5E Without Ability Scores

[Person_Man]

5E has made some dramatic improvements in the basic rules structure of D&D. A particularly noteworthy improvement has been the reigning in of Ability Scores and bonuses in general. In previous editions, you were caught in a constant treadmill of trying to optimize certain Ability Scores and modifiers. At mid-high levels, if you optimized a certain thing you'd be good at it, sometimes game breakingly so. If you didn't, then attempting it at all at mid-high levels would almost always result in failure. 5E has smoothed out the "treadmill" problem considerably. But now that my group is starting to play at mid levels, we're starting to experience a recurrence of this problem, thoug to some degree.

For example, at low levels any player felt free to attempt pretty much anything that seemed like the right thing to do, knowing that they had some reasonable chance of success at doing it. Attack with a weapon, use any Skill (including Shove and Grapple), use a class ability or cast whatever spell you think is interesting, improvised actions that usually ended up getting resolved with an Ability check, whatever.

But then 3rd-ish level a few players pick up heavy armor that imposes Disadvantage on Stealth, so they stop using Stealth. When they hit 4th level, and some players feel like they need to get their primary Ability Score and/or Dex and/or Con up to 20 (as opposed to gaining a new option from a Feat), so that they don't fall behind in effectiveness of their relative to monsters. Then at 5th level everyone's Proficiency Bonus goes up to +3, which when combined with the aforementioned "requirement" to have 20 in your primary ability score, means that player with Proficiency in a Skill and 20 in the appropriate ability score gets +8 to the check (or +11 if they have Expertise). So at this point, some players stop attempting things that they aren't optimized to do. If you don't have 16+ in the relevant Ability Score and Proficiency, you're typically not attempting it. Plus 5th level is when every martial class (or Bard or Warlock martial subclass) gets the Extra Attack class feature. If you get Extra Attack, then making attacks with a weapon continues to be a viable option. For every other class, its not. (Other then the Rogue, who gets 3d6 Sneak Attack to compensate).

And although this is only theorycrafting at this point based on a rough read through of the Monster Manual, I'm dreading Saving Throws at high levels, both as a player and a DM. If you're Proficient, if it targets your primary ability score, and/or if you have some kind of defensive special ability or spell (Evasion, Aura of Protection, etc) then you're often 95%ish Immune to those effects. On the flip side, if you haven't invested in optimizing a Saving Throw, 75%-ish likely to fail.

This leads to a game where some builds ironically have fewer options and become more vulnerable to certain attacks as they gain levels.

I don't care about simulatist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory#Simulationism) game play, at all. I don't care if it's "realistic" or not. I just want a game that's fun. Knowing that, I was wondering if anyone had any good ideas about how we could fix these problems by abolishing Ability Scores or simply creating a flat formula for all players, without having to rework the entire system.

For example, all players are assumed to have 16 in every ability score, and Proficiency in everything. Or all players add 3 + 1/4 their class level + 4 if its their primary ability score to all rolls. Or something else. Anything else that makes the math just work for players, instead of being a barrier.

Thoughts?

[MadGrady]

As for ability checks, my one thought (and you may be doing this already, and I just misunderstood) is to adjust the DC of the checks you are trying to implement in order that those without 8+ modifiers can still succeed readily. Other options are to just do away with a check if the action being described makes for a good story. Only use a check when failure adds something to the story being told.

My group is only just now getting into the mid levels (level 4) and this topic was one that we were wondering about as well. So I am definitely curious to see other responses here.

[illyrus]

I think a 16 in everything, and more proficiencies can work though I'd probably worry less about saving throws and perhaps as a GM not throw monsters that can ruin play at the party if that worries you (you can have a 99.9999% chance for success and still have a bad roll after all).

If you wanted to mix it up perhaps divide the skills and give every player 1 extra proficiency per ability check. So for strength everyone is proficient in athletics. For Charisma the player would have to choose 1 from Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion etc. They could still feasibly have more than 1 if they picked them from their class and background choices though. It still rewards the players who focus in that area but everyone will have something they can contribute too.

Also you can have group rolls be a thing for big interactions, perhaps the party tries to convince the king of a particular course of action. Perhaps the king starts off against the idea and a single success would shift him to neutral, 2 successes would shift him to slightly for the idea, and 3 would shift him to in favor of the idea. Only 1 character could roll per shift but the DCs would be easier as you went and other characters could assist to give advantage to the roll. So the highest bonused character would go first but even someone with a +0 might still help things out at the end.

[Ramshack]

Just to play devil's advocate here, isn't the point of having different stat scores and choosing which skills you're proficient in to differentiate your character from others, to bring a utility to the group someone else can't? Not everyone is supposed to do everything.

I don't think a wizard with no strength should be able to grapple and shove the wall of muscle that is the barbarian, the barbarian probably doesn't have a deep grasp of history like the scholarly sage types do, or the social skills of the bard.

I think skills are a good way for each character to shine and some times the whole group shouldn't have to sneak as a group, and if they do, better hope the wizard can case pass without trace, or invisibility, or maybe, leave your plate mail behind on a stealthy mission.

I think Skills are in a good place in this edition.

Now where I share some of your concern is on the hit point and saves department. Not everyone wants to spend their 5 feat options on con increases and resilience feats. Yet while my rogue can dance through a fireball he'd immediately die on a con save. And as a DM you don't always want to have to target the character with the strongest save against what you're throwing out there for fear of condemning them to certain death.

A few things that might work or help.

Give everyone max hit points. I already do this in my campaigns. No one wants to feel like they missed an opportunity or a rogue who rolled an 8 every time has more hp than the barbarian who had to take the average roll each time.

Second give everyone proficiency in the the three major saves, Con, Dex and Wis, or at least half proficiency. This gives people atleast a small boost to making the save, and characters with better ability scores still have the advantage they deserve for being dexterous or wise instead of strong or intelligent etc.

[Finieous]

Are you really sure you want to make all characters the same in terms of skill/ability checks and saving throws? I think there are less drastic things you could do to tweak this to your group's preferences: cap ability scores at 18 (except demihumans! Just kidding! No, but seriously...), give players extra skill proficiencies, give classes an extra save proficiency (some really feel like they need it), etc.

[Cambrian]

Thoughts?5e leans heavily on the attribute scores-- more than any other edition-- removing them would be an error.

I'm not sure I understand the problem- if everyone can hide, or pick a lock equally well then why bring the rogue? Weaknesses and limitations are as much part of a character as strengths.

What might be best is to have the DM keep most DCs low, and then occasionally include greater challenges to keep specialists relevant. PCs getting high modifiers on skills don't discourage players from attempting things-- DCs are the root cause of that.

For saves and skills you can also grant players magic items to help with creativity:

Amulet of Proficiency allows you to treat a skill of your choice as proficient for 1 minute. Can not be used again until a long rest.

You could do the same for a save. You could change it to advantage instead of proficiency. You also could specialize it if you wanted something more narrow.

[Xetheral]

If I'm understanding the problem correctly, Person_Man, you're observing that as characters gain levels, the gulf between proficient/optimized and nonproficient/nonoptimized scores grows ever larger. Thus, the opportunity cost of taking a nonproficient/nonoptimized/improvised action is making the roll with a significantly smaller modifier on the check. Thus, players are avoiding taking any actions at which their characters are not proficient/optimized. As a result, the variety of actions taken by players decreases as those characters gain levels.

So, at low level, grabbing a candelabra off a table and smashing someone in the face with it would only result in a -2 on the check for the lack of proficiency. This makes it an appealing option... it's cinematic and might provide a situational bonus, and the mechanical cost is negligible. At high level, the lack of proficiency (and possibility of using a low stat) makes such a choice more unpalatable, so the characters stick to simply attacking every round.

Am I understanding correctly?

This is almost the reverse of a different problem I've seen some people bring up: that the difference between skilled and unskilled in 5e is too small. You're ignoring the simulatist aspect which is a large part of this inverse problem, but there is still the (mostly) gamist concern that the specialists will stop feeling special if you manage to fix the problem you've identified. If the heavy-armor wearers succeed frequently enough on sneaking to not disincentivize them from attempting it, then (almost by definition) the specialist rogue is going to fail roughly about as often as the heavy-armor wearers. So I fear unintended consequences from fixing the problem you've identified may create other problems later.

That being said, you asked for possible solutions. What about giving everyone the jack of all trades ability (and giving champions/bards something else to compensate)? That's only going to close the gap by 1-3 points, but you could combine it with allowing players to explain their actions in a way where you can justify an ad-hoc application of their full proficiency bonus outside of its normal application. Then, at least, the specialists can see why the nonspecialists are able to keep up. Would that be a palatable option?

[DireSickFish]

You could also remind the group that Group Checks exist and be more permissible with what you can do as a group check. That way you only need half the party to succeed on a role to do it. The specialists still get to feel good about being awesome at what they're awesome at, and the guy who's terrible at it can still do it he just needs help. Group stealth is the easiest example of this, but it doesn't exclusively have to apply here.

Where the group check doesn't come into play you as a DM could give out advantage if it's a very appropriate idea.

I would have issue in giving everyone more proficiency bonuses and/or flat-lining all stats as then everyone would feel to similar to me. But I respect the fact you don't want to discourage people from taking actions just because they may fail.

[Galen]

You could also remind the group that Group Checks exist and be more permissible with what you can do as a group check.
This. A situation that came up in a small encounter I DMed during a practice run - a party of five tried to sneak upon a bandit camp. Two characters were good at sneaking, three not so much. When I asked for a group check, the two sneaks passed with flying colors, but it still took one success from the other three. As luck would have it, one of the three did pass, they got the drop on the bandits, and everyone got to contribute and feel special.

[Ramshack]

Group checks are a great Idea, in fact i had forgotten them, i'll remind our party next time we play to perhaps open up more scenarios for ourselves as well.

Another possible idea is perhaps get creative with items a equipment.

For instance, if a fighter who wore plate mail was tired of the disadvantage to sneaking but didn't want to take the armor off etc I'd allow him to leave the suit with an armor smith, inventor, or other craftsman for a few days to and perhaps create insulated joints, to keep the noise down with a rubber or similar material, I'd also say he could paint or coat the armor in a lacquer that limits glare/glinting.

I'd make up a cost 50-100 gold and say he has to maintenance it once a month for a few gold to keep the modifications in place and I would remove the disadvantage from the rolls.

[Person_Man]

If I'm understanding the problem correctly, Person_Man, you're observing that as characters gain levels, the gulf between proficient/optimized and nonproficient/nonoptimized scores grows ever larger. Thus, the opportunity cost of taking a nonproficient/nonoptimized/improvised action is making the roll with a significantly smaller modifier on the check. Thus, players are avoiding taking any actions at which their characters are not proficient/optimized. As a result, the variety of actions taken by players decreases as those characters gain levels.

So, at low level, grabbing a candelabra off a table and smashing someone in the face with it would only result in a -2 on the check for the lack of proficiency. This makes it an appealing option... it's cinematic and might provide a situational bonus, and the mechanical cost is negligible. At high level, the lack of proficiency (and possibility of using a low stat) makes such a choice more unpalatable, so the characters stick to simply attacking every round.

Am I understanding correctly?

Yes, you are understanding my concern perfectly.


This is almost the reverse of a different problem I've seen some people bring up: that the difference between skilled and unskilled in 5e is too small. You're ignoring the simulatist aspect which is a large part of this inverse problem, but there is still the (mostly) gamist concern that the specialists will stop feeling special if you manage to fix the problem you've identified. If the heavy-armor wearers succeed frequently enough on sneaking to not disincentivize them from attempting it, then (almost by definition) the specialist rogue is going to fail roughly about as often as the heavy-armor wearers. So I fear unintended consequences from fixing the problem you've identified may create other problems later.

I've seen that concern frequently as well, and I think that they're grounded mostly in simulationist notions ("but it doesn't make sense that....") which don't make the game more enjoyable for me.

And I think that the more gamist concern of making specialist feel special and the game balanced can still be accomplished without making their specialties unreachable to all other players. For example, if the Fighter is 60%ish likely to succeed on Stealth and the Rogue is 85%ish likely to succeed, both of them are probably going to attempt to use Stealth in a circumstance where it makes sense (perhaps gaining Advantage and improving their chances further if they can find some environmental or other factor in their favor).

Also, and this is probably a separate thread, I think that specialists should always have some meaningful chance of failure (maybe 10-15%ish) at challenging tasks, because 100%ish success rates tends to lead to negative consequences that make the game more repetitive and less fun, because the player will keep repeating the same tactic that they're optimized for over and over again.



That being said, you asked for possible solutions. What about giving everyone the jack of all trades ability (and giving champions/bards something else to compensate)? That's only going to close the gap by 1-3 points, but you could combine it with allowing players to explain their actions in a way where you can justify an ad-hoc application of their full proficiency bonus outside of its normal application. Then, at least, the specialists can see why the nonspecialists are able to keep up. Would that be a palatable option?

That's an excellent idea, as is the Group Checks suggested by DireSickFish/Galen. I'll have to try them out.

[Snails]

And although this is only theorycrafting at this point based on a rough read through of the Monster Manual, I'm dreading Saving Throws at high levels, both as a player and a DM. If you're Proficient, if it targets your primary ability score, and/or if you have some kind of defensive special ability or spell (Evasion, Aura of Protection, etc) then you're often 95%ish Immune to those effects. On the flip side, if you haven't invested in optimizing a Saving Throw, 75%-ish likely to fail.

This leads to a game where some builds ironically have fewer options and become more vulnerable to certain attacks as they gain levels.

With respect to Saves, practically speaking, it is not all that different from 3e. A random BBEG spellcaster can look at your PC and make a very good guess where a bad save was, and hit you with a DC that you are 75% likely to fail. Whether he is guessing which 1 of 3 is not very different from guessing which 3 (or 4) of 6, because he is only going to pick one.

The mitigating factor is that the team should work as a team, and not be easily hosed by AoEs. Just like 3e.

[Easy_Lee]

One option would be to seperate stat increases from feats, so it's not a one or the other approach.

Me personally, if I run a gamr I'll just give the players bonus stats every other even level (4,8,12,16,20) and a bonus feat every other odd level (3,7,11,15,19). That results in player characters that are a stronger, but also more versatile, and doesn't penalize MAD builds as much as the current. It's easy enough to scale up encounter difficulty with +1's here or there.

I'd also do feats and stats by character level, not class, but that's just me.

[Theodoxus]

One thing I'm thinking of borrowing from 3rd ed is the 1/2 bonus to non-proficient saves. I'm not sure (other than they look funky) why it wasn't done. So, 1st level, you're +2 on proficient saves, +1 on unproficient ones. At 9th, you're +4/+2 and then at 17th, +6/+3 It certainly keeps saves from running too far out of control.

But to address the concern of actions, while it feels more 'doable' at 1st level to swing from a chandelier because the bonuses are low and the DC is too - realistically, at 5th, 11th, or 20th level, the DC should be the same.

If you call it a DC 15 to jump, grab the chandelier and swing across the room, why is it all of a sudden harder to do when you're better (even minutely due to attribute enhancements) later in life? Because the acrobatics spec'd guy has +5 at 1st, and the schmo has +3 (providing they both have a Dex of 16)... so at 5th, the Acrobatman has +7 (Dex 18) and schmo has +3 still... schmo should still feel just as confident as he did at 1st, even though Acrobatman has nearly twice the chance of success - they aren't statistically related.

That's one of the cornerstones of bounded accuracy that I actually like. As a DM, I don't have to arbitrarily increase the DC on the same action. "Well, at 1st level, it was just a regular wooden chandelier on a rope. Now at 12th. it's an illusionary dancing flame projected onto razorwire over a pit of lava. The DC is now 40! Muahahaha.. ahem"

[pwykersotz]

I feel almost like you've focused on the wrong element. If the problem is that the treadmill is still too much, remove proficiency bonus and replace it with a static 2. You'll need to remove it from monsters as well, the Tarrasque's +9 is a doozy after all. Then the most difference is between -5 (with a 1 in the stat) to +5. Magic items and the Barbarian will crack this a bit, but assuming point buy you're actually looking at between -1 and +9 anyway, a range of 10.

Saves are never going to exceed 15 for spells and such, the difference between proficient and nonproficient is always a static 2, etc.

Does this move toward the ends you're looking for?

[Pex]

I've finally concluded for myself that the 5E saving throw system sucks donkey. It fails for basically the same reason the original 3.0 Psionics system failed. It is inherent to the game that some of your ability scores will be poor. It's not a bad thing such a concept exists. It's fine that a player character just not be good at some things. However, when something fundamentally important to the character's survival and ability to do stuff hinges on something you will always be poor in, you will die or be forever incompetent. It is a similar complaint to 3E saving throws, especially those with low Will and will never have a high Wisdom. 4E did a nice patch on that. Keeping the 3E saving throws, the ability modifier for the saving throw was the higher of a related two. Having a low ability score doesn't doom the character so much. 5E should have done that and perhaps you always add your proficiency to any saving throw.

As it is now, just always adding your proficiency to every saving throw just might be ok. No feat tax. The forced 8 suck it up munchkin Point Buy demands of you won't kill you so easily at the higher levels.

[Strill]

But then 3rd-ish level a few players pick up heavy armor that imposes Disadvantage on Stealth, so they stop using Stealth.They should get Medium Armor Master instead. If their DEX is 16 or higher, it gets them the same AC as Full Plate, but allows them to keep their stealth.


When they hit 4th level, and some players feel like they need to get their primary Ability Score and/or Dex and/or Con up to 20 (as opposed to gaining a new option from a Feat), so that they don't fall behind in effectiveness of their relative to monsters. Then at 5th level everyone's Proficiency Bonus goes up to +3, which when combined with the aforementioned "requirement" to have 20 in your primary ability score, means that player with Proficiency in a Skill and 20 in the appropriate ability score gets +8 to the check (or +11 if they have Expertise). So at this point, some players stop attempting things that they aren't optimized to do. If you don't have 16+ in the relevant Ability Score and Proficiency, you're typically not attempting it. Why aren't they attempting these checks? Many checks, like investigate, perception, insight, or any of the knowledge skills, don't have any opportunity cost. What skills in particular are they not attempting checks for?


Plus 5th level is when every martial class (or Bard or Warlock martial subclass) gets the Extra Attack class feature. If you get Extra Attack, then making attacks with a weapon continues to be a viable option. For every other class, its not. (Other then the Rogue, who gets 3d6 Sneak Attack to compensate). Spell users get extra dice for their cantrips. It's not really much of a difference.


And although this is only theorycrafting at this point based on a rough read through of the Monster Manual, I'm dreading Saving Throws at high levels, both as a player and a DM. If you're Proficient, if it targets your primary ability score, and/or if you have some kind of defensive special ability or spell (Evasion, Aura of Protection, etc) then you're often 95%ish Immune to those effects. On the flip side, if you haven't invested in optimizing a Saving Throw, 75%-ish likely to fail.This is a weird situation where having a Paladin in the party can make an enormous difference. I don't know if the devs balanced around the assumption that there would always be a Paladin or what.


This leads to a game where some builds ironically have fewer options and become more vulnerable to certain attacks as they gain levels. I disagree. For example, social checks on random peasants and taverngoers to find information, look for rumors, and discover the layout of the land, will always be just as difficult. Sure a CHA-focused character will be better, but a non-optimized character was able to make these checks before, there's nothing to stop them later.

The only DCs that should be scaling up as you level are checks against monsters and major plot-critical characters. The majority of skills shouldn't be affected, and the few that are affected should be important stats that the character should have a high score in anyway.

[Galen]

I agree that it is a bit weird that a Fighter never becomes more adept at avoiding enchantments. I mean, ok, I guess that should not be his forte, but the fact a level 1 Fighter is just as good (or helpless) saving against a Wizard's Charm Person as a Fighter level 20 is too much.

As a bandaid solution, I would recommend adding the proficiency bonus to all saves, however the "bad" saves get -2. So the good saves scale from +2 to +6, while the bad saves scale from +0 to +4.

[archaeo]

Just as an aside, how much of this is informed by actual high-level play, when these ability score differences would really begin to manifest? Theorycrafting is all well and good, but I'd be curious to hear from people who've actually played at high levels.

Frankly, I find myself thinking this enough that it might be worth setting up some kind of high-level workshop campaign in the future. Between various forums, roll20, and other tools, it shouldn't be impossible to set up.

Edit:


I agree that it is a bit weird that a Fighter never becomes more adept at avoiding enchantments. I mean, ok, I guess that should not be his forte, but the fact a level 1 Fighter is just as good (or helpless) saving against a Wizard's Charm Person as a Fighter level 20 is too much.

Indomitable certainly gives that level 20 Fighter a big edge over that level 1 Fighter. Plus, while the "magic mart" is closed, we really don't know what the DMG is going to recommend as far as magic items go. It's entirely possible that treasure tables and the DM advice will enable most parties to shore up their weak defenses.

[D-naras]

Things you can do off the top of my head:


give out 2 skill or 1 save proficiency whenever you gain an ability score increase.
make the minimum possible modifier on non-proficient rolls equal to your proficiency -2.
jack of all trades as a feat for whoever wants it.
jack of all saves as another feat.
spend inspiration to add you proficiency bonus to a roll as well as gain advantage.
suffer a level of exhaustion to add you proficiency bonus somewhere.
make backgrounds give a save proficiency or flat out let players pick an additional save to be proficient in at character creation.
switch a save to another by taking disadvantage on the roll or another penalty of some sort.
spend N hit-dice to add +N bonus to a non-proficient skill or save up to a maximum of your proficiency bonus that last until you recover the hit-dice. Personally I like this the most since it can be explained in game as studying about the skill during rests and it gives you something to do with your hit-dice during days where there is no action.

[Easy_Lee]

I've finally concluded for myself that the 5E saving throw system sucks donkey. It fails for basically the same reason the original 3.0 Psionics system failed. It is inherent to the game that some of your ability scores will be poor. It's not a bad thing such a concept exists. It's fine that a player character just not be good at some things. However, when something fundamentally important to the character's survival and ability to do stuff hinges on something you will always be poor in, you will die or be forever incompetent. It is a similar complaint to 3E saving throws, especially those with low Will and will never have a high Wisdom. 4E did a nice patch on that. Keeping the 3E saving throws, the ability modifier for the saving throw was the higher of a related two. Having a low ability score doesn't doom the character so much. 5E should have done that and perhaps you always add your proficiency to any saving throw.

As it is now, just always adding your proficiency to every saving throw just might be ok. No feat tax. The forced 8 suck it up munchkin Point Buy demands of you won't kill you so easily at the higher levels.

I think the real issue is that failing a save is so costly. Normally foes whack each other's health, but many saves result in just flat out losing. A popular example around these parts is the intellect devourer, a level 2 who can knock you out in one round, provided you fail a save and then it rolls high enough with its 3d6. That's a lot worse than, say, getting poisoned, stunned, or immobilized. The only thing that never seems to outright kill you for failing it is DEX saves, which I guess is appropriate since those are so common.

Unlike 3.5, a single character probably can't effectively target every save. However, a team can. Going to be hard to challenge a party when they target your BBEG's saves with several effects every round.

[archaeo]

I think the real issue is that failing a save is so costly. Normally foes whack each other's health, but many saves result in just flat out losing.

Ok, I'm reserving this space to count up the number of save-or-die/suck spells in the MM. Be back soon.

E: On second thought, I'm halfway through the Ds, and it's pretty easy to see that this is a fool's errand. It definitely seems like the usual Wis, Dex, and Con saves are the primary targets. I think a lot of the super dangerous monsters are kind of surprisingly front-loaded (the Ds go on for days!), but suffice it to say that the MM is not at all afraid to take you out of the fight for a few bad saving rolls.

[Strill]

I think the real issue is that failing a save is so costly. Normally foes whack each other's health, but many saves result in just flat out losing. A popular example around these parts is the intellect devourer, a level 2 who can knock you out in one round, provided you fail a save and then it rolls high enough with its 3d6. That's a lot worse than, say, getting poisoned, stunned, or immobilized. The only thing that never seems to outright kill you for failing it is DEX saves, which I guess is appropriate since those are so common.

Unlike 3.5, a single character probably can't effectively target every save. However, a team can. Going to be hard to challenge a party when they target your BBEG's saves with several effects every round.

The intellect devourer does more than knock you out. It eats your brain. Your character is permanently incapacitated until your party gets its hands on a Greater Restoration spell.

[Abithrios]

One thing I'm thinking of borrowing from 3rd ed is the 1/2 bonus to non-proficient saves. I'm not sure (other than they look funky) why it wasn't done. So, 1st level, you're +2 on proficient saves, +1 on unproficient ones. At 9th, you're +4/+2 and then at 17th, +6/+3 It certainly keeps saves from running too far out of control.

But to address the concern of actions, while it feels more 'doable' at 1st level to swing from a chandelier because the bonuses are low and the DC is too - realistically, at 5th, 11th, or 20th level, the DC should be the same.

If you call it a DC 15 to jump, grab the chandelier and swing across the room, why is it all of a sudden harder to do when you're better (even minutely due to attribute enhancements) later in life? Because the acrobatics spec'd guy has +5 at 1st, and the schmo has +3 (providing they both have a Dex of 16)... so at 5th, the Acrobatman has +7 (Dex 18) and schmo has +3 still... schmo should still feel just as confident as he did at 1st, even though Acrobatman has nearly twice the chance of success - they aren't statistically related.

That's one of the cornerstones of bounded accuracy that I actually like. As a DM, I don't have to arbitrarily increase the DC on the same action. "Well, at 1st level, it was just a regular wooden chandelier on a rope. Now at 12th. it's an illusionary dancing flame projected onto razorwire over a pit of lava. The DC is now 40! Muahahaha.. ahem"


The DM can always just opt out of the arms race. Most, but maybe not all of the enemies you face are stronger than the ones before, but the party succeeds at some things they would have failed at earlier. By high level, if the party fails to reach its destination, it fails for a reason more interesting than "the door was locked" or "it was way over there across a pit". Let the high level fighter make a tactical entrance by breaching a wall. Let the high level rogue swing from the chandelier. Characters don't have to struggle over everything they attempt to have a great story. Often there is even better drama to be found in considering the consequences of success. Let powerful heroes be casually awesome.

[Sidmen]

I agree that it is a bit weird that a Fighter never becomes more adept at avoiding enchantments. I mean, ok, I guess that should not be his forte, but the fact a level 1 Fighter is just as good (or helpless) saving against a Wizard's Charm Person as a Fighter level 20 is too much.

As a bandaid solution, I would recommend adding the proficiency bonus to all saves, however the "bad" saves get -2. So the good saves scale from +2 to +6, while the bad saves scale from +0 to +4.

One would think that a high level fighter would get tired of being vulnerable to mental attacks, and go out seeking a Ring of Protection or Magnetic Helmet that gives him proficiency against Wisdom Saving throws - or advantage - or whatever.

To me, this argument reads like: "I find it annoying that a Fighter who never bothers to do anything to get better at avoiding enchantments (feats/raising ability/finding magic items/etc); never gets better at avoiding enchantments."

[Strill]

One would think that a high level fighter would get tired of being vulnerable to mental attacks, and go out seeking a Ring of Protection or Magnetic Helmet that gives him proficiency against Wisdom Saving throws - or advantage - or whatever.

To me, this argument reads like: "I find it annoying that a Fighter who never bothers to do anything to get better at avoiding enchantments (feats/raising ability/finding magic items/etc); never gets better at avoiding enchantments."

5e's modus operandi is that magical items are extremely rare. You don't just find them, and you're never sure of what you'll get.

The game is supposedly balanced with the assumption that players will have NO magical items at all, so I would say that using magic items to solve this problem is a band-aid solution, not a legitimate answer to the underlying problem.

[Theodoxus]

5e's modus operandi is that magical items are extremely rare. You don't just find them, and you're never sure of what you'll get.

The game is supposedly balanced with the assumption that players will have NO magical items at all, so I would say that using magic items to solve this problem is a band-aid solution, not a legitimate answer to the underlying problem.

It's too early to know this is a fact, however. Without the DMG to shore up this argument, it's just a fallacious. And as a DM, if one of my players is having no fun because the particular module I'm using has foes that consistently target their weak save - I'll let the player find an item to help, or suggest they grab a feat at the next opportunity... I probably wouldn't modify the encounters much - there are options provided in game.

[Person_Man]

With respect to Saves, practically speaking, it is not all that different from 3e. A random BBEG spellcaster can look at your PC and make a very good guess where a bad save was, and hit you with a DC that you are 75% likely to fail. Whether he is guessing which 1 of 3 is not very different from guessing which 3 (or 4) of 6, because he is only going to pick one.

The mitigating factor is that the team should work as a team, and not be easily hosed by AoEs. Just like 3e.

You are absolutely correct - high level Saving Throws were definitely an issue in 3E - and its definitely gotten better in 5E - and players can work as a team to help mitigate the issue.

Also, speaking from my extensive 3.0/3.5/PF experience, players would "fix" this problem by just playing low-mid level games and/or by optimizing their Saves. In 5E, players can take Resilient, and I'm sure there will be Save boosting magic items as well. I just hate math based "taxes" on players. The math should just work, and adding new abilities/feats/spells should add new options, rather then just keeping up with the treadmill.



I feel almost like you've focused on the wrong element. If the problem is that the treadmill is still too much, remove proficiency bonus and replace it with a static 2. You'll need to remove it from monsters as well, the Tarrasque's +9 is a doozy after all. Then the most difference is between -5 (with a 1 in the stat) to +5. Magic items and the Barbarian will crack this a bit, but assuming point buy you're actually looking at between -1 and +9 anyway, a range of 10.

Saves are never going to exceed 15 for spells and such, the difference between proficient and nonproficient is always a static 2, etc.

Does this move toward the ends you're looking for?

That would also probably work. I was just hoping to find a fix that didn't involve having to edit every monster I ever use.



It is inherent to the game that some of your ability scores will be poor. It's not a bad thing such a concept exists. It's fine that a player character just not be good at some things. However, when something fundamentally important to the character's survival and ability to do stuff hinges on something you will always be poor in, you will die or be forever incompetent.

Yup. To illustrate this point, over on another thread, some new Playgrounder wanted to play a character with 8 Constitution. Half a dozen-ish people quickly posted that 8 Con was basically suicide, and those people are mostly correct. (In theory you could get by as a Moon Druid or a heavily stealth focused sniper, but even then it would be very risky at low levels). Which begs the question, why is 8 Con a default option for players? Why not make the base minimum higher, or just uncouple hit points from ability scores, or whatever. Again, I think this goes back to the tradition/simulationist roots of D&D, which I personally don't care about. (Though I recognize many, many other people do care about it).

[Segev]

To be fair, unless you're playing a mid-to-high level monk, half or more of your saves will usually be "weak saves."

I also wouldn't say that 5e leans on Abilities "more than any other edition," but you have to go back to early, early 1e AD&D and the even older oD&D to find something that did it more. Part of the reason D&D was a "roll under" system (at least enough of the time to be confusing) before 3e, and where the d20 itself comes from, is that originally, most everything that wasn't combat was resolved by determining the Ability which would be used to attempt it and then rolling a d20. "Ability checks" of these sorts were simply rolling on a d20 and seeing if you got your stat or under. If you did, you succeeded; if not, you failed.



That said, if your problem is that players are improvising less, or being less adventurous with their action choices, I'd implement some sort of system to shore up and reward those choices, rather than trying to nerf down the specialists or make everybody reach up to the specialists' level.

In Exalted and Scion, they have what is called "stunting." A stunt rewards 1, 2, or 3 bonus dice on an action. A 1-die stunt is for an action which is described more vividly than "I roll to attack" or "I roll my stealth check to sneak by them." A 2-die stunt incorporates the environment in some way, whether making your trip attempt by shoving him backwards over a fallen chair or a disarm effort by grabbing a candelabra and attempting to lock his blade between its tines and your own sword, or "I duck under the tables and creep around the edge of the room, staying out of their line of sight."

3-die stunts are spectacular descriptions or hugely clever actions that make the collective jaws of the entire table drop at how awesome they are. While the DM is free to award them for simply making his jaw drop (or his soda fly up his nose with laughter), generally 3-die stunts are "you know it if you see it" events, and the whole table will usually agree.

You could implement something similar, granting bonus d4s (or maybe d6s, either always or after a certain level) as stunt dice on any action taken which would qualify. Don't increase the difficulty of things. Yes, this will help specialists, but it will give creative descriptions of actions enough extra lift that it MIGHT make the cool, outside-the-box action worth trying.

[D-naras]

Another idea: remove ability scores from player characters. Every PC adds his proficiency bonus to all rolls, and double that to all skills, attack rolls and saves that he has proficiency with. Expertise lets characters add their proficiency bonus a third time. Whenever you increase your max HP, add a flat number based on your hit die. +2 for a d6, +3 for a d8, +4 for a d10 and +5 for a d12. Class features and damage rolls that rely on your ability modifiers, use your proficiency bonus instead, so a level 1 barbarian or monk would have an unarmored AC of 14. At level 20, a monk will have an unarmored AC of 22. The barbarian capstone can be a +2 bonus to everything based on STR and CON.

[Fwiffo86]

I'll be honest here. I think this thought process is flawed. Yes, everyone tries everything to begin with because everyone is basically on relatively even footing. (bonuses closely match). But thinking that high level classes (and I'm using classes here instead of characters) that are good at X while being poor at Y is intentional. Theoretically, in a class based game, no single class should be superior at everything. If it were, what would be the point of playing anything else?

The entire system is built on a 4 participant system. All classes have inherent flaws that are covered by other classes strengths. Attempting to correct or fix this would cause issues. By either taking away/weakening the "good" abilities from characters or boosting other classes so they can have a chance at the same action serves only to make everyone completely equal. And if all classes are equal in all things, why bother even having them?

The system is working as intended. Yes, spells target specific saves, and yes, monsters are immune to weapons. That is intended so that it takes a team effort to beat the encounter. We need to stop analyzing the game on a single character basis and start analyzing it on a group mechanic. What is the group capable of, vs what can the caster or melee do.

Basically, it is my opinion that there is no problem. The system is working exactly as it is supposed to. Making sure that no single class is ideal in all situation. Can it be built to? Sure. But for now, I don't think there is a problem.

[archaeo]

I just hate math based "taxes" on players. The math should just work, and adding new abilities/feats/spells should add new options, rather then just keeping up with the treadmill.

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by this line. What does it look like when the math "works"? High level players that aren't threatened by anything except HP damage? Or what are they threatened by, exactly? Should players expect to have zero weaknesses at level 20? Or is the entire problem just that they should be marginally less weak at that point?

[Segev]

The word "treadmill" keeps being used, and I think reveals a core part of the problem: challenges are ramping up at a pace designed to make the masters of the relevant area of expertise feel at risk when engaging them. Don't ramp challenges up that much. Aim them at being slightly beyond the capability of those unproficient in the area. Those with high stats will thus naturally have a reasonable chance to succeed. The jacks of all trades will have a reasonable chance to succeed. Under most circumstances, the masters of this challenge type will waltz through them like miniature gods.

Mix it up a bit, too: have challenges that are below the party's level, particularly challenges similar to ones they faced before, when they WERE level-appropriate (or perhaps a little too hard). Let the warriors sneak by now that even their raw stat is sufficient, and let the wizard smack down the level 1 thug-bully with a quarterstaff if he doesn't feel like whipping out a spell to totally overwhelm it. These kinds of things are greatly satisfying.

They prevent the "treadmill" effect. Also, make sure to show them (without forcing them to fight) challenges way beyond them, early on. Let them know they're out there, and have the potential to set goals to get strong enough to take them on.

The treadmill occurs because the DM keeps all encounters leveling with the players' characters. You never feel like you've advanced because you never saw these tough things before you could take them on, and you never see the weak things now that you could stomp all over them. There's no sense of the rarefied air into which the PCs have ascended.

Make the world a breathing one, with things that are what they are and which the PCs have to plan around and decide how to handle. Don't aim at making everything "a challenge" just because the PCs are facing it. Don't be afraid to hand-wave particularly curbstomp situations in the PCs' favor, but give them those moments to appreciate where they've gotten and from whence they came.

Letting the experts god-walk through challenges that are just a little too hard for the non-experts (and just about right for the jacks of all trades to find it 'challenging') will make everybody feel good. That way, when you DO have the challenge-for-the-experts, things really seem intense.

[Sartharina]

Indomitable certainly gives that level 20 Fighter a big edge over that level 1 Fighter. Unfortunately, it really doesn't. The chances of a fighter passing a DC 19 save with a -1 (or possibly +1) are laughably small even with a reroll.

Frankly - I'm highly annoyed that the treadmill showed up again. Monsters should NOT have Proficiency bonuses!

[Fwiffo86]

Unfortunately, it really doesn't. The chances of a fighter passing a DC 19 save with a -1 (or possibly +1) are laughably small even with a reroll.

Frankly - I'm highly annoyed that the treadmill showed up again. Monsters should NOT have Proficiency bonuses!

Why do you assume it will be this way? From personal experience, I cannot think of a Fighter that needs 5 feats. Now granted, this is just preference, but I tend to build 1 feat and 4 Att bonuses. This obviously colors my view of this argument, since none of the characters i have built at 20 have any less than a +1 or +2 save. Your results may vary of course. I just find it amusing people are thinking this is what you get. Especially when your big stats are easy to cap with one or two (even three for some sub-classes) Attribute ups.

[Sartharina]

Why do you assume it will be this way? From personal experience, I cannot think of a Fighter that needs 5 feats. Now granted, this is just preference, but I tend to build 1 feat and 4 Att bonuses. This obviously colors my view of this argument, since none of the characters i have built at 20 have any less than a +1 or +2 save. Your results may vary of course. I just find it amusing people are thinking this is what you get. Especially when your big stats are easy to cap with one or two (even three for some sub-classes) Attribute ups.

A fighter gets 7 feats anyway, not 5. But even a +1 will not reliably make a DC 18 or 19 save even with rerolls.

[Fwiffo86]

A fighter gets 7 feats anyway, not 5. But even a +1 will not reliably make a DC 18 or 19 save even with rerolls.

(feats) Thats what I get for relying on my brain when I'm AFB. (reliability)I suppose that could be debatable, but it is still significantly better than a -1.

[Strill]

To be fair, unless you're playing a mid-to-high level monk, half or more of your saves will usually be "weak saves."

That's a false dilemma. Of the saves, CON and WIS protect you from incapacitating effects and are most important. DEX protects you exclusively from damaging effects. STR protects you from grapples and shoves. INT and CHA saves are incredibly rare and can be ignored.

So really, it doesn't matter if half or more of your saves are weak, because most of them simply aren't all that important.

[Xetheral]

(feats) Thats what I get for relying on my brain when I'm AFB. (reliability)I suppose that could be debatable, but it is still significantly better than a -1.

I guess that depends on how you define "significantly". :smallsmile: A +1 will hit DC 19 three times as often as a -1, but both are still tiny chances. http://xkcd.com/1252/

[Stubbazubba]

This is a natural consequence of bounded accuracy: when bonuses are all small and they all stack, every single one is necessary. If you don't have that bonus, you are quickly edged out of relevancy. This makes the stat boost vs. new feat choice pretty sadistic. The pressure to min-max is worse when bonuses are small and everything stacks.

Anyways, to make 5e work w/o Abilities, to solve it and keep everyone close enough that they don't feel useless next to the other guy, replace scaling proficiency with a static bonus (+4-5, I'd say), and then add 1/2 level to all checks, proficient or not.

How does that fare against the monsters? Well, I'm just looking at the Basic Rules monsters, I've mapped all the saving throws they call for and arranged them by CR. That should serve as a decent enough proxy for what you should be able to deal with at those levels. Now, everyone has their own opinion of just how much they want experts to succeed, but I'm going to say experts should succeed about 3/4 of the time, and non-experts about 1/2 of the time.

The CR 4 monsters in the Basic Rules tend to call for DC 13 saves, so with a +5 proficiency bonus, that's a 65% chance of success, 10% lower than I'd like. By adding 1/2 level, +2, the proficient PC now has a 75% chance of success, and the non-proficient character has 50% odds. Considering that the consequences of some of these include possession and being immediately dropped to 0 HP, I think those are fair odds. Now, the DCs for various CRs are kind of schizophrenic, they don't really follow a strict pattern (e.g. 1/2 goes from 11-14, 1 goes from 11-13, 2 goes from 10-15, 3 goes from 11-14), so these won't always hold, but I think that generally gives PCs a fighting chance of survival. Following this, a PC proficient in Dex saves at level 17 will have a 65% chance of saving for half dmg against the Red Dragon's breath attack. That seems about right, since this doesn't account for magic items, feats, or situational benefits like Advantage.

What about racial Ability mods? Just ignore them. Humans always take the variant, and everyone else keeps their own things. As an alternative, give a +1 racial bonus to saves and skills that would be affected. What about the Ability Score Increase every 4 levels? I'd also ignore those; take feats instead.

[Cambrian]

That's a false dilemma. Of the saves, CON and WIS protect you from incapacitating effects and are most important. DEX protects you exclusively from damaging effects. STR protects you from grapples and shoves. INT and CHA saves are incredibly rare and can be ignored.

So really, it doesn't matter if half or more of your saves are weak, because most of them simply aren't all that important.If you look through the Monster Manual you'll find Charisma saves, while not common, are not incredibly rare either. It appears Int is far more rare, and occasionally comes up, but not as a save (think the IntDev) which limits Int save proficiency.

[edit:]
Given the Mindflayer though (Mindblast is a Int save), I could see Int saves becoming much more relevant with the release of rules for psionics.

[Sidmen]

5e's modus operandi is that magical items are extremely rare. You don't just find them, and you're never sure of what you'll get.

The game is supposedly balanced with the assumption that players will have NO magical items at all, so I would say that using magic items to solve this problem is a band-aid solution, not a legitimate answer to the underlying problem.

That's why I said seek it out. Sure, he won't be able to stop by the magic shop and trivially buy such an item. But he should be able to get help from some sages to find Sir Ironskull's tomb and make a sidequest out of retrieving his helm.

And no, the game isn't balanced around the assumption that the players won't have magical items. Its balanced around the assumption that all magical items should be a benefit - rather than required at certain levels to just keep up with the monsters. Essentially, they just got rid of the inherent bonuses concept.

Edit. Well crap, I thought I was on the second page already - sorry about that...

[Demonicattorney]

This sounds like a problem where you are ramping up skill challenges to keep up with level. Don't do that. At 10th level climbing a wall should be trivial for your Rogue, make it feel trivial, DC 10. Same DC for your Wizard who will fail half the time. The problem is that you want the Rogue to have to roll to climb, and that is a roll that the Wizard cannot make. If you asked for a DC10 to climb a wall or run a mile at level 1, than it should be DC 10 at level 10. If a character does something cool, especially something they are weak at, reward them with inspiration, that alone significantly improves chances of success.