, assume that players are capable of anything a normal humanoid can do without checks, and provide Legend-like tracks of abilities that auto-scale with levels.

Something along those lines, yes. Have classes provide the basic offensive, defensive and 'utility' numbers, and let abilities tell you what you can do beyond that.


But such a game would basically involve dumping almost all of the simulationist aspects of the game. I'm fine with that, since I've never cared for them. But they're a big part of the "traditions" of D&D, which so many people complained about losing when 4E came out.

Unfortunately, yes. Although like I said, I believe this particular tradition only started with 3e, which put a lot more emphasis on ability scores than the previous versions had.

[obryn]

I want every stat to be useful for every character. That doesn't mean I want them to be equally useful - a front-line character will prioritize strength and constitution, a spellcaster will need one or more of the mental stats - but I want all of them to do something no matter what character you play.
I will humbly suggest that one problem is that you have six stats rather than a more reasonable 3-4. Or zero ;).

[Falka]

Intelligence saves deal mostly against illusions, which means that an illusionist will have a lot of fun against your average dump-stat Joe.

Charisma affects any spell that involves social interaction with a creature and planar effects.

Phantasmal Force is already one of my favorite low level spells.

[obryn]

Intelligence saves deal mostly against illusions, which means that an illusionist will have a lot of fun against your average dump-stat Joe.

Charisma affects any spell that involves social interaction with a creature and planar effects.

Phantasmal Force is already one of my favorite low level spells.
The big problem here, IMO, is that "being slightly better against illusions" is cold comfort when it comes with a heaping downside of "not being as good at the entire reason you're in the party."

[Falka]

The big problem here, IMO, is that "being slightly better against illusions" is cold comfort when it comes with a heaping downside of "not being as good at the entire reason you're in the party."

Well, I don't think that any character with strong deduction skills and a way to reliably pass Intelligence (Investigation) or any Lore-based checks is exactly dead-weight for the party.

Being completely optimised for your role is one thing and another to say that anything that doesn't go down that road is 'useless'. That's a very extreme gamist perspective, imo.

[ambartanen]

The big problem here, IMO, is that "being slightly better against illusions" is cold comfort when it comes with a heaping downside of "not being as good at the entire reason you're in the party."

Also the fact that illusions don't actually involve intelligence saves. As I mentioned earlier there are 2.125 spells and one specialist wizard class ability that actually involve intelligence saves which means that the poor druid, rogue and wizard (only ones to get proficiency with intelligence saves) are at a bit of a disadvantage. It really seems like they decided to hand intelligence saves as nerfs for potentially powerful classes.

A quick search through the PHB reveals 13.125 spells that require charisma saves even if about half of them are unlikely to be targeted at player characters. Ghosts and fairies also have some powers that are resisted with charisma saving throws while no such monster powers exist for intelligence saves at the moment. It's not terribly likely but possible that the DMG changes that. Charisma is the second least often used save anyway.

[obryn]

Well, I don't think that any character with strong deduction skills and a way to reliably pass Intelligence (Investigation) or any Lore-based checks is exactly dead-weight for the party.

Being completely optimised for your role is one thing and another to say that anything that doesn't go down that road is 'useless'. That's a very extreme gamist perspective, imo.
Well, if you also have a Wizard who's going to be putting all their resources into Intelligence and maxing it out, maybe "fifth wheel" is more appropriate?

[Soras Teva Gee]

It's something I've seen mentioned, by Obryn in particular, and it's a point of view I'm increasingly leaning towards. Basically, if we have a system of classes which delineate your character's core competencies, do we really need a separate set of fiddly bonuses? A wizard can be assumed to be smart enough to learn magic spells and make them work on people and objects, can't she? Likewise, a rogue who invests hia proficiencies, whichever system we use for those, in certain skills, should be assumed to be athletic enough to climb up a wall, nimble-fingered enough to open a padlock and persuasive enough to convince the night guard that he's fully authorized to be in the palace in the middle of the night.


Thing is without an underlying "stat" system you'd need a way to simulate things you aren't necessarily good at but can still attempt. How does that Wizard attempt to climb a wall even though he has nothing in his class that says he can?

And how do you distinguish between those who's classes might be equally unskilled in an area but may have minor differences and thus better or worse odds. Its easy to assume the Wizard is smart enough to know how to translate the text in ancient draconic, but what about the Sorcerer and Barbarian because that's all you've got at the moment? The Bard is charismatic to talk his way into the Baron's party sure, but is the Wizard?

Stats provide a foundation by giving you broad categories almost anything can be describe under without other mechanics. They probably aren't used enough over class abilities bells and whistles, but when all else fails... make an ability check. If you don't have that you can pretty easily enter video game like situations where oops there's a chest but only a Rogue or Bard can open it because they have the open locked chest proficiency, and somebody forgot leave a category to cover bashing it open. And this has to be for everything all PCs could possibly conceive of ever physically doing.

So your alternative system would have to be at least as universal. And a solution too universal to that could produce odd situations, the scrawny scholar muscling open a door that defeats the burly solider. Or the burly soldier knowing some arcane trivia the scrawny scholar was clueless about. That's funny every once in awhile sure, but stats provide some underlying shaping to help what "should" happen happen.

Nevermind the simulationist angle where having stats are more intuitive to people and help explain the "how" things happen to people playing the game.

There's reasons plenty of games ditch classes, but not stats.

Course none of this would fly in 5E anyways

[mephnick]

Of course this is the grognard addition, it needed to be to survive. If you don't treat this as a marching order to save the franchise by conjuring all the OD&D it can as your first, second, and last priority you are failing.

that's pretty much what it is, i agree

i think after the initial excitement of a new edition, most people that like rules heavy tactical combat will filter back to 3.5/pathfinder and people who want a rules light system will filter out into better made rules light systems and hasbro will shrug and be like 'alright fine' and stop making DnD

/doomandgloom

[ambartanen]

Nevermind the simulationist angle where having stats are more intuitive to people and help explain the "how" things happen to people playing the game.

I really like the way FATE addresses this which is coming up with a minor story about how one of the defining aspects of your character explains them being good at a particular task. So your sorcerer might not know much about ancient texts but she's a magical prodigy and can figure this stuff out on the fly. You spend a FATE point and automatically become much better at this one roll than the berserker. But, yes, that's really not an approach that can be adapted to 5e despite backgrounds being a small step in that direction.

[Morty]

Thing is without an underlying "stat" system you'd need a way to simulate things you aren't necessarily good at but can still attempt. How does that Wizard attempt to climb a wall even though he has nothing in his class that says he can?

The player rolls, with whatever circumstance modifiers the GM decides are appropriate. Or not, if the task is so trivial it can be assumed to succeed - or, maybe, if it's decided that the task can't be attempted bys someone not proficient in a given skill. Not really any different from a non-proficient character attempting something in any other edition of D&D.


And how do you distinguish between those who's classes might be equally unskilled in an area but may have minor differences and thus better or worse odds. Its easy to assume the Wizard is smart enough to know how to translate the text in ancient draconic, but what about the Sorcerer and Barbarian because that's all you've got at the moment? The Bard is charismatic to talk his way into the Baron's party sure, but is the Wizard?

What's the point? If they're not good enough at something to make a difference, they either can't use that particular method, or they need to obtain some circumstantial advantage.


Stats provide a foundation by giving you broad categories almost anything can be describe under without other mechanics. They probably aren't used enough over class abilities bells and whistles, but when all else fails... make an ability check. If you don't have that you can pretty easily enter video game like situations where oops there's a chest but only a Rogue or Bard can open it because they have the open locked chest proficiency, and somebody forgot leave a category to cover bashing it open. And this has to be for everything all PCs could possibly conceive of ever physically doing.

Why do you need a category for bashing a chest open? If we have a character who wields a battleaxe to crack enemy skulls, they shouldn't have any problems with a box.


So your alternative system would have to be at least as universal. And a solution too universal to that could produce odd situations, the scrawny scholar muscling open a door that defeats the burly solider. Or the burly soldier knowing some arcane trivia the scrawny scholar was clueless about. That's funny every once in awhile sure, but stats provide some underlying shaping to help what "should" happen happen.

And this is different from 5e's skill system how, exactly?


Nevermind the simulationist angle where having stats are more intuitive to people and help explain the "how" things happen to people playing the game.

So are classes.


There's reasons plenty of games ditch classes, but not stats.

If you ditch classes, attributes become the simplest method of determining a character's core competencies, so many systems default to them. But here we're talking about one of the last systems to stick with classes.

[mephnick]

Thing is without an underlying "stat" system you'd need a way to simulate things you aren't necessarily good at but can still attempt. How does that Wizard attempt to climb a wall even though he has nothing in his class that says he can?

Well, in Numenera you assign a difficulty and just say 'it's fairly tough, you don't have any assets (skills) towards it, but go for it'

then they roll and they do it or they don't, stats have nothing to do with it

if it's impossible you just tell them so

[Soras Teva Gee]

The player rolls, with whatever circumstance modifiers the GM decides are appropriate. Or not, if the task is so trivial it can be assumed to succeed - or, maybe, if it's decided that the task can't be attempted bys someone not proficient in a given skill. Not really any different from a non-proficient character attempting something in any other edition of D&D.

So its just a universal chance roll then?

That may suit some people fine, but not others.




What's the point? If they're not good enough at something to make a difference, they either can't use that particular method, or they need to obtain some circumstantial advantage.

Last I knew on a d20 roll a -1 versus +2 wasn't insignificant.

Its far from impossible to have that kind of difference in a build.


Why do you need a category for bashing a chest open? If we have a character who wields a battleaxe to crack enemy skulls, they shouldn't have any problems with a box.

You don't need rules to RP at all.

Why do we have them? To adjudicate the GM's rulings against a nominally more universal standard not entirely up to them so that everybody can agree they are nominally not wholly slaves to the GM's arbitrary will. Of course this is a bit disingenuous since the GM can always cheat the system and too many rules are a problem themselves, but its a balance of opposing forces not some magical perfect idea.

Stats provide a universal answer to any (mundane) problem while still allowing character differentiation. If you don't have a universal system of some type then you logically don't have rules for smashing a chest and some RAW idiot will rant about how you Barbarians can crack skulls but not force a door because there's no rule for it no matter how logical it is.

And then there's questions like can the same character force a door but not lift a porticullis? Is there a range where only one example is true and the other false, how do you evaluate that.

And if you have a truly universal system then you pay the price that people that "should" be better at various things aren't because the rules equalize everyone.

How do you solve the problem of providing set guidelines for players/GMs, cover every possibility, and allow for character differentiation in every activity all without stats? The only way I see is to have fairly extensive lists of proficiency that hopefully doesn't have holes, and patching those holes will likely push the complexity past the current stat system which covers all incidentals so you don't have to.


And this is different from 5e's skill system how, exactly?

Truly Universal System:
Everyone rolls d20+static bonus (maybe) everyone has statistically the same odds.

5E:
Everyone rolls d20+stat bonus+proficiency
Player A: d20+2+2
Player B: d20+4+0
Player C: d20+0+2

Only two of these character have the same odds and represent combinations of underlying talent and acquired skill.


So are classes.

Yes they are too, but they do so in a different manner so while technically correct there's little actual meaning to your statement.

Stats represent a deeper more fundamental level, the basic material you build upon. Classes and skills represent a more refined ability more from training. The difference between people who might (or not) be equally intelligent but one went to college to get an MBA and the other joined the Navy becoming a electronics technician. Similar stats, totally different classes.

Your idea so far from the outside is favoring more retroactive thinking. People weren't anything until they chose their class and oh look they are suited for it, like Schrodinger's cat or something.

[Morty]

So its just a universal chance roll then?

That may suit some people fine, but not others.

Once again, how is it different from any other D&D edition? If you have no proficiency in a skill, you roll a 1d20 without modifiers, or with a penalty. Or you might not roll at all.


Last I knew on a d20 roll a -1 versus +2 wasn't insignificant.

Its far from impossible to have that kind of difference in a build.

Numbers are as significant as you make them, and only in relation to other numbers. Furthermore, in your specific example, I wouldn't allow an untrained character to take a crack at it at all - because translating Draconic when you don't know Draconic, much less translation, is, well, impossible.


You don't need rules to RP at all.

Why do we have them? To adjudicate the GM's rulings against a nominally more universal standard not entirely up to them so that everybody can agree they are nominally not wholly slaves to the GM's arbitrary will. Of course this is a bit disingenuous since the GM can always cheat the system and too many rules are a problem themselves, but its a balance of opposing forces not some magical perfect idea.

Stats provide a universal answer to any (mundane) problem while still allowing character differentiation. If you don't have a universal system of some type then you logically don't have rules for smashing a chest and some RAW idiot will rant about how you Barbarians can crack skulls but not force a door because there's no rule for it no matter how logical it is.

And then there's questions like can the same character force a door but not lift a porticullis? Is there a range where only one example is true and the other false, how do you evaluate that.

And if you have a truly universal system then you pay the price that people that "should" be better at various things aren't because the rules equalize everyone.

How do you solve the problem of providing set guidelines for players/GMs, cover every possibility, and allow for character differentiation in every activity all without stats? The only way I see is to have fairly extensive lists of proficiency that hopefully doesn't have holes, and patching those holes will likely push the complexity past the current stat system which covers all incidentals so you don't have to.

Alright, hold on a second. Why do you keep talking about some 'truly universal system'? It has nothing to do with what I proposed, so you're punching at the air. What I advocate for is removing one of the sources of modifiers, due to its being superfluous. But the modifiers themselves remain as they always have. In case of breaking down an object, all you need are combat rules - you attack and deal damage to an object. Forcing doors open can also involve dealing damage to them, or it can be part of a proficiency. There will be moments when the GM needs to decide which proficiency applies to a given roll - but that's unavoidable in any case.


Truly Universal System:
Everyone rolls d20+static bonus (maybe) everyone has statistically the same odds.

5E:
Everyone rolls d20+stat bonus+proficiency
Player A: d20+2+2
Player B: d20+4+0
Player C: d20+0+2

Only two of these character have the same odds and represent combinations of underlying talent and acquired skill.

Again, what is this "Truly Universal System" you keep mentioning? It can't be anything I talked about at any point. As for your specific example, what's the point of distinguishing 'underlying talent' and 'acquired skill', something that's murky at best even in real life? If you're good at something you're good at something, and it's not the system's job to determine how much you worked for it.


Yes they are too, but they do so in a different manner so while technically correct there's little actual meaning to your statement.

Stats represent a deeper more fundamental level, the basic material you build upon. Classes and skills represent a more refined ability more from training. The difference between people who might (or not) be equally intelligent but one went to college to get an MBA and the other joined the Navy becoming a electronics technician. Similar stats, totally different classes.

Your idea so far from the outside is favoring more retroactive thinking. People weren't anything until they chose their class and oh look they are suited for it, like Schrodinger's cat or something.

Well, yes, if you twist my statements to the point of absurdity, maybe. But, once again, what is the point of distinguishing between natural talent and acquired skill? In the end, we have a character sheet with numbers and abilities on it.

[Logosloki]

I'm warming up to this idea that the class derives all the mechanics, so instead of a wizard D20+stat+proficiency+circumstance to roll she just need D20+Proficiency+Circumstance as it is assumed that a wizard is gonna wizard. Or that a Fighter gains her bonus damage and initiative based on what level 3 archetype she chooses rather than her Str and Dex modifiers.

This leaves Stat points to be the focus of a skill system, so you can have a Fighter pumping 18 into int to become some kind of battlefield sherlock without it affecting the fact that a Fighter is gonna Fighter.

[Falka]

Class defining EVERYTHING you can do?

That sounds like OD&D. "Hey, I'm a Rogue but I can't climb walls." "I'm a Fighter but I can't steal anything." "I'm an Elf, I'm a class."

[Morty]

It takes some very ungenerous reading to reach that conclusion.

[Soras Teva Gee]

It takes some very ungenerous reading to reach that conclusion.

Well for me it sound spot on once I start trying to turn vague design objectives like "eliminate stats" into actual rules with any remote relation to the current system.

If you don't have my truly universal roll that so confuses you the that is exactly what happens. Unless you can define proficiency in everything possible for every character (good luck!) then without a system to handle the miscellaneous actions not thought of nobody can do anything that isn't listed in their class description.

You're going to need some long class descriptions for those lists of proficiency.
OR many/most tasks get swept up in "pure chance" regardless of class, unless the GM decides you can't at all.
OR both.

You can't avoid that ditching stats and keeping d20+Bonuses>=DC as your core mechanic, especially if you want classes to be highly distinct meaning applying different bonuses by class.

Though you might end up with effectively the current system just more complicated if you try to keep those lists under control. With categories of proficiency broad enough you simply have stats built into the class, and like 20 of them instead of 6.

Pardon me if I think the formula of "(d20 chance)+(1 of 6 stats)+(proficiency, when applicable)>=DC" to do anything/everything is a more elegant solution over looking up a bunch of fiddly class bonuses.

[Falka]

It takes some very ungenerous reading to reach that conclusion.

Honestly, if you want to remove modularity, the first thing I'd do would be to remove the class system alltogether. It's funny that you seem to think that Abilities are constraining but at the same time, you want to keep Classes that are basically a compilation of stereotypes / archetypes.

Or make a class system that encompasses a more broad spectrum of character archetypes. For instance, Conan RPG or Black Company RPG achieve this with magic classes as they just have a "Sage" or "Mystic" class that accompases all kinds of magic. You can play a priest, an evoker, a summoner, a druid, etc.

Highly-based class systems just encourage modularity, and the more you focus on the archetype (contrary to giving some 'external power' to non class-based stats) you end up having obnoxious examples like the OD&D Rogue.

5e in my opinion has an elegant combination that combines both some modularity (so the Barbarian will always do some stuff that the Fighter can't do) but at the same time it doesn't feel like all Fighters are equal (Backgrounds and some feats being great tools to give these characters a distinct tone while not hurting the main chassis).

[rollingForInit]

Would it be problematic to give Int all these defensive bonuses/skills when all the classes that are likely to have high Int are also likely to have spells that give incredible defensive bonuses/skills?




I don't mean that Int would have to boost AC, for instance, like it did in 4e. But a Fighter who takes Int should get something more out of it than a bit of a skill boost. A Wizard who takes a lot of Str in addition to Int gets a lot more than a Fighter who takes Int. The Wizard will never have to worry about carrying capacity, and if he ends up in a melee situation, he can whack people fairly well with that staff. In addition to the skills.

My group has an idea about a houserule to make abilities more interesting, where every modifier you get in an ability allows you to specialise in a skill for that ability. For instance, a Fighter who boosts up his Int to 12 will get one specialisation in an Int-based skill. He could take History (battles) and get advantage or double proficiency on all rolls dealing with that specialisation. Or something along those lines. Still wouldn't even out the differences, but at it'd be more fun to take unconventional ability scores.

[Morty]

It's funny that you seem to think that Abilities are constraining

I never said that. Please do not misrepresent my argument.


but at the same time, you want to keep Classes that are basically a compilation of stereotypes / archetypes.

Likewise. The idea comes from the premise that we do have classes, because, well, we're talking about D&D. You seem to be confused about my motives in general, so let me spell them out for you. They have nothing to do with how restrictive or not classes are - just to make it abundantly clear. The point is to simplify the process of determining the basic, 'core' numbers that a character has - like attacks, defences, saves, spells and, perhaps, basic skills - by either removing ability scores or decoupling them from such core competencies, thus removing one step from the character creation process and allowing the player to more quickly get to the actually interesting features.

If a system didn't have classes the way D&D does, it would be a different story. I know of at least one RPG that does away with attributes, though - the A Song of Ice and Fire RPG. And then there are games which don't use the ability/skill paradigm at all.

[Alcino]

On another subject, I've seen a class-based system similar to D&D that made every ability explicitly useful to every class (with Str-Dex-Con-Int-Wis-Cha in their usual roles; Con and Int gave HP and skills, but less so than 3E).

Each class had a main ability, but every other ability granted an additional class-specific benefit. I'll spoiler a few archetypal classes (out of a dozen); their names are loose interpretations from French.

Dex gave him reaction-shifting.
Con gave him damage reduction against melee attacks.
Int gave his allies bonus damage against enemies next to him.
Wis was added to his AC against ranged attacks.
Cha granted him temporary HP every time an enemy started his turn next to him or became adjacent to him.

Str much improved how much he could carry before becoming encumbered (and many heavy items were worth lugging around).
Con gave him extra "utility healing surges" that could not be used to regain HP ("healing surges" had other possible uses).
Dex improved his initiative mid-fight after using some types of actions (the benefits were somewhat similar to the 5E Rogue's Cunning Action).
Wis was added to his non-trained skills.
Cha could be added to his allies' non-trained skills in which he was trained.

Str allowed him to drag an ally before healing the ally.
Dex gave him extra movement before healing.
Con gave him temporary HP when healing.
Int helped his allies' recovery of "healing surges" out of combat.
Cha gave temporary HP to allies he healed.

Str made him deal damage (or extra damage) with some melee options (those that would hinder the enemy by tripping/moving/etc.).
Con gave him good temporary HP whenever he spent a whole turn without attacking.
Int gave him extra hit chance when attempting a "sneak attack".
Wis gave him immediate movement at the start of every fight, even when surprised.
Cha gave him a high chance of retaining "advantage" against an enemy after a "sneak attack".

Those ability benefits were pretty much that system's specializations/archetypes; in practice, they allowed for a wide variety of efficient characters and had players agonizing over their ability choices (a good thing, I'd say). For sure, D&D 5E wouldn't be a good fit for such class features, given how loaded the classes already are, but it could certainly have Int do more and Con do less. Like, say, with the following house rules I just made up:


You add Con-mod to your max HP only when you gain an even level, not on odd levels.
After every long rest, choose a number of untrained skills equal to Int-mod: until your next long rest, add half your proficiency bonus to their checks.

[obryn]

Honestly, if you want to remove modularity, the first thing I'd do would be to remove the class system alltogether. It's funny that you seem to think that Abilities are constraining but at the same time, you want to keep Classes that are basically a compilation of stereotypes / archetypes.
Who wants to remove modularity?

The argument, put simply, is that if you have the classes, why do you need stats? You can't solely leverage classes for every roll, but you can add reasonable details from there. I'd much rather keep character classes, since this is D&D we're talking about, and character classes are a pretty simple and elegant way to bundle abilities.

From there you also have Race, but even beyond that you can have your Background, which can stay flexible and doesn't need to be tied to your class at all. This is where you can become a "smart Fighter" without fiddling around with your stats. Your Fighter was a tactician in the army? They were a scholar before picking up swordplay? Works for me. Don't even tie backgrounds to skills; just use them like 13th Age does. With 5e's standardized proficiency modifier, this works very well, and I understand Background as Skill is already one of the modules in the DMG.

Class + Race + Background sounds perfectly adequate to me, to cover almost every in-combat and out-of-combat situation. Use a "major modifier" for anything clearly related, a "minor modifier" for anything less-related, and no modifier at all outside of these. Heck; leverage Advantage and Disadvantage to further clarify the layout.

[MukkTB]

I like the OP but I think it could go further. Would it be that much effort to list every major mechanical benefit each skill grants?

I find the lack of mechanical parity between attributes frustrating. Even if we made the erroneous assumptions that every attribute gets the same number of useful skills attached and that every attribute had a useful saving throw some attributes would totally outshine others because they also have important and useful mechanical benefits independent from class features. Disregarding skills and saves, what does intelligence have as an answer to dexterity granting initiative?

Its possible that the mental skills are meant to be more useful than the physical ones, but that only seems to apply to Wisdom's perception. You only need one guy in the party to identify the monster and its weaknesses, and you only need one guy to diplomancy the countess. (More would get wierd.) On the other hand everybody needs to climb the wall, everyone need to jump over the lava, and everyone needs to sneak past the sentry. Sure you can send the strong guy up the wall and have him throw down a rope and then haul the weak guy up, but he may get in a fight up there by himself. I'll happily admit that Wisdom carries its weight. Everyone wants to see the combat coming and get in on the first round. But actually is a problem for another possible eplanation. That casting stats are intentionally weak because the classes kick ass. There is no way that's the case.

It would be nice if every stat had some value mechanically so that when one is min-maxing one feels like they're giving something up when they dump the less important stats. Alternatively when you buy a non-standard stat set its nice to get some benefits beyond pure roleplay for having some secondary stat high.

[Demonic Spoon]

Its possible that the mental skills are meant to be more useful than the physical ones, but that only seems to apply to Wisdom's perception. You only need one guy in the party to identify the monster and its weaknesses, and you only need one guy to diplomancy the countess. (More would get wierd.) On the other hand everybody needs to climb the wall, everyone need to jump over the lava, and everyone needs to sneak past the sentry. Sure you can send the strong guy up the wall and have him throw down a rope and then haul the weak guy up, but he may get in a fight up there by himself. I'll happily admit that Wisdom carries its weight. Everyone wants to see the combat coming and get in on the first round. But actually is a problem for another possible eplanation. That casting stats are intentionally weak because the classes kick ass. There is no way that's the case.


How would more get weird? In my experience, while you can definitely put one guy forward as the party diplomat, in my experience other people still get involved in talking with NPCs.

With regards to intelligence checks - multiple people who are good at them give you multiple chances to succeed.

the real problem is that physical attributes have mechanical benefit beyond skillpoints (AC, initiative, hitpoints) attached to them, and mental skills do not