Balancing out the importance of stats

[Mandragola]

Right now I would argue that dexterity and wisdom are too important in dnd, while intelligence and charisma are not important enough.

So for instance wisdom has your most important skill, perception, and a few other solidly useful skills like survival and insight. These skills keep you alive. It also controls your saves against a ton of save or suck abilities. I find it weird that this stat combines both your eyesight etc. and your willpower (the word I'm using to describe how easy you are to frighten or trick). So while a character can survive without a good wisdom score, every character will feel a bit of pain for dumping wisdom. And those classes that do use wisdom, for example for spellcasting, will find that they are also great at spotting danger and rarely run away from stuff. A typical druid or monk is braver than a typical fighter or barbarian, or even a paladin before he becomes immune to fear at level 10.

On the other hand charisma has no skills that every character needs. So long as somebody in the group can talk on behalf of the party, all is well - usually. Very few saves key off charisma and even the ones that do aren't especially dangerous. Unless your class keys directly uses charisma, it's almost entirely safe to have an 8.

It seems to me that saves against stuff like fear or domination should default to being charisma saves, not wisdom saves. It would make sense for people with strong personalities to be brave and harder to control. You might start to see the odd fighter with 14 charisma, who made a good leader.

There's a similar issue with dexterity and intelligence. Dex controls too many abilities to list. Intelligence controls a few skills that you don't really need and wizard spells.

I find it particularly offensive that stupid adventurers live as long as clever ones - if not longer because they have more points to spend on stats that actually matter. I don't want to get into a debate about whether brains or brawn are most useful. They clearly both matter.

My proposed solution to this is to use intelligence for initiative, rather than dexterity, or possibly in addition to it (adding both your int and dex mod to a D20). Quicker-thinking people are quicker-acting people, and will run rings around dumb brutes. So someone like a high-elf bladesinger or a clever rogue would tend to act extremely quickly, while a paladin with 8s for dex and int would occasionally get an initiative of -1. An archer without a particularly high int or an eldritch knight without much dex would be somewhere in the middle.

I'm not sure how I feel about constitution. In many ways it doesn't behave like any other stat, as no skills key off it. I see constitution as the difficulty slider for dnd - high con = easy mode.

What do people think - does anyone agree that there's even a problem here, and how do you feel about these proposed solutions?

[Kryx]

Saving throws are by far the biggest offender. I revamped saving throws to Fortitude/Reflex/Will (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkWNvU8TD) to handle that problem.

Beyond that Dex's benefits are often heavily outweighed.
AC
Strength actually wins here as a result of being able to purchase armor with no ability score investment is required, only small gold amounts. There is a penalty to stealth, but that's very minor. Dex can compete with the AC provided by armor with full ability score investment (+5) and a feat (TWF). That is a very high cost. Strength clearly wins here.

Ability Checks
If we compare the two and cross out duplicates (escape a grapple, overrun/tumble) we end up with the following:

Strength: Climb, Jump, Swim, Shove, grapple, break things, carrying capacity (or encumbrance)

Dexterity: Balance, stunts, Stealth, Sleight of Hand

Strength is slightly ahead of Dexterity in regards to ability checks.

Damage
Strength builds provide the highest damage possible. Dex builds fall behind by 5-25% or more in some cases.

Combat Utility
Dexterity provides ranged weapons at long ranges while thrown weapons are typically 20/60 feet.

Other Benefits
Initiative is clearly in favor of Dexterity and is the only factor that really pushes it even with Strength overall.

Summary
Strength and Dexterity are really even besides saving throws. And there is no adjustment needed.


I do agree that Charisma and Intelligence have some room to grow, but that mainly comes down to their skills being party skills that only 1 person needs. I would try to emphasize those skills more than anything.
I do also agree that senses being on the same ability as willpower makes no sense, but that's the sacred cow.

[Specter]

The INT checks of Arcana, Religion and Nature can be adapted to identify magic (Arcana for arcane casters, Religion for Clerics/Pallies and Nature for Druids/Rangers). Makes INT more valuable in my games. As for Charisma, I do'nt find that a problem because people usually want charismatic characters, and everybody's afraid of Banishment.

[Reosoul]

I don't really feel like there's a huge problem here.

Dexterity as a stat keys off of too much, but I'm not sure how else you'd be using Thieves' Tools, Acrobatics, etc.

I feel like you're right about the Wis vs. Cha argument though. I always felt like Wisdom was there to spot trickery and deception, to keep from being charmed or foiled by illusions. A dragon roaring mightily is not an illusion- it's basically challenging your character's mettle and force of will to fight a highly intelligent, magical, dangerous creature. Should've been a cha save for that.

Cha should be presence and force of will, Wis to see things for what they are, insight, etc.

Not sure how to 'fix' that though, outside of house-ruling and changing the saves on a lot of spells/monster abilities.

[Kryx]

Cha should be presence and force of will, Wis to see things for what they are, insight, etc.
Intelligence is how you describe wis (see the handful of Intelligence saving throws in the game (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1040365162)). Wisdom is a general mental defense. Charisma is controlling your being from things like banishment, possession etc.

Wis should have about 20 of it's 90 saves moved to either Intelligence or Charisma, but that doesn't begin to solve the problem with saving throws.

[Anonymouswizard]

As for Charisma, I do'nt find that a problem because people usually want charismatic characters, and everybody's afraid of Banishment.

This is true, outside of CharOp very few people actually dump Charisma, because it doesn't feel like the character they want to play. I'm in the other boat because I will refuse to dump Intelligence even if I could use the points elsewhere, leading to me generally playing mages so I can afford to dump strength (my standard character is high INT high CHA who works as a spellcaster/face [generally secondary face], it makes me much better in GURPS than in 5e).

Now I personally don't like how D&D sets out it's mental stats, I personally like to use a Reason (logical thinking), Cunning (perception and quick thinking), and Willpower/Faith (depending on genre) split. Charisma gets split up into Cunning and Willpower, while Intelligence is split into Reason and Cunning, and Wisdom gets split between all three. I also combine Strength and Constitution into Physique, but that's because I tend towards Science Fiction, and otherwise Strength is either an obvious dump stat, or it's only important for HP. I also lump both dexterity and agility into a Dexterity stat, but I also put initiative and defence into mental stats so it doesn't become the god stat for combat.

[mgshamster]

Saving throws are by far the biggest offender. I revamped saving throws to Fortitude/Reflex/Will (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkWNvU8TD) to handle that problem.

I have to second this system. It's very well designed with a lot of math and research behind it.

[Mandragola]

I don't really feel like there's a huge problem here.

I agree that this is hardly game-breaking stuff. It's just stuff that feels a bit wrong to me.


Dexterity as a stat keys off of too much, but I'm not sure how else you'd be using Thieves' Tools, Acrobatics, etc.

Agreed. There's obviously a lot of stuff that legitimately works off dex. I've suggested that initiative is one ability that might not work off dex, or maybe not only off it.


I feel like you're right about the Wis vs. Cha argument though. I always felt like Wisdom was there to spot trickery and deception, to keep from being charmed or foiled by illusions. A dragon roaring mightily is not an illusion- it's basically challenging your character's mettle and force of will to fight a highly intelligent, magical, dangerous creature. Should've been a cha save for that.

Cha should be presence and force of will, Wis to see things for what they are, insight, etc.

Having read Kryx's posts as well, I'm inclined to think that intelligence should be used for whether you believe in illusion spells, and maybe also insight skill checks. I tend to think that a wizard (and especially an illusionist!) should be the best person at spotting illusions - and definitely better than the cleric or paladin.


Not sure how to 'fix' that though, outside of house-ruling and changing the saves on a lot of spells/monster abilities.

Well yeah, that's essentially what I am proposing. Actually I think it's probably less work than it sounds. Spells and monster effects tend to be quite easily defined off their keywords. So what I'd say is this:


If spell is in the illusion school, or if a monster has an ability that creates an illusion, it should require an intelligence save to see through it.
If a spell or a monster ability causes the frightener or charmed condition, it should require a charisma save to resist.
Maybe switch insight to the intelligence for consistency with illusion magic.

[Kryx]

I have to second this system. It's very well designed with a lot of math and research behind it.
Thanks for this feedback - it's very encouraging to hear!


Well yeah, that's essentially what I am proposing. Actually I think it's probably less work than it sounds. Spells and monster effects tend to be quite easily defined off their keywords. So what I'd say is this:


If spell is in the illusion school, or if a monster has an ability that creates an illusion, it should require an intelligence save to see through it.
If a spell or a monster ability causes the frightener or charmed condition, it should require a charisma save to resist.
Maybe switch insight to the intelligence for consistency with illusion magic.

I tried this system before my revamp. I would suggest you try going through my spreadsheet of every saving throw in the game and trying to reallocate them. Saving Throws Fix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1827749822).
In my experience you'll struggle to find balance even after moving several to Intelligence and Charisma. To arrive at a better balance you'd have to have around 60 in Wisdom which means removing 30. Moving those 30 between Intelligence and Charisma would give you around 30 each. Those saving throws would still be awful choices to invest in compare to Wisdom and those abilities would still not be worth picking for most characters. Con would still have 168, Str 78, Dex 117.

It's very difficult to balance this system out without a revamp like I proposed above.

[Mandragola]

I tried this system before my revamp. I would suggest you try going through my spreadsheet of every saving throw in the game and trying to reallocate them. Saving Throws Fix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1827749822).
In my experience you'll struggle to find balance even after moving several to Intelligence and Charisma. To arrive at a better balance you'd have to have around 60 in Wisdom which means removing 30. Moving those 30 between Intelligence and Charisma would give you around 30 each. Those saving throws would still be awful choices to invest in compare to Wisdom and those abilities would still not be worth picking for most characters. Con would still have 168, Str 78, Dex 117.

It's very difficult to balance this system out without a revamp like I proposed above.

I do quite like your revamp. It accomplishes a lot of the same things I'm trying to do. It's nice to see that other people are interested in the same kind of issue.

I had a look at your spreadsheet. Of the stuff in the wisdom tab, 54/93 abilities caused either the frightened or charmed condition. So all of those would become charisma saves. I'm not sure how many are illusions.

I'm not actually trying to create a system where all the attributes have the same number of saves attached. My objective is to improve charisma and intelligence and reduce the importance of dex and wisdom. Saves are one of the things I'm looking at, but not the only one.

I actually think it's fine to have more saves on one attribute than another, so long as that gets balanced out elsewhere. So I'm not too concerned about constitution having a lot of really important saves. It's not like the other attributes as no skills and hardly any actions in combat key off it.

And as you've pointed out, strength is important for doing maximum melee damage, and also opposed rolls to not be pushed and stuff, so it's not too big a deal if it doesn't involve many saves. I think the balance between being a hard-hitting strength-based character and a quick, stealthy, flexible (can use bows) dextrous character feels about right.

The thing that doesn't feel quite right is wisdom-based casters being more courageous and perceptive than anyone else. It's not that I don't think any druids and clerics should be brave, but I don't honestly think they should be brave by default. Maybe clerics and druids should actually cast based on different stats in my system. Perhaps clerics should use charisma, so they'd be brave and good at talking, which seems logical for a person whose career involves preaching. Druids should continue to use wisdom, so they'd be good at survival and perception, but not necessarily be all that courageous.

[BW022]

What do people think - does anyone agree that there's even a problem here, and how do you feel about these proposed solutions?

You appear to be basing the importance attributes based on how common you think a skill used.

First, nothing says that attributes need to be tied directly to skill usefulness. They are also tied to attacks, saves, and other abilities.

Second, nothing says that how often something is used determines its importance. There is also how much of an impact the skill has if you succeed and fail and how easy it is to get around.

a) I would say that identifying a spell or creature, and the persuasion are far more powerful than most skills which are used more frequently (with the exception of say stealth in certain cases). If you can persuade a group of bandits to attack another group, deception the pirates into thinking you are the one who hired them to kidnap the princess, etc. ... these is far better than any mere combat aids. Likewise the effects of not knowing that you are fighting something immune to certain attacks could mean painful round after round vs. knowing exactly what to use against it.

b) It is harder on the knowledge and diplomatic skills to get around them with mundane or magical means. If you don't know that a werewolf needs silver... there is no spell or typical mundane way of figuring it out. With stealth... invisibility. With locks... bust the door down. Perception, get a familiar.

Third, these are all heavily campaign dependant. Yes... most store-bought adventurers are generic. They aren't heavily setting dependant and they are typically written so the above isn't an issue.

Forth, dexterity and wisdom characters are more common. Many parties have multiple stealth characters, many folks with perception, etc. If you have some intelligence and knowledge skills... chances are your character is going to be 100% the guy for those skills and get 100% of the credit.

[MaxWilson]

My proposed solution to this is to use intelligence for initiative, rather than dexterity, or possibly in addition to it (adding both your int and dex mod to a D20). Quicker-thinking people are quicker-acting people, and will run rings around dumb brutes. So someone like a high-elf bladesinger or a clever rogue would tend to act extremely quickly, while a paladin with 8s for dex and int would occasionally get an initiative of -1. An archer without a particularly high int or an eldritch knight without much dex would be somewhere in the middle. *snip*

What do people think - does anyone agree that there's even a problem here, and how do you feel about these proposed solutions?

I've spent the past two years running a related but different houserule (sort of based on AD&D-style/5E DMG Speed Factor Initiative): at the beginning of a round, everyone declares actions in order of lowest Int to highest; then everyone resolves actions in order of init (based on Dexterity as usual; also you can just roll init when needed, because 80% of the time it doesn't matter whether I missed you before you hit me. This saves a lot of dice-rolling and speeds up play). There are a few more wrinkles that I've outlined in other posts on this forum.

One side effect of this system is that high Int is quite valuable to players who want to execute complex strategies, but if your plan is to just say "I attack it with my axe!" every turn, you can get by on a low Int. Judging by my players' behavior, I'd say that Int is probably the stat they favor most after their prime attack stat (Str/Dex/whatever). I've seen a Shadow Monk/Druid multiclass PC who buy 14th level had raised his Int from 9 to 12 via ASIs. I bet you'll never see that under basic (PHB cyclic) initiative rules.

[Mandragola]

You appear to be basing the importance attributes based on how common you think a skill used.

First, nothing says that attributes need to be tied directly to skill usefulness. They are also tied to attacks, saves, and other abilities.

Second, nothing says that how often something is used determines its importance. There is also how much of an impact the skill has if you succeed and fail and how easy it is to get around.

This is not at all true about what I've written in any of the posts. I talked about skills, saves and actions in combat. My complaint is that the stats are not equally important overall. Int and cha are too easy to dump and dex and wis are too important.

There are plenty of intelligence and charisma skills, all of which are useful - albeit probably not as useful as stealth and perception when you're in a combat situation. If I only cared about skills I wouldn't have written any of this.

You might sometimes be able to persuade Monsters A to attack Monsters B. More often, Monsters A are hiding in ambush and you'll wish you had a good perception score rather than a good persuasion score.


I've spent the past two years running a related but different houserule (sort of based on AD&D-style/5E DMG Speed Factor Initiative): at the beginning of a round, everyone declares actions in order of lowest Int to highest; then everyone resolves actions in order of init (based on Dexterity as usual; also you can just roll init when needed, because 80% of the time it doesn't matter whether I missed you before you hit me. This saves a lot of dice-rolling and speeds up play). There are a few more wrinkles that I've outlined in other posts on this forum.

This is very interesting. I like how it gives intelligent characters the advantage. Are actions openly declared, or written down, and how do you handle it if the big stupid fighter was going to attack something that isn't there any more by the time his turn comes around?

[ad_hoc]

Wisdom isn't that important. Like Charisma, only one person in the party needs it. Where it is better than Charisma are the saving throws.

Likewise Intelligence checks are also important, but it is lacking in saving throws.

If you want to make any tweaks I think the easiest and most effective would be to change some saving throws.

[MaxWilson]

This is very interesting. I like how it gives intelligent characters the advantage. Are actions openly declared, or written down, and how do you handle it if the big stupid fighter was going to attack something that isn't there any more by the time his turn comes around?

Actions are declared openly, which represents faster thinkers having a shorter OODA loop. There are some exceptions (feinting or other Deception contests; or creatures that are hidden from you at the time they declare their actions) but for the most part, the big stupid purple worm is going to be even more obvious than the big stupid barbarian/fighter, but the cunning drow will be able to predict the fighter's actions... unless he gets blindsided by the brainy mage.

All of the above is contingent on initiative, of course. Doesn't do you much good to realize that the purple worm is about to munch you unless you are fast enough with your Dimension Door/Misty Step/etc. to actually get out of the way. The exception is that some actions (like Dodge) constitute activities which last all round and not things that happen at a given point in time; so the big stupid fighter always can declare a Dodge regardless of initiative and try to make himself a slightly less easy meal while everyone else hammers it.

RE: "what if the action is invalid when initiative comes around?" in that case, your action does nothing. Generally not an issue for PCs because they quickly learn to declare something slightly more sophisticated, like "I attack the masses" (player-speak for "I attack whatever is closest") or "I attack the orc or whatever is still standing when my turn comes". Key factor there is just that you have to declare your attack in enough detail for the DM to resolve it without further input. That's your OODA loop right there. In principle a player could abuse the privilege by declaring a ridiculously complicated action, but no one has.

So in practice, invalid actions are more likely to be taken by monsters, such as "the Giant Spider is attacking you!"/"I Dash out of range first!" If the PC wins initiative, the spider's attack is irrelevant--it wasn't fast enough to achieve its goal.

[EvilAnagram]

I think it's difficult to argue that any one skill is too important not to be dumped. I've had several tanks who wore heavy armor and dumped Dex, and while they lacked stealth and didn't save as often against some spell types, they ultimately performed extremely well, and with their beefy HP and means of HP recovery, they didn't particularly need to save as often.

Likewise, I often dump Wis when I make a sorcerer or warlock for RP reasons, and what that typically means is that I'm not the one in the party making perception checks. It's not really necessary for me to excel at all three major saves.

[Xetheral]

Much to my surprise, the most common skill roll at my table has been Investigation. The PCs in my group spend a ton of their in-town time hunting for things (information, specialists, rumors, items, etc) and their out-in-the-field time trying to make deductions (e.g. deciphering scraps of information from decayed maps*). None of these are checks I planned for--they've all been player-driven.

The in-the-field checks tend to be made by the experts, but the party splits up in town (due to divergent priorities and interests) so I'd say at least a third of the investigation checks have been made by non-proficient characters with low int. Every PC has ended up rolling investgation repeatedly over the course of the campaign.

Persuasion and deception checks have also been much more well-distributed anong the party than I originally expected, both because of the aforementioned party-splitting, but also because the PCs' priorities and styles are different enough that in social situations they often leave each other to sink or swim on their own. This is particularly true with deception--half the party has a very casual relationship with the truth, and only some of them are any good at lying. Actually, now that I think about it, *most* of the deception checks are probably rolled by low-skill/low-charisma characters... when the bard wants to manipulate the truth he tends to skip straight to suggestion.

Weirdly, perception simply hasn't come up that much, and when it has it's usually been in group settings where only the highest checks end up mattering. (I should make a mental note to include more stealthy enemies.)

I suspect a *lot* of the unexpected patterns at my table are due to my idiosyncratic players and the style of game they enjoy, rather than anything relating to the system itself. But whatever the reason, I've been pleasantly surprised that intelligence and charisma have held their own.

*Figures that back when Decipher Script was its own skill in 3.5 it almost never came up in my games, but in my 5e campaign the players have used Investigation in that role repeatedly.

[WereRabbitz]

I never was a fan of the Primary and Second Saves system.

Gives Dex, Wis, Con too much emphasis.

I would love to see more of a pairing though.

Will: Average of Will & Int
Reflex: Average of Str & Dex
Fort: Average of Con & Cha

This would give everyone mediocre saves and would make people better consider dump stats as well.

I'm a Cleric I can dump off INT in at 8 right? well you can, but we would hope that clerics while being wise would also be a little intelligent, so maybe that INT 8 isn't so great anymore. This would makes bonuses like the Paladin's Aura, or Bless a bigger advantage and keep someone from having a ridiculous score to one save or another.

[R.Shackleford]

I have to second this system. It's very well designed with a lot of math and research behind it.

My groups used a simular system for a while, loved it, and then went to the combining of Str a d Dex into reflex.

Works wonders.

Between this and SpawnofMorbo's no ability score system (I use as a skill System for my Final Fantasy 5e Hack system) I think the use of ability scores isn't really all that needed except for the sacred cow issue.

[krunchyfrogg]

Why cvhange what is already the best edition of DND to come out yet?

[R.Shackleford]

Why cvhange what is already the best edition of DND to come out yet?

Just because you think something is the "best thing to come out" doesn't mean that there isn't problems or issues with it.

Each year we get a "best car ever" and yet we keep making new cars and improving upon the old ones. Would you really want to be driving a model T still?

Also, while I would put core 5e up there, it isn't the best.

Tier (3) 3.5 and 4e (minus Essentials) are still better games as they feel more complete. I love 5e, I just wish it felt more like a finished product and not just half way attempt of combining Essentials with a 3e coat of paint.

[krunchyfrogg]

Just because you think something is the "best thing to come out" doesn't mean that there isn't problems or issues with it.

Each year we get a "best car ever" and yet we keep making new cars and improving upon the old ones. Would you really want to be driving a model T still?

Also, while I would put core 5e up there, it isn't the best.

Tier (3) 3.5 and 4e (minus Essentials) are still better games as they feel more complete. I love 5e, I just wish it felt more like a finished product and not just half way attempt of combining Essentials with a 3e coat of paint.

We get it, you're not a big fan of 5e.

It's already been pointed out on here by others.


I'm just of the opinion, and I'm not alone, that this is the best version of DND ever released and there isn't a need to mix it up.

Take a peek at the "is there any real cheese" thread for proof.

This game has been playtested for hours upon hours by guys who know more about the game than we do. its pretty damn balanced, and its pretty damn good.

[R.Shackleford]

We get it, you're not a big fan of 5e.

It's already been pointed out on here by others.


I'm just of the opinion, and I'm not alone, that this is the best version of DND ever released and there isn't a need to mix it up.

Take a peek at the "is there any real cheese" thread for proof.

This game has been playtested for hours upon hours by guys who know more about the game than we do. its pretty damn balanced, and its pretty damn good.

Way to ignore the issue?

You are saying that we shouldn't improved upon something just because you think its the greatest edition. However, if we use that mentality it would be like not improving upon the model T, things can always be improved upon.

Also, I love 5e, it isn't my favorite and there are some glaring issues with it but that doesn't mean I'm not a big fan of it.

People, like you and many others, seem to think that just because you don't like something 100000000% then you must hate it with all your heart or just want to crap on it. This isn't the way reality works. Just because you see something and want to fix it, such as how martials are treated like crap, doesn't mean you aren't a fan of the game.

I absolutely love casters, the issue is that no one really talks about the problems with casters, because casters are pretty fricken spot on (almost). People tend to focus on where the game is bad, such as the martial issue of "I move and hit". Just because I take issue with the 3.5 (non-tier 3) and 4e-Essentials ideology of martials doesn't mean I'm not a fan of 5e.

So you, and anyone else, that wants to speak for me can just get off your high horse and speak for yourself and not others.

[Tanarii]

I generally find Int to be a very important stat. Unless you're in a combat no-brainer campaign. Or if your DM is in love with railroads / failing forward / avoiding 'plot/story' blocking. Not figuring something out, or not knowing some vital piece of lore, can be disastrous. It can easily result in failing your mission / quest / adventure, or at the least making it significantly more difficult. And in a CaW games it's not unusual for it to result in character death or even TPK.

Cha can be very important in the same way, but more classes need Cha to use class features as opposed to skills, so you're more likely to have someone who wants to MAX it, not just go to 14 and consider that plus proficiency good enough for skills.

I think Int is highly undervalued by players & that many DMs avoid using it to it's proper potential, especially in official play / AL. But that while players are far too eager to actively dump the stat considering it's importance, I agree that there isn't a lot of incentive for any characters other than a Wizard, EK or AT to actively pump it beyond 14

Edit: Not that I think EKs, ATs or Wizards are particularly uncommon (sub)class choices.

[Tanarii]

Wisdom isn't that important. Like Charisma, only one person in the party needs it.You do know that every character makes Perception checks for surprise on an individual basis, right? That's the reason that Wisdom (Perception) is such a highly valued skill. It doesn't matter if your ally spots an enemy and avoids surprise. Your character still needs to spot at least one of the enemy personally to avoid being surprised.

[Mandragola]

Why cvhange what is already the best edition of DND to come out yet?

I also think this is the best edition yet, but no system is perfect. This is a frustration of mine and I wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way. If you don't, that's totally fine.

I don't think that the solutions presented here by Kryx, me or others would change the game on a fundamental level. It's tinkering at the edges really, looking for a bit more equivalence in stats.

[krunchyfrogg]

Way to ignore the issue?

You are saying that we shouldn't improved upon something just because you think its the greatest edition. However, if we use that mentality it would be like not improving upon the model T, things can always be improved upon.

Also, I love 5e, it isn't my favorite and there are some glaring issues with it but that doesn't mean I'm not a big fan of it.

People, like you and many others, seem to think that just because you don't like something 100000000% then you must hate it with all your heart or just want to crap on it. This isn't the way reality works. Just because you see something and want to fix it, such as how martials are treated like crap, doesn't mean you aren't a fan of the game.

I absolutely love casters, the issue is that no one really talks about the problems with casters, because casters are pretty fricken spot on (almost). People tend to focus on where the game is bad, such as the martial issue of "I move and hit". Just because I take issue with the 3.5 (non-tier 3) and 4e-Essentials ideology of martials doesn't mean I'm not a fan of 5e.

So you, and anyone else, that wants to speak for me can just get off your high horse and speak for yourself and not others.

Lol, dont get too worked up bruh.

[bardo]

By design, there are 3 major saves and 3 minor ones. Every class gets proficiency in one major and one minor. The minor ones are dump stats for any class not needing that stat for attacks or spells. STR gets dumped by everybody who isn't playing STR-based melee. CHA gets dumped by everybody who isn't playing a CHA-based caster. And INT gets dumped by everybody who isn't playing an INT-based caster.

As far as I can see, INT is in the same boat as STR and CHA. Granted, there's only one class for an INT-based caster (but what a class!) in contrast to the many classes for STR-based melee and CHA-based casters. Still, same boat.

I'm tempted to think that INT-shouldn't-be-a-dump-stat threads (which come up quite regularly) have more to do with players ego than with game mechanics. Maybe I've missed them, but I've never seen a STR-shouldn't-be-dump-stat or a CHA-shouldn't-be-a-dump-stat thread. Is it because we -as players- consider ourself to be intelligent and have trouble accepting our personal "primary stat" as a dump stat?

Bardo.

[JumboWheat01]

I'm tempted to think that INT-shouldn't-be-a-dump-stat threads (which come up quite regularly) have more to do with players ego than with game mechanics. Maybe I've missed them, but I've never seen a STR-shouldn't-be-dump-stat or a CHA-shouldn't-be-a-dump-stat thread. Is it because we -as players- consider ourself to be intelligent and have trouble accepting our personal "primary stat" as a dump stat?

Well we are all nerds and geeks here, INT is the main start for nerdom and geekhood, while STR and CHA tend to be lower from lack of exercise and social contact. It only makes sense. :smallamused:

I think the main problem with the INT stat is how the basic commoner has a 10 in everything. If you have less INT than a COMMONER, then you're dumb, man. A commoner has more knowledge than you! That's just insulting. Being weaker but more agile is one thing, socially awkward but powerful in a fight is another. But when a sit-at-home do-nothing commoner has more smarts than you...

Another problem with INT is it actually doesn't even matter for the classes that have INT as a stat requirement! You could totally make a Wizard with 8 INT, and get away with it too! You'd focus more on support spells rather than things like control or damage, but you could do it just fine. When a class that's designed to be as smart as a book can be "dumb as a brick," then there's something wrong with the stat.

[Tanarii]

As far as I can see, INT is in the same boat as STR and CHA. Granted, there's only one class for an INT-based caster (but what a class!) in contrast to the many classes for STR-based melee and CHA-based casters. Still, same boat.Ste dumps bother me more. I generally find its easier to avoid individual Str checks for characters than it is individual Int checks, but clearly everyone else's mileage varies, given how often people bitch about Int not being useful.

But to be fair (even though I'm a big defender of Int), I do understand why people feel this way, if they're just looking at classes that need non-good save stats as primary. There's 1 full caster class and 2 1/3 caster sub-classes that use Int directly (for spells). And even though IMO it's sub-par, people love to build those sub-classes as no attack/save spells and dump Int anyway.

Meanwhile there are 3 full caster and one 1/2 caster classes (1/3 of total classes in the game) that are Cha dependent. And another Rogue sub-class that potentially depends heavily on it, assassin using deception. Depending on the type of campaign, although that may be niche enough to disregard.

Str, 2 classes standard need it, plus one its a 50/50 for being the primary, plus it's a decent build for several cleric domains, as well as two other subclasses (bladelock & valor bard).

So you're looking at 1-2/3 classes Int primary or secondary, 4 classes Cha primary or secondary, and like 4ish (2+1/2+4/7+1/3+1/2) total for Str. (Math for adding subclasses is suspect of course.)

[Feuerphoenix]

Saving throws are by far the biggest offender. I revamped saving throws to Fortitude/Reflex/Will (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkWNvU8TD) to handle that problem.

Beyond that Dex's benefits are often heavily outweighed.
AC
Strength actually wins here as a result of being able to purchase armor with no ability score investment is required, only small gold amounts. There is a penalty to stealth, but that's very minor. Dex can compete with the AC provided by armor with full ability score investment (+5) and a feat (TWF). That is a very high cost. Strength clearly wins here.

Ability Checks
If we compare the two and cross out duplicates (escape a grapple, overrun/tumble) we end up with the following:

Strength: Climb, Jump, Swim, Shove, grapple, break things, carrying capacity (or encumbrance)

Dexterity: Balance, stunts, Stealth, Sleight of Hand

Strength is slightly ahead of Dexterity in regards to ability checks.

Damage
Strength builds provide the highest damage possible. Dex builds fall behind by 5-25% or more in some cases.

Combat Utility
Dexterity provides ranged weapons at long ranges while thrown weapons are typically 20/60 feet.

Other Benefits
Initiative is clearly in favor of Dexterity and is the only factor that really pushes it even with Strength overall.

Summary
Strength and Dexterity are really even besides saving throws. And there is no adjustment needed.


I do agree that Charisma and Intelligence have some room to grow, but that mainly comes down to their skills being party skills that only 1 person needs. I would try to emphasize those skills more than anything.
I do also agree that senses being on the same ability as willpower makes no sense, but that's the sacred cow.


you missed out one extremely important point towards dexterity: you may evade damage from spells and traps. Almost no spell contests strength to half damage, and usually so don't traps. In a very normal fighting situation, I think a sex and a str. fighter are both on par. But when it comes to magic...

[MaxWilson]

I'm tempted to think that INT-shouldn't-be-a-dump-stat threads (which come up quite regularly) have more to do with players ego than with game mechanics. Maybe I've missed them, but I've never seen a STR-shouldn't-be-dump-stat or a CHA-shouldn't-be-a-dump-stat thread. Is it because we -as players- consider ourself to be intelligent and have trouble accepting our personal "primary stat" as a dump stat?

It's at least partly because it sets up a roleplaying dissonance. It's not just that it causes self-esteem issues or whatever you're suggesting; it's that it's hard to relate to someone vastly less (or more) intelligent than one's self. It makes roleplaying actively unpleasant, and especially if you're looking at a point-buy scenario, it means you have to make the choice between having a mechanically powerful character or one who is actually fun to roleplay, or "cheating" and giving him low Int but finding an excuse to not roleplay it, like telling yourself that Int just represents "book-learning". But if you actually go all the way and roleplay someone whose thoughts you can't understand*, it will often mess up your fun, unless you're roleplaying in a slightly detached fashion.

-Max

* Think of the worst, most idiotic player you've ever met. Now you have to play like he does. 9th level Chromatic Orb is obviously a bad idea--to you. But not to him, and not to your new PC. Oh, you're fighting a Medusa? A smart PC might do something like drawing her out into the open and killing her with ranged weapons from beyond stoning range while dropping prone between turns to protect against her ranged counterattacks. Another smart PC might do something like run up and tackle (grapple/prone) her with his eyes closed so that everyone can beat on her without disadvantage despite closing their own eyes. A dumb PC will just attack her and pray for lucky dice. Now you have to play the dumb PC, and you have to roleplay not realizing that you're being dumb. You have to criticize the smart PCs for making things "too complicated" when they do things the smart way.

It's really hard to pretend not to have ideas that are obvious to you, or to have obviously bad ideas. Boot camp story: my company's NCOs wanted to get all 120 recruits in alphabetical order to go through some processing station or something. How would you do it? You'd probably just tell everyone to get in alphabetical order, right? "Line up, A's here and Z's here. If the guy in front of you has a name that comes after you in the alphabet, get ahead of him." Give people a minute to shuffle themselves out, then do a quick check and fix anyone who is wrong. It would hopefully never occur to you to print out an alphabetized spreadsheet of all the recruits in the company, call everybody out in formation, and then call the names one by one ("Bueller? Bueller?") until the idiot recruits heard their name from across the courtyard, and jogged up to be the next one in line. It took an hour. You would never think to do it that way because it's idiotic. It is hard to roleplay an idiot without being one.

[Tanarii]

Take Investigation, which is all deductive thinking Int checks, and you're equivalent to Int 12 for anything that's not a rote learning / memorization check. At level 1. Int 20 equivalent at level 17. RP problem solved.

Edit: also, IMX RL Intelligence has almost nothing to do with making good decisions.

OTOH 5e D&D-type Intelligence, which represent lore as well and inherent intelligence, could make a difference. If only because lack of having learned something can easily result in character death. But that doesn't need to be RP'd. Ability and skill checks will do that for the player just fine in the course of game play.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: also, IMX RL Intelligence has almost nothing to do with making good decisions.

Dunning-Kruger.

If you can't recognize what makes a good decision good and a bad decision bad, you can't make good decisions. Dunning-Kruger doesn't apply to all fields of endeavor, but it applies to automobile driving, English grammar--and yes, D&D tactics.

The ability to follow through on good decisions ("I know I shouldn't, but I want to...") is a function of willpower among other things, and Wisdom is an appropriate way to model it in D&D. But it's a lot easier to roleplay someone doing something he knows is stupid (eating Miss Trunchbull's private cake; running away from a scary monster even though it's faster than you) than someone who doesn't even realize that the stupid thing is stupid, or that there is a non-stupid thing you could do that will save your life (dropping caltrops to slow down the monster; spiking a door closed; hiding).


OTOH 5e D&D-type Intelligence, which represent lore as well and inherent intelligence, could make a difference. If only because lack of having learned something can easily result in character death. But that doesn't need to be RP'd.

This is exactly what I meant by "finding an excuse not to roleplay it." This approach is illegimate, in my opinion. It would be more honest to just take Intelligence out of the game. But I don't have to play at your table, so whatever.

[Tanarii]

Dunning-Kruger.

If you can't recognize what makes a good decision good and a bad decision bad, you can't make good decisions. Dunning-Kruger doesn't apply to all fields of endeavor, but it applies to automobile driving, English grammar--and yes, D&D tactics.

Well yes that's my point. Most people that are smart, believe that they make good decisions, or would make better decisions, due to being smart. When in reality their decisions are or would be just as bad, and they just can't see it.

For example, you seem to honestly believe that letting 120 kids try and sort themselves out alphabetically would have taken less than an hour instead of being a complete **** show.

Edit: to be clear, that's not supposed to be an insult. I've been in high school. So I saw what you're saying was the superior solution four years running at graduation. It's not. You managed to give the perfect example of what I'm talking about.

[mgshamster]

Well yes that's my point. Most people that are smart, believe that they make good decisions, or would make better decisions, due to being smart. When in reality their decisions are or would be just as bad, and they just can't see it.

For example, you seem to honestly believe that letting 120 kids try and sort themselves out alphabetically would have taken less than an hour instead of being a complete **** show.

Kids? Since when were 18-36 year olds "kids" and unable to do a task that middle schoolers can accomplish?

[MaxWilson]

Kids? Since when were 18-36 year olds "kids" and unable to do a task that middle schoolers can accomplish?

And the middle-schoolers don't even have the advantage of having their names written on the backs of their hats and the fronts of their uniforms, so the task is actually harder for them! (And harder for the teachers/NCOs to check, too.)

[Kryx]

you missed out one extremely important point towards dexterity: you may evade damage from spells and traps. Almost no spell contests strength to half damage, and usually so don't traps. In a very normal fighting situation, I think a sex and a str. fighter are both on par. But when it comes to magic...
Allowing half is a weakness of dexterity, not a strength. That means even if you have a strong dex save you'll take half unless you have evasion. Strength on the other hand doesn't have half damage as commonly.

For saves it really comes down to distribution for the value to PCs and for chance to save for NPCs which determines which are the best choices for PC spells.

Both of those issues are addressed in my rework of combining into fort, ref, will.

[Tanarii]

Kids? Since when were 18-36 year olds "kids" and unable to do a task that middle schoolers can accomplish?
I was referring to high schoolers. 16-18 year olds. Ie basically the same age as people in the typical military unit, who are usually about 18-22.

Edit: so yeah, I consider the average military person a kid. Ie not yet 30. :smallwink: :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

[Feuerphoenix]

Allowing half is a weakness of dexterity, not a strength. That means even if you have a strong dex save you'll take half unless you have evasion. Strength on the other hand doesn't have half damage as commonly.

For saves it really comes down to distribution for the value to PCs and for chance to save for NPCs which determines which are the best choices for PC spells.

Both of those issues are addressed in my rework of combining into fort, ref, will.


I think that is wrong. Although it only halfens the damage. But actually altthough strength is higher in "damage reduction" terms, but on average spells which require appear much much more often. And considering that you have "resistance to spells" up to a certain degree for ASIing DEX vs. ASIing STR this is definetly a festure and not a weakness!

[Kryx]

I think that is wrong. Although it only halfens the damage. But actually altthough strength is higher in "damage reduction" terms, but on average spells which require appear much much more often. And considering that you have "resistance to spells" up to a certain degree for ASIing DEX vs. ASIing STR this is definetly a festure and not a weakness!
I have always claimed that there are more occurances of Dex saving throws and have even provided the numbers to back it up. See Saving Throws Fix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=0) or homebrew version of the reasons for my houserules and my houserules: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkWNvU8TD

Strength has 80 saving throws. Of those 5/13 allow for half damage on a save
Dexterity has 119 saving throws. of those 69/89 allow for half damage on a save

I was refuting your claim above:

you missed out one extremely important point towards dexterity: you may evade damage from spells and traps. Almost no spell contests strength to half damage, and usually so don't traps.
Strength abilities do allow for half, in nearly the same proportion that dex do. But Strength damage abilities are few and far between.

Secondly, your claim that allowing for half on a saving throw strengthens the saving throw is a bit mind boggling.

If I invest in my Dexterity saving throw the results are either half damage or full damage from spells and enemy abilities.
if I invest in my Strength saving throw the results are either no damage or full damage from spells and enemy abilities.

Of course I'll want to take no damage instead of half! Though as pointed out above that's less of a topic to the overall discussion as Strength saving throws are largely light CC abilities (trip, push, prone, etc).

Math wise if that helps: Assume I have a 55% chance to succeed on a save. Enemy attack does 50 damage.
Save or half: .55*25 + .45*50 = 35
Save or none: .55*0 + .45*50 = 22.5

[Feuerphoenix]

I Can Not rebember any spell which makes use of an Strength saving throw to prevent damage in any way. The only strength SV I Know on a spell is for ensnaring strike. For dexterity any AOE is the right adress, Even for some Single target ones. Maybe strength helps against enviroment SVs, But also These a dex ones also. For me this makes dex somewhat better over strength.

[Kryx]

I Can Not rebember any spell which makes use of an Strength saving throw to prevent damage in any way. The only strength SV I Know on a spell is for ensnaring strike.
I have provided a full list for your viewing pleasure. I can gather data, but can't force you to read it. Please click the link. Here it is again: Strength saving throws (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=0).

Arms of Hadar, Dust Devil, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp, Tsunami, and Wind Wall all allow for save for half.

[Specter]

About INT, another one I thought of:

Anyone with 8 INT or less is illiterate, a la Barbarian in 3.5. If they wanna be stupid, then they're stupid.

[TrinculoLives]

Saving throws are by far the biggest offender. I revamped saving throws to Fortitude/Reflex/Will (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkWNvU8TD) to handle that problem.

Beyond that Dex's benefits are often heavily outweighed.
AC
Strength actually wins here as a result of being able to purchase armor with no ability score investment is required, only small gold amounts. There is a penalty to stealth, but that's very minor. Dex can compete with the AC provided by armor with full ability score investment (+5) and a feat (TWF). That is a very high cost. Strength clearly wins here.

Ability Checks
If we compare the two and cross out duplicates (escape a grapple, overrun/tumble) we end up with the following:

Strength: Climb, Jump, Swim, Shove, grapple, break things, carrying capacity (or encumbrance)

Dexterity: Balance, stunts, Stealth, Sleight of Hand

Strength is slightly ahead of Dexterity in regards to ability checks.

Damage
Strength builds provide the highest damage possible. Dex builds fall behind by 5-25% or more in some cases.

Combat Utility
Dexterity provides ranged weapons at long ranges while thrown weapons are typically 20/60 feet.

Other Benefits
Initiative is clearly in favor of Dexterity and is the only factor that really pushes it even with Strength overall.

Summary
Strength and Dexterity are really even besides saving throws. And there is no adjustment needed.


I do agree that Charisma and Intelligence have some room to grow, but that mainly comes down to their skills being party skills that only 1 person needs. I would try to emphasize those skills more than anything.
I do also agree that senses being on the same ability as willpower makes no sense, but that's the sacred cow.

I like the idea of the saving throw revamp you've linked, but I don't like how it averages out saves across the ability scores. Having a high Charisma save but a low Intelligence save, for example, is something that I find interesting. So it's good that Intelligence saves can affect more than just 2% of all saving throws with your system, but I still feel like I'm losing some ability to customize and set characters apart.

[Kryx]

I like the idea of the saving throw revamp you've linked, but I don't like how it averages out saves across the ability scores. Having a high Charisma save but a low Intelligence save, for example, is something that I find interesting. So it's good that Intelligence saves can affect more than just 2% of all saving throws with your system, but I still feel like I'm losing some ability to customize and set characters apart.
This is getting into the philosophy of design, but choices only matter when they are actual viable options. As it stands there is very little choice to be made as certain saves are grossly inferior.
Those choices may be flavorful (a bit questionable), but mechanically are trap options.

[Tanarii]

About INT, another one I thought of:

Anyone with 8 INT or less is illiterate, a la Barbarian in 3.5. If they wanna be stupid, then they're stupid.
Int 8 isn't that stupid. It's one standard deviation below the average (edit: of 3d6). That's about the equivalent of IQ 85. Realistically you probably need a 4 or 5 (about IQ 70) before you're going to start running into illiteracy due to inability to learn. Or given 5e Intelligence represents actual learning, not just ability, never having had the opportunity to learn. (Campaign standards on literacy not withstanding, obviously.)

Conversely IQ 115 (one standard deviation about, or probably about where most of people who play D&D sit) is IQ 13. Or for the really smart folks we all know, IQ 130 would be a 16 or 17. Again though, 5e Intelligence represents actually having learned, not just ability to learn, so YMMV.