A melee weapon attack using str is a str check right?

[Sir cryosin]

So I was looking it up in the phb p175 str check and attacks were there so is that right?

[Puh Laden]

No. Attacks, ability checks, and saving throws are all different.

[Specter]

No. Attacks, ability checks, and saving throws are all different.

Yep. Bull's Strenght would be the most OP 2nd level apell otherwise.

[Sir cryosin]

That's what I thought but was confused because they were with the street check stuff.

[joaber]

Break chains is a non athletic str check.

[Tanarii]

The section starting on p175 is titled 'Using Each Ability'. first it tells you how to make Str ability checks on 175 and which skills apply bonuses. Then so it's telling you on 176 that Str is used for attack rolls and damage rolls. By your logic, determining encumbrance is a Str check. ;)

I agree it's somewhat confusing.

[Rysto]

Yep. Bull's Strenght would be the most OP 2nd level apell otherwise.

Enlarge would be worse. Attack with advantage and get +1d4 to the damage.

[Foxhound438]

Yep. Bull's Strenght would be the most OP 2nd level apell otherwise.

by that standard, reckless attack would be even more overpowered

[Tanarii]

by that standard, reckless attack would be even more overpowered
Is that even possible? :smallyuk:

[Deleted]

So I was looking it up in the phb p175 str check and attacks were there so is that right?

By the rules? No.

By logic? Yes.

Everything is an ability check and they should have just simplified the game instead of keeping it clunky.

Attacks, Saves, and Ability Checks are all the same dang thing, just not for *reasons*.

[Foxhound438]

By the rules? No.

By logic? Yes.

Everything is an ability check and they should have just simplified the game instead of keeping it clunky.

Attacks, Saves, and Ability Checks are all the same dang thing, just not for *reasons*.

those reasons being that you want to be able to modify some of those rolls without having to modify all of them, as with proficiency- you don't need proficiency in all of the wisdom skills to have proficiency in the save, etc.

[Deleted]

those reasons being that you want to be able to modify some of those rolls without having to modify all of them, as with proficiency- you don't need proficiency in all of the wisdom skills to have proficiency in the save, etc.

Which adds complicated issues that don't need to be there.

5e's lip service to simplistic style only goes so far.

Center everything off rolling a d20 (check), off weapons, and off spells. This means that you take an entire step out of the equation, making it more simple, yet you still can balance things. Get rid of fiddly bonuses based around magic!

Magic Weapon can be based around Str or Dex checks when using weapons.

Take Enhance Ability for a second. As the core version of the spell, it makes less than zero sense. The spell somehow knows the difference between Shove (Prone) and an Unarmed Strike? What is that about? I like having internal consistency you know. Having it give advantage on attacks make the spell worth grabbing. Having it affect saves make it worth grabbing.

I like some gameist things, but only when they work with the setting itself. I love me some 3e and 4e which are both insanely gameist games (Diablo and WoW comparisons get thrown around a lot).

Make everything a check and then simplify the other issues. Instead of having a bazillon types of attacks (melee, unarmed, weapon, spell, light, finesse, heavy weapon, etc..) just base things around weapon attack and weapon damage. Melee and ranged weapons can already do stupid numbers when it comes to damage, basing Smite off *weapon* damage isn't going to hurt anything. Actually, people have been clamoring for a ranged smiter for a while.

But then again, simplicity is most lip service in 5e. Yeah it's more simple than 3e and is a refined version of 4e (many of the same areas were simplified going from 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e) but it is not really a simple system. I mean, look at how many people think Invisibility = Free Hide Action :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which adds complicated issues that don't need to be there.

5e's lip service to simplistic style only goes so far.

Center everything off rolling a d20 (check), off weapons, and off spells. This means that you take an entire step out of the equation, making it more simple, yet you still can balance things. Get rid of fiddly bonuses based around magic!

Magic Weapon can be based around Str or Dex checks when using weapons.

Take Enhance Ability for a second. As the core version of the spell, it makes less than zero sense. The spell somehow knows the difference between Shove (Prone) and an Unarmed Strike? What is that about? I like having internal consistency you know. Having it give advantage on attacks make the spell worth grabbing. Having it affect saves make it worth grabbing.

I like some gameist things, but only when they work with the setting itself. I love me some 3e and 4e which are both insanely gameist games (Diablo and WoW comparisons get thrown around a lot).

Make everything a check and then simplify the other issues. Instead of having a bazillon types of attacks (melee, unarmed, weapon, spell, light, finesse, heavy weapon, etc..) just base things around weapon attack and weapon damage. Melee and ranged weapons can already do stupid numbers when it comes to damage, basing Smite off *weapon* damage isn't going to hurt anything. Actually, people have been clamoring for a ranged smiter for a while.

But then again, simplicity is most lip service in 5e. Yeah it's more simple than 3e and is a refined version of 4e (many of the same areas were simplified going from 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e) but it is not really a simple system. I mean, look at how many people think Invisibility = Free Hide Action :smalltongue:

If you do that, you'll end up with the same problem that 4e had (except worse): it's not what people think of as D&D. Simplicity is a design goal, not the overriding design goal. There were many goals that overlapped, intersected, and had to fight for priority. That's not to say there aren't fiddly bits that could be smoothed out. I just don't think this is one of them.

Checks, Saves, and Attacks represent different things (mostly). There are edge cases, but mostly they represent:

Attacks: causing someone bodily harm by hitting them with something. This could be a projectile (spell or physical) or a weapon. Aim matters--better aim (roll + modifiers) increases the chance of doing damage, but not the damage done.
Saves: Resisting/avoiding damage or harmful effects where aim isn't important. This includes AoE spells, tripping, etc. Players do not initiate saving throws on their own. These are caused by something external/under the DM's control. These are binary--either you save or you don't. There are no degrees of success (under RAW).
Checks--trying to interact with the world in a way that is not an attack against something with AC (or casting a spell that causes a saving throw). At the DM's discretion these may have degrees of success--you know more as your Int check increases is a common one.


A few attack-like actions fall are checks instead of attacks because they're not about causing bodily harm (directly) and so they don't target AC but don't auto-hit (so they can't invoke a save). They have opposed checks instead of a flat DC.

[Arkhios]

By removing the concept of proficiency entirely the idea of "one roll to rule them all" could work for a drastically simplified game, if that's what you want. Let's call it "D&D for Simpletons!" /s

[noob]

Making everything based on weapon damage is weird.
Why would someone with a scythe be a better mason than someone with a dagger?
Or why would you create better undead because you have a +4 two handed sword instead of a plain staff?
Or why would you discover automatically who is bluffing to you because your weapon deals infinity damage?
I am 100% against applying rules based on diablo 3 and a bunch of mmorpgs(and who are not in any adventure games(which are rpgs)) in a game where you will probably do hack and slash/mmorpg stuff only 20% of the time and even then it will barely look like any videogame.
(mostly you will have the wizard and druid do paperwork about their countless things and then figure out if they prepared the spell or spell combo to use)

[Deleted]

If you do that, you'll end up with the same problem that 4e had (except worse): it's not what people think of as D&D. Simplicity is a design goal, not the overriding design goal. There were many goals that overlapped, intersected, and had to fight for priority. That's not to say there aren't fiddly bits that could be smoothed out. I just don't think this is one of them.

Checks, Saves, and Attacks represent different things (mostly). There are edge cases, but mostly they represent:

Attacks: causing someone bodily harm by hitting them with something. This could be a projectile (spell or physical) or a weapon. Aim matters--better aim (roll + modifiers) increases the chance of doing damage, but not the damage done.
Saves: Resisting/avoiding damage or harmful effects where aim isn't important. This includes AoE spells, tripping, etc. Players do not initiate saving throws on their own. These are caused by something external/under the DM's control. These are binary--either you save or you don't. There are no degrees of success (under RAW).
Checks--trying to interact with the world in a way that is not an attack against something with AC (or casting a spell that causes a saving throw). At the DM's discretion these may have degrees of success--you know more as your Int check increases is a common one.


A few attack-like actions fall are checks instead of attacks because they're not about causing bodily harm (directly) and so they don't target AC but don't auto-hit (so they can't invoke a save). They have opposed checks instead of a flat DC.

Attacks and Saves are the same thing, but backwards, it has been this way in 3e, 4e, and now 5e. The aiming system in D&D has been a joke for a long time (relying on Str and Dex and not Perception/Investigation + Physical Ability) but even working with what we have doesn't help you. Hits aren't always solid hits in D&D 5e (even with weapons). Hits can take away your luck, can be a solid hit, can be a glancing blow, or can just make you feel bad about yourself. When you hit AC, that doesn't mean you make contact. HP isn't all physical.

So saying that you need precision for attacks but not for saves is very wrong. You could fluff all your "hits" in 5e as near misses and still do 200 points of damage with your weapon attacks.

A Strength Check to resist a Shove from a creature or to resist a Spell... Is no different. You are doing exactly the same thing. Holding your ground and resisting a force.

Checks interact with the world around you? I'm sorry but so do attacks and saves.

There is no direct difference between an Attack, a Save, or a Check other than you want there to be one.

Raising your strength to be able to carry more should make you attack better. Giving you advantage on intelligence checks should make you better at int saves. All of these effects are targeting the basic function of a character yet they can pick and choose when to go off? I get if you target an item that this item gets better... But if you target a creature to make them wiser (Advantage Wisdom Checks), there is zero in game reason that wouldn't make them better at resisting a saving throw.

And combining these doesn't change a lot of things actually, just makes things simpler by removing fiddly crap that bogs down the game. Now you have 7 defenses and you add proficiency whenever your background/class/DM allows you to. You still make an attack, save, or check... But the bonuses and penalties apply across the board.

When you have a feature that improves an ability...

"You have advantage when using Strength"
"You ignore anything less than full cover when making a weapon attack"
"You have advantage when making an Intelligence check"

They are still in play, however new players aren't adding bonuses/penalties to the wrong or right stuff.

On a macro level nothing really changes, on the micro level things get a hell of a lot less complicated.



edit===

Proficiency doesn't get removed.

Everything isn't based on weapon or weapon damage. It's based on your ability score. Weapon attack and damage is just a minor part of it.

[Arkhios]

Proficiency doesn't get removed.


I didn't say your idea would do that, did I?

I meant that removing the whole idea of proficiency would make it a lot easier to use only one case of an ability check/roll/throw since there wouldn't be any artificial reason to think of them as different things.

But at the same time, I also believe that such a game would be boring, albeit easy enough for even the most simple players to understand the rules.

You want to attack? Roll 1d20 + Ability.
You want to use skill? Roll 1d20 + Ability.
You attempt to resist an effect? Roll 1d20 + Ability.

Simple, yes. Also, boring, since everyone would be equally capable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Attacks and Saves are the same thing, but backwards, it has been this way in 3e, 4e, and now 5e. The aiming system in D&D has been a joke for a long time (relying on Str and Dex and not Perception/Investigation + Physical Ability) but even working with what we have doesn't help you. Hits aren't always solid hits in D&D 5e (even with weapons). Hits can take away your luck, can be a solid hit, can be a glancing blow, or can just make you feel bad about yourself. When you hit AC, that doesn't mean you make contact. HP isn't all physical.

So saying that you need precision for attacks but not for saves is very wrong. You could fluff all your "hits" in 5e as near misses and still do 200 points of damage with your weapon attacks.

A Strength Check to resist a Shove from a creature or to resist a Spell... Is no different. You are doing exactly the same thing. Holding your ground and resisting a force.

Checks interact with the world around you? I'm sorry but so do attacks and saves.

There is no direct difference between an Attack, a Save, or a Check other than you want there to be one.

Raising your strength to be able to carry more should make you attack better. Giving you advantage on intelligence checks should make you better at int saves. All of these effects are targeting the basic function of a character yet they can pick and choose when to go off? I get if you target an item that this item gets better... But if you target a creature to make them wiser (Advantage Wisdom Checks), there is zero in game reason that wouldn't make them better at resisting a saving throw.

And combining these doesn't change a lot of things actually, just makes things simpler by removing fiddly crap that bogs down the game. Now you have 7 defenses and you add proficiency whenever your background/class/DM allows you to. You still make an attack, save, or check... But the bonuses and penalties apply across the board.

When you have a feature that improves an ability...

"You have advantage when using Strength"
"You ignore anything less than full cover when making a weapon attack"
"You have advantage when making an Intelligence check"

They are still in play, however new players aren't adding bonuses/penalties to the wrong or right stuff.

On a macro level nothing really changes, on the micro level things get a hell of a lot less complicated.



edit===

Proficiency doesn't get removed.

Everything isn't based on weapon or weapon damage. It's based on your ability score. Weapon attack and damage is just a minor part of it.

I'm not wedded to the current system, but I don't think yours gains much simplicity at the cost of significant granularity. I DM for new players almost exclusively (I think of all my 25 players across 3 groups, 4 have prior D&D experience, and 1 of those has 5e experience. Most are brand new to TTRPGs.). The modifier numbers are never the source of the problem. Not knowing what the heck their character is doing (because they don't pay attention, etc) is the problem. The numbers sit on the sheet and don't change much. Only every few levels (when ability scores or proficiency increase) do they really change.

In exchange, I can't have an effect that makes you more perceptive visually without also buffing their resistance to charm effects (as one counter example). I can come up with many many ideas for effects (ranging from glasses to augmented vision to augmented hearing) why increasing Wisdom (Perception) does not translate into increasing Wisdom (Save). Same goes for all your other examples. The muscles used for carrying things are not necessarily the same as those used to hit things, and sudden changes in physical stature can throw off trained reflexes something horrible (so magical effects that grant strength don't necessarily translate into increased accuracy).

90% of the time I can look at what they rolled and know if it's a hit/success or a miss/fail knowing roughly what their character is good at. Only about 10% of the time do I need to hear the modified number. That's because the modifiers are small in comparison to the d20 most of the time, and my targets aren't super high (very few 20+ DCs or ACs).

[CursedRhubarb]

If attacks = checks, then Hex would become a lot more interesting since getting hexed for Str or Dex would put quite a damper on martial classes. Would also be hilarious with a group of Warlocks to hex the BBEG on every stat 🤣

[Millstone85]

If attacks = checks, then Hex would become a lot more interesting since getting hexed for Str or Dex would put quite a damper on martial classes. Would also be hilarious with a group of Warlocks to hex the BBEG on every stat 🤣It would be nice if Hex worked on saves, though.

[Foxhound438]

It would be nice overpowered for a 1st level spell that offers no initial save if Hex worked on saves, though.

fixed that for you

[SharkForce]

there are different kinds of rolls because it is strong to have an increased ability to do some things that are tied to a certain stat, but increasing ability to other things with that stat would be broken as hell.

so you'd either have to get rid of all the interesting status effects in 5e that are gated by requiring a save or attack roll, or you need these things to be separate.

it isn't even that complex, and it is absolutely critical to making 5e feel like D&D in a way that 4e never did, so quite frankly... simple can kiss my hairy pink butt, in this case at least.