House-ruling 5e: Alternatives to Ability Increases and Healing

[Kupursk]

Howdy fellas,

I've followed 5th edition since its playtest era, and have read and re-read it a couple times after it came out, but never made the jump to the new edition, and thus far I have stuck with my own 2e-3e hybrid. Overall I do like a big part of 5e, but there are two main design choices that I REALLY don't like, and that put me off from ever switching to 5e. So I'm just curious if anyone ever came up with alternate house rules for those:

1) Ability Score Increases
I really don't like how ability scores seem to have become just a mechanical/numerical value on your character sheet, merely used to calculate bonuses, instead of a description of your character's physical and mental attributes. I still stick to the notion of attributes as a description of your character and find it very weird that a character can start as a scrawny, weak fella, and after a couple of adventures he's basically Schwarzenegger. Or else he can go from a total half-wit to Einstein.

Even when playing 3e I avoid the ability increases every 4 levels, sticking with just the initial values. But in 3e this doesn't affect the overall system all that much, as most of your check numbers come from elsewhere.

However... in 5e I don't think simply removing ability increases would work. The main reason is that these are intrinsically tied to the system's overall math. They're used to compensate the slow-progressing Proficiency Bonus (by higher levels you're sort of EXPECTED to have that +5 from ability modifier to your checks, at least on the stuff your class is supposed to be good at). And thus having lower ability scores could make characters considerably weaker, and fail a lot more checks.

So here's my question to you folks. Has any of you ever struggled with the same issue and came up with a good alternative to ability increases? Even if it involves some heavy house-ruling, I wouldn't mind as I like house-ruling anyway.

Note: The first thing that came to mind was giving and extra +1 to proficiency bonus in place of an ability increase, as each ability increase supposedly also serves to make a lot of stuff you're good at raise by +1 on their checks. But this would break the system's balance in some places, I think, as one could combo that with an initially high ability and reach check values beyond what the system expects.

Note2: I know feats are an alternative to ability increases, but many of those also increase an ability anyway, and I'm not sure 5e expects you to trade ALL your ability increases for feats, as at some point you'd probably be picking "whatever" random choice of feats that you're not really interested in anymore.

2) Excessive Healing
5e has a LOT of healing compared to older editions. Players can recover a lot of HP between battles and can go full-HP after each day's rest. I'd like to keep HP as a "resource" to be managed during the course of an adventure, or during the exploration of a dungeon. I find the 3e standard of recovering your Level in HP with every night's rest to be a sweet spot for my taste.

Now the 5e DMG does have some alternatives to healing, or I could simply use the 3e standard and ignore this new "hit dice as recovery" rule, and replace any recovery abilities with something else (except the classic spells and such).

But the problem I see is that enemies do a LOT more damage in 5e, to compensate for the fact that player's can recover HP so easily. Basically every fight has to be a more severe threat in terms of damage to be a challenge, whereas before even in an "easy" fight one would have to watch out for damage so as not to be lower in HP for the rest of the adventure. So the issue I see is that monsters ARE balanced taking the big amount of healing into account, and just removing this expected healing could severely hinder the players' progress.

So, has anyone ever tried some lower healing rules and how did it work out with the increased monster damage in 5e?

I suppose I could simply eyeball the damage of each creature and lower them a tad, but if anyone has come up with a more standardized alternative I'd love to hear it!

Appreciate any input you guys might have!

[Man_Over_Game]

On the damage/healing aspect of 5e, you may have witnessed the damage increase/healing problem be prominent at many tables who generally have singular fights, which are not balanced in the way 5e is designed. 5e is designed around consistent fights throughout the day, about 6 or so major encounters, with only a few of them being severely life threatening but all of them consuming resources.

However, lots of tables end up only having a 1-3 fights in a day, which causes the difficulty of the game to be reduced, and is often compensated not by adding smaller fights, but by increasing the threat level of the monsters.

There are really only two sources of healing that anyone ever cares about: Healing Word and Healing Spirit, and only Healing Spirit is used to heal someone to full HP.

The fact is, with Hit Dice, they can only refresh up to your maximum health once every two days (because you only refresh half of your Hit Die on a long rest).

This means that someone with 50 HP can only regenerate 25 HP per day (from Hit Die). Or, alternatively, the same character can take 50 damage in a single fight or 75 damage over the course of the entire day. If you're valuing someone's ability to fight based in just 1-2 battles, hit die can seem like a big deal, but most find it very lackluster. You'll find many more people claim that Healing Spirit is more easily abused than Hit Dice.

---------

TL;DR:
Implement multiple, easier fights throughout the day (at least 5), as the game was designed to be, and you'll notice Hit Die just increase sustainability, not survivability.

[tchntm43]

I had some similar concerns jumping straight from 2E to 5E. I have created a few house rules that produce a different experience that 5E RAW, but which also make for eliminating some of the problems I have found.

The effects of ability scores in 2E were much more specific and pronounced than in 5E. You're definitely right about that. In 2E, your intelligence literally determined how many languages you could know, or your chance for spell failure (something they got rid of). Your Wisdom determined how many spells you could start the game with.

I'm actually okay with the changes. I recall doing anything related to ability scores in 2E was a constant nuisance of having to check the relevant table in the PH. I mean, they had a separate table for "Bend Bars / Lift Gates". Now it's just determine the DC and make an appropriate strength check. It's much easier.

I'm completely with you on the healing. I've created a custom table for resting and healing that is much closer to reality. You just have to be aware that it means you can't throw as many difficult encounters at the party per day as the DMG suggests. It's going to be a somewhat different playing experience. Here is the table I use:


How long?
HP Healed
Can use Hit Dice?
with Medicine DC 15


1 hour
1
no
can spend 1 HD


8 hours
roll 1 HD
yes
roll 2 HD instead


1 week
fully healed
all HD recovered
N/A



So the big difference is that short rests don't get you nearly as much as they do RAW, and Hit Dice are something that are, for the most part, only per adventure rather than per day. Also, I decided that Medicine skill could play a role in getting more out of resting, so I added that each character can make a medicine check to see if they heal additional hit points.

I should mention that this is still very new to testing. We've only played 3 adventures and I tweaked it a bit following the first adventure. However, so far it's been great. The players have really enjoyed trying to succeed with the medicine checks on the short rests. It's kept the tension a little bit higher (also kept the number of healing potions stocked up from getting too high since they end up having to use them).

[RipTide]

I don't quite understand your aversion to stat improvements... Should people not get stronger after swinging a sword? Should their control over magic not improve through practice?

My disagreement aside having a maxed out skill really isn't as important as you think in 5e. The idea of bounded accuracy means that the die roll is more important than the bonus, so a +3 modifier in your primary stat is enough for any level. Just follow the suggested DC set ups for 10 being an easy task, 15 begin a medium difficulty task, and 20 being a hard one. for comparison, at level 1, with a +3 and being proficient in a skill, you have a 45% chance of failing a medium difficulty task, at level 20 you have a 25% chance of failing that task. If you have a +5 rather than a + 3 those only change to 35% and 15% respectively, so better, but not game breaking.

If your players are ok with not improving at all, removing stat increases entirely won't have too huge of an impact mechanically speaking.

[Man_Over_Game]

1) Ability Score Increases
I really don't like how ability scores seem to have become just a mechanical/numerical value on your character sheet, merely used to calculate bonuses, instead of a description of your character's physical and mental attributes. I still stick to the notion of attributes as a description of your character and find it very weird that a character can start as a scrawny, weak fella, and after a couple of adventures he's basically Schwarzenegger. Or else he can go from a total half-wit to Einstein.




I don't quite understand your aversion to stat improvements... Should people not get stronger after swinging a sword? Should their control over magic not improve through practice?

My disagreement aside having a maxed out skill really isn't as important as you think in 5e. The idea of bounded accuracy means that the die roll is more important than the bonus, so a +3 modifier in your primary stat is enough for any level. Just follow the suggested DC set ups for 10 being an easy task, 15 begin a medium difficulty task, and 20 being a hard one. for comparison, at level 1, with a +3 and being proficient in a skill, you have a 45% chance of failing a medium difficulty task, at level 20 you have a 25% chance of failing that task. If you have a +5 rather than a + 3 those only change to 35% and 15% respectively, so better, but not game breaking.

If your players are ok with not improving at all, removing stat increases entirely won't have too huge of an impact mechanically speaking.

Players can only afford to increase their stats by +8 throughout the course of a heroic campaign. From level 1 (a squire) to 20 (kills gods), they can go from an attribute of 10 (average, boring) to 18 (one of the smartest people in the country).

During that time, they probably did not learn any additional skills or extra training, they only focused on studying. Considering we have Barbarians that can Rage after when they should be dead, or Wizards that can swap places with their friends, and a bunch of other supernatural effects, it doesn't seem super-outlandish that someone who kills dragons as a day job learned to get a little more fit over the last few years.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To go from a noticeably low ability score (8) to a noticeably high one (14) takes three ASIs. For most characters that's 12 levels, more than half your career-- and you're still decent at best. Going from 8 to 18 requires 19 levels, levels where you're not improving your main stats or taking feats. (Note also that 5e's leveling isn't linear-- you speed through the early and late levels, but leveling slows down significantly in the 5-11 range, the most commonly played levels.)

As for healing... I wouldn't worry too much about removing hit die and even long rest healing. It increases the effects of attrition, so maybe your players will only be able to manage 4 encounters in a day, but the DM can adjust the pacing without too much trouble. If you want to leave 'em in, you could make them [temporary[/i] hit points, emphasizing that they're inner reserves of toughness and morale, not meat.

You can also play with Exhaustion-- that's slow to heal, and makes for a good easy "lingering injury" model. "Gain a level of exhaustion when you drop to 0" is a houserule I frequently use.

[Kupursk]

I don't quite understand your aversion to stat improvements... Should people not get stronger after swinging a sword? Should their control over magic not improve through practice?

My disagreement aside having a maxed out skill really isn't as important as you think in 5e. The idea of bounded accuracy means that the die roll is more important than the bonus, so a +3 modifier in your primary stat is enough for any level.

Hey there.

As I mentioned, it's just a matter of perspective on what ability scores mean. I'm used to the idea that ability scores are NOT skill, they're a description of your character's physical and mental attributes. Intelligence, for instance, is whether your character is slow-witted or a genius in logical deduction, or something in between. And not just magic control. That's what attributes meant in the olden days of 2e and earlier editions, and I very much like to keep that notion in my games. In this concept, "skill" in swinging a sword, casting spells and such come from your class, proficiencies, etc, and not ability scores. With that in mind, it becomes very weird that people could go from dumb-like-an-ogre to Einstein in the course of a few adventures. Or from scrawny skin-and-bones to Schwarzenegger. Sure those are extreme cases, but ability increase do break the immersion for us that follow this older notion of what they mean.

I understand that 5e uses a different concept of what ability scores mean, and I'm not bashing on those who like it or don't care. But for me, particularly, it doesn't quite work. What I mean is... in our games a character with 18 Strength means someone built like Schwarzenegger (in his Conan days) or The Mountain (in Game of Thrones). It's the peak of raw human strength. And it becomes really weird if EVERY fighter in the game is like that after a couple of levels. It'd be a world populated by vast hordes of gigantically built muscle-power massive people. :smalltongue:

As I said... I'm not here to bash on the idea of ability scores having a different interpretation. I'm just looking for house-ruling alternatives for us folks who'd like to keep the old meaning they used to have in early editions.

Your remarks about how maxing abilities aren't necessary seem to ring true, indeed.

But I feel like I should add something else in return so that the characters aren't just overall weaker. And I think there's only so many feats that would interest each character.

[Rukelnikov]

Check the epic boons and blessing in the DMG, most boons provide some benefit/rest, some may be too powerful, some may be underwhelimng, but they are a good alternative to ASIs/Feats.

Having said that, I can't see how healing is more of a problem in 5e than it was in 3.x, where casters had more slots and metamagics :S

[Kupursk]

I'm completely with you on the healing. I've created a custom table for resting and healing that is much closer to reality. You just have to be aware that it means you can't throw as many difficult encounters at the party per day as the DMG suggests. It's going to be a somewhat different playing experience. Here is the table I use:


How long?
HP Healed
Can use Hit Dice?
with Medicine DC 15


1 hour
1
no
can spend 1 HD


8 hours
roll 1 HD
yes
roll 2 HD instead


1 week
fully healed
all HD recovered
N/A





As for healing... I wouldn't worry too much about removing hit die and even long rest healing. It increases the effects of attrition, so maybe your players will only be able to manage 4 encounters in a day, but the DM can adjust the pacing without too much trouble. If you want to leave 'em in, you could make them [temporary[/i] hit points, emphasizing that they're inner reserves of toughness and morale, not meat.


These are both good remarks and I'll probably consider some of that if I do jump to 5e, in fact.

However I feel like I didn't express myself all that well in my "healing" question...

I have no problem fine-tuning the healing amount itself for my liking. I'd probably stick to something on the lines of 2e-3e, with "Your Level" HP recovery per day, and do away with most other forms of healing except the typical healing spells (cure light wounds, etc). What I'm asking, really, is if anyone has their own house-rules (or general guidelines) for tuning the DAMAGE itself of monsters that may be too high because the game expects more frequent healing. Probably not every monster would need change, but I feel like many would.

A bulette's damage per round hasn't changed much from 3e to 5e for instance.

But some creatures like the Bugbear went from 1d8+2 per attack to 2d8+2 (with the possibility of an extra 2d6). That's a big increase!

Older editions had more moderate damage per attack with monsters, because losing too much HP in a fight could be dire even if you didn't get close to death. Being left with, say, 15 out of your total of 60 HP in the middle of a dungeon could be a severe complication, but not so much if you can more easily refill your HP with rest and several abilities. That's why I think 5e is less afraid to dish out big amounts of damage in every encounter.

[olskool]

Hey there.

As I mentioned, it's just a matter of perspective on what ability scores mean. I'm used to the idea that ability scores are NOT skill, they're a description of your character's physical and mental attributes. Intelligence, for instance, is whether your character is slow-witted or a genius in logical deduction, or something in between. And not just magic control. That's what attributes meant in the olden days of 2e and earlier editions, and I very much like to keep that notion in my games. In this concept, "skill" in swinging a sword, casting spells and such come from your class, proficiencies, etc, and not ability scores. With that in mind, it becomes very weird that people could go from dumb-like-an-ogre to Einstein in the course of a few adventures. Or from scrawny skin-and-bones to Schwarzenegger. Sure those are extreme cases, but ability increase do break the immersion for us that follow this older notion of what they mean.

I understand that 5e uses a different concept of what ability scores mean, and I'm not bashing on those who like it or don't care. But for me, particularly, it doesn't quite work. What I mean is... in our games a character with 18 Strength means someone built like Schwarzenegger (in his Conan days) or The Mountain (in Game of Thrones). It's the peak of raw human strength. And it becomes really weird if EVERY fighter in the game is like that after a couple of levels. It'd be a world populated by vast hordes of gigantically built muscle-power massive people. :smalltongue:

As I said... I'm not here to bash on the idea of ability scores having a different interpretation. I'm just looking for house-ruling alternatives for us folks who'd like to keep the old meaning they used to have in early editions.

Your remarks about how maxing abilities aren't necessary seem to ring true, indeed.

But I feel like I should add something else in return so that the characters aren't just overall weaker. And I think there's only so many feats that would interest each character.

I agree with your assessment of the increase in Characteristic Scores being "out of balance" in 5e. In addition to the AUTOMATIC 2-point increase given in the Class Charts, you have FEATS giving bonuses as well. I think that increases SHOULD be a part of the game but, like you, I'm concerned about the RATE of those increases given how many different skills, saves, and proficiencies that are affected by them.

Here's my House Rule for Characteristic Improvements...

NOTE: This rule applies to increases for FEATS and Class-granted improvements as well.

Improving Characteristics

Each LEVEL the player may pick ONE Characteristic to attempt to improve. In order to improve that Characteristic, the player must roll OVER the Characteristic's current score on a 1D20. If that 1D20 roll is higher than the current Characteristic score, that Characteristic will improve by ONE point. If a Character's racial score can be higher than 20, just subtract the difference from the Characteristic before rolling the 1D20. This method will allow 20 chances to improve ability scores over a Character's career, but the player may wish to pick lower scores to improve in order to have a better chance to succeed.

[Kupursk]

Check the epic boons and blessing in the DMG, most boons provide some benefit/rest, some may be too powerful, some may be underwhelimng, but they are a good alternative to ASIs/Feats.


Hello there! Could you please direct me to what chapter of the DMG those rules are in?



Having said that, I can't see how healing is more of a problem in 5e than it was in 3.x, where casters had more slots and metamagics :S

It's not a "problem", I suppose. It's more a matter of personal preference. HP and the amount of healing you had was more of a long-term resource to be managed back in 2e (and 3e although I do find healing in 3e already a bit excessive on the magical front).

5e has a lot more sources of healing and even your regular rests recover so much more now. They've balanced that with encounters also generally causing more damage to the party. So it's not a "problem", as in having balancing problems in the rules... it's just that I don't personally like the "accordion effect" it creates on HP (nearly full - nearly empty - nearly full - nearly empty - etc).

[olskool]

I had some similar concerns jumping straight from 2E to 5E. I have created a few house rules that produce a different experience that 5E RAW, but which also make for eliminating some of the problems I have found.

The effects of ability scores in 2E were much more specific and pronounced than in 5E. You're definitely right about that. In 2E, your intelligence literally determined how many languages you could know, or your chance for spell failure (something they got rid of). Your Wisdom determined how many spells you could start the game with.

I'm actually okay with the changes. I recall doing anything related to ability scores in 2E was a constant nuisance of having to check the relevant table in the PH. I mean, they had a separate table for "Bend Bars / Lift Gates". Now it's just determine the DC and make an appropriate strength check. It's much easier.

I'm completely with you on the healing. I've created a custom table for resting and healing that is much closer to reality. You just have to be aware that it means you can't throw as many difficult encounters at the party per day as the DMG suggests. It's going to be a somewhat different playing experience. Here is the table I use:


How long?
HP Healed
Can use Hit Dice?
with Medicine DC 15


1 hour
1
no
can spend 1 HD


8 hours
roll 1 HD
yes
roll 2 HD instead


1 week
fully healed
all HD recovered
N/A



So the big difference is that short rests don't get you nearly as much as they do RAW, and Hit Dice are something that are, for the most part, only per adventure rather than per day. Also, I decided that Medicine skill could play a role in getting more out of resting, so I added that each character can make a medicine check to see if they heal additional hit points.

I should mention that this is still very new to testing. We've only played 3 adventures and I tweaked it a bit following the first adventure. However, so far it's been great. The players have really enjoyed trying to succeed with the medicine checks on the short rests. It's kept the tension a little bit higher (also kept the number of healing potions stocked up from getting too high since they end up having to use them).

Great minds think alike! I also require the Fighter Class FEAT/Feature Second Wind (which I actually moved to the Champion because that Archetype is weaker than the others) to expend a HD to use this.

[Rukelnikov]

Hello there! Could you please direct me to what chapter of the DMG those rules are in?

Its around page 230


It's not a "problem", I suppose. It's more a matter of personal preference. HP and the amount of healing you had was more of a long-term resource to be managed back in 2e (and 3e although I do find healing in 3e already a bit excessive on the magical front).

5e has a lot more sources of healing and even your regular rests recover so much more now. They've balanced that with encounters also generally causing more damage to the party. So it's not a "problem", as in having balancing problems in the rules... it's just that I don't personally like the "accordion effect" it creates on HP (nearly full - nearly empty - nearly full - nearly empty - etc).

IME it was the other way round, in 3.x healing felt too strong after lvl 11 when heal entered game. Different tables I guess.

[Grod_The_Giant]

a So it's not a "problem", as in having balancing problems in the rules... it's just that I don't personally like the "accordion effect" it creates on HP (nearly full - nearly empty - nearly full - nearly empty - etc).
I mean, you do get hit point attrition over time in a dungeon, it's just that hit die represent a second pool of HP that recharges differently. You effectively have twice as many hp as written, but no more than 50% at a time...hmm. What if you had twice the normal hp, but when reduced to half, you get Bloodied and have to make a save or be stunned for a round, or take a penalty for the rest if the fight, or something to that effect (ie, you got knocked down and had to wait for someone to spend a healing ability to pop you back up). If you actually drop to zero, you take some sort of lingering injury (ie, you ran out of both hp and HD)?

You could also probably get away with allowing Hit Die to be spent whenever you're magically healed, but not otherwise. That should have a fairly marginal effect on balance, but might help your immersion?

As for ability scores... It's my understanding that in 1e/2e they had little effect on your skills, yes? It's actually surprisingly easy to strip that out in 5e; mostly all you need to do is change the Proficiency Bonus progression to run from +5 to +11. I did the work here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills&p=22179647) to cut out abilities altogether, but it should be easy enough to keep 'em around for flavor and maybe saving throws. How's that feel?

[rlc]

I'm too lazy to read the thread, but you could always give your players an extra +2 to 2 stats of their choice at the beginning and just go e6, letting them pick a feat at level 4.
Or start the game at 4 and play to e6, then just go with epic boons every once in a while (even including their class's next ability or 2 as some of those epic boons).

[Kupursk]

I did the work here to cut out abilities altogether, but it should be easy enough to keep 'em around for flavor and maybe saving throws. How's that feel?

That's an interesting and thorough work you did there. I wouldn't get rid of Abilities myself but your tables could indeed be used as reference for what I'm trying to do.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That's an interesting and thorough work you did there. I wouldn't get rid of Abilities myself but your tables could indeed be used as reference for what I'm trying to do.
Aye-- using the Major/Minor bonus for everything except ability checks ought to do what you want?

[RipTide]

Hey there.

As I mentioned, it's just a matter of perspective on what ability scores mean. I'm used to the idea that ability scores are NOT skill, they're a description of your character's physical and mental attributes. Intelligence, for instance, is whether your character is slow-witted or a genius in logical deduction, or something in between. And not just magic control. That's what attributes meant in the olden days of 2e and earlier editions, and I very much like to keep that notion in my games. In this concept, "skill" in swinging a sword, casting spells and such come from your class, proficiencies, etc, and not ability scores. With that in mind, it becomes very weird that people could go from dumb-like-an-ogre to Einstein in the course of a few adventures. Or from scrawny skin-and-bones to Schwarzenegger. Sure those are extreme cases, but ability increase do break the immersion for us that follow this older notion of what they mean.

I understand that 5e uses a different concept of what ability scores mean, and I'm not bashing on those who like it or don't care. But for me, particularly, it doesn't quite work. What I mean is... in our games a character with 18 Strength means someone built like Schwarzenegger (in his Conan days) or The Mountain (in Game of Thrones). It's the peak of raw human strength. And it becomes really weird if EVERY fighter in the game is like that after a couple of levels. It'd be a world populated by vast hordes of gigantically built muscle-power massive people. :smalltongue:

As I said... I'm not here to bash on the idea of ability scores having a different interpretation. I'm just looking for house-ruling alternatives for us folks who'd like to keep the old meaning they used to have in early editions.

Your remarks about how maxing abilities aren't necessary seem to ring true, indeed.

But I feel like I should add something else in return so that the characters aren't just overall weaker. And I think there's only so many feats that would interest each character.

I feel the need to explain my thoughts better here, and pair that with how 5e works. I too agree that scores reflect the character directly, not an abstract idea of skill. High strength = big muscles, High int = able to solve complex equations. If you swing a sword for an extended period of time your muscle mass should increase so why do you feel that should not hold in a fantasy world?

You keep saying that after a few adventures a person can go from scrawny to Schwarzenegger but in 5e, aside from fighter which seems intended to pick up more feats, from level 1 to 20 a class only gets 5, 2 point stat bumps to distribute. At most a character could go from average (10 strength) to Schwarzenegger (20 strength) in the time it takes them to go from killing rats in a basement (level 1) to killing gods(level 20).

A single stat bump takes 4 levels which early on might take a week or two of adventuring. Going from 4 - 8 should take longer(around a month or so). 8-12 longer still (a few months). In that time a person of average strength would go from being able to lift 150lb (10 str), to 180lb(12 str), to 210 lb(14str), to 240lb(16 str). So in around 3-6 months a person with an intense work out routine (killing things with a sword) would increase their ability to lift heavy objects by 90 lb, that doesn't seem like a crazy amount to me.

Intelligence, in my view at least, is the ability to process information, and I equate casting spells to something like solving complex equations (such that each time you cast a spell it is largely the same but requires slight variations and adjustments to actually work, else anyone could pick up a wizard spell book and casting would be a factor of dexterity for finger waggling and ability to read some words). So if you spend every day doing complex equations and studying books to learn more about magic (learning / creating new spells) why shouldn't a person become more intelligent?

I could understand saying the barbarian who does nothing but hit things with a stick can't suddenly increase his intelligence, but why don't people who are actively using one of their attribute improve that attribute over time?

(disclaimer - I am not bashing you in any way I'm just genuinely curious where our difference in opinion stems from. People tend to take the most aggressive meaning from text so I just felt the need to say this)

[opaopajr]

HEALING
My preferred resolution is to dump Long Rest's full HP healing, yet retain Hit Dice recovery. This way Short and Long Rest becomes strategic for Hit Dice healing. Then you can adjust Long Rest HD Recovery up or down from [1/2 Max HD, round down, minimum one] to how fast you want healing in your campaign.

STATS
That's sort of baked into the cake, so to speak. It's partly how you improve basics [i.e. To Hit, Damage, Saves, Skills, etc.] without so much needed Magic Items, Blessings, Wishes, and other setting-based fluctuations. I guess you can take them out, ASIs, leave them as "dead levels" (hurts fighters though) and include old skool Christmas Tree magic goodies littering your setting (favoring fighters, like proliferation of magic swords, etc.). That's how I would dial back to the Christmas Tree Effect to replace ASIs.