What's up with Ability Damage in 5E?

[Phhase]

Does it still exist? I've seen it exactly once in the Shadow's strength drain. Why isn't it more prevalent? It seems like it would work fine.

As an aside, what's up with the huge paralysis/stun/other crowd control durations in 3.5e? I want to bring some monsters in from 3.5 but getting a save every round feels a bit too good. Conversely, being paralyzed for almost the whole fight/the whole party wiping because the carrion crawlers got lucky seems too harsh. I feel like there's something I'm missing.

[Fable Wright]

Ability damage: Intellect Devourers and Shadows still have the mechanic, but because it can change to-hit bonuses, requires stat 0 rules, specialized spells to cure, and so forth, it was primarily chopped from the game outside of two extremely overpowered for CR exceptions. See also Shadow and Intellect Devourer.

As for how to handle imported monsters:

Just allow the save every round. If you're not proficient in the save, it is really hard to break free, especially when you get to DC 15-17, and as you mentioned, losing just 1d3 turns to a monster is awful to begin with.

[Phhase]

Ability damage: Intellect Devourers and Shadows still have the mechanic, but because it can change to-hit bonuses, requires stat 0 rules, specialized spells to cure, and so forth, it was primarily chopped from the game outside of two extremely overpowered for CR exceptions. See also Shadow and Intellect Devourer.

As for how to handle imported monsters:

Just allow the save every round. If you're not proficient in the save, it is really hard to break free, especially when you get to DC 15-17, and as you mentioned, losing just 1d3 turns to a monster is awful to begin with.

Haven't stat 0 rules always been a thing? Strength 0: paralysis, Dex 0: paralysis, Con 0: ded, Int/Wis/Cha 0: comatose? I was also under the impression that most ability damage was temporary, fading, at least, partially, with a rest? It was "drain" that was effectively permanent.

[Waazraath]

Does it still exist? I've seen it exactly once in the Shadow's strength drain. Why isn't it more prevalent? It seems like it would work fine.

As an aside, what's up with the huge paralysis/stun/other crowd control durations in 3.5e? I want to bring some monsters in from 3.5 but getting a save every round feels a bit too good. Conversely, being paralyzed for almost the whole fight/the whole party wiping because the carrion crawlers got lucky seems too harsh. I feel like there's something I'm missing.

Not really; 3.x had different mechanics for ability damage, ability drain and level drain; they all got lost in 5e's simplification and streamlining of the rules (I dunno about 4e). Can't say I've missed them, tbh.

[Mork]

in 3.5 it was way easier to get higher stats, with magic items all around. So therefore ability damage is "more lethal" than it was in 3.5. At least that is my experience from play (could be that my 3.5 games were higher powered than average).

For saves I would do the new save every round thing. If you think that weakens the monster to much maybe let it use it ability more often (bonus action recharge on a 5-6??)

[Hypersmith]

I think both ability damage and not getting a save every round are frustrating experiences, particularly the more often you encounter them. Losing multiple turns because you failed one roll just sucks, and having lots of ability damage is basically a similar scenario. "You had tough luck, so now enjoy having to just sit around kinda uselessly for a while."

I believe their reduction is part of a game health and fun focus, by avoiding an abundance of what can feel like gimmicky strategies that remove players ability to actually play, both on the long rest front, and the several combat rounds lost front.

[Phhase]

in 3.5 it was way easier to get higher stats, with magic items all around.

Don't you start at higher stats in 5e though?

[J-H]

Eh, not really. Nobody starts with anything over about a 17, and there's a hard cap of 20 on the stats. The only way to go above 20 is to be a level 20 Barbarian or get a few very specific items (STR belts). Non-fighters get 10 points of stat boosts across the first 19 levels (if they don't multiclass) and that's it.

Compare to 3.5 where you were behind if you didn't have a 22 or 24 in your primary stat by level 10 with gear, and where a 30+ in your primary stat was a must-have by level 20. Also, 3.5 had lots of stat-boosters (including the Belt of Magnificence) so that even your secondary stats could get up close to 20. With the item attunement limit that's just not practical in 5e.

[Keravath]

I don't think 5e has any stat 0 damage rules (though I could be wrong). Only the monster stat blocks or spells that do stat damage list the consequences for that specific instance when it reduces the relevant stat.

Also, for the save/round effects ... yes the duration becomes random. If the DC is 10-12 then most of the time the effect will last one to two rounds. However, as the DCs get higher AND they attack non-proficient saves, the situation can get very difficult for players affected by the spells.

e.g. most fighter's/barbarians won't get resilient wisdom until quite late if at all. They will usually only have 0 to +1 in the stat. A level 9 wizard casting hold person with 20 int has a DC of 17. Those fighter/barbarians can end up held for quite a long time ... on the other hand, against a target with proficiency in wisdom saves at a similar level then the DC to save is 10-12 which will mean a round or two most likely. However, if there is a bit of bad luck, a hold person spell and all the resulting critical hits can be devastating to a party.

[Waazraath]

in 3.5 it was way easier to get higher stats, with magic items all around. So therefore ability damage is "more lethal" than it was in 3.5. At least that is my experience from play (could be that my 3.5 games were higher powered than average).

For saves I would do the new save every round thing. If you think that weakens the monster to much maybe let it use it ability more often (bonus action recharge on a 5-6??)

True, but on the other hand, it had a stronger min/max culture (ime) and had dump stats that were truely worthless if you didn't need them in your build. On, the number of powergamers who I saw with a 6 in charisma, who got insta killed because that pesky undead that drained* charisma rolled a 6 on the die... :smallamused:

*or damaged. Damn, I'm glad I don't know that stuff by heart anymore.

[KorvinStarmast]

Does it still exist? NOt really, outside a few special undead like Shadows and the ever popular Intellect Devourers.

And quite frankly, that's a good thing.

I found ability damage to mostly suck. Never liked it.

[Willie the Duck]

Does it still exist? I've seen it exactly once in the Shadow's strength drain. Why isn't it more prevalent? It seems like it would work fine.

On a general level, my impression is that the designers felt that it didn't work fine when previously implemented, such as in 3rd edition.

On a broad-brush theory level, ability damage is doing an end-run around the basic mechanics of character and monster durability: hit points. Mind you, this is an exception-based game, and there are all sorts of ways that the game has, does (using 3e as 'now'), and will do this end run, but how many do you need? If, for instance, there was a saving throw tied to each attribute, that would be an end-run tied to each of those attributes, would you also need to use each one as a distinct alternate hp-like pool?

Further, because hit points scale from ~4-16 at first level into the hundreds and hundreds, if you keep attributes somewhere in the 3-18+some little add-on (which could be significant for 1-2 stats, but you're not going to have all stats far above 18 in most cases), this can create some pretty perverse incentivization structures.

From the DMs side in trying to set up good encounters, I think 3e has some real pitfalls. Some spell that did 1d6 Int damage was a better way to take down trolls than fire or acid. I can't remember the name, but there was a spell that did 2 or 3d6 Dex damage, and it was one of the best ways (once you dealt with SR) of taking down dragons (who, simply because of their iconic qualities, cannot be described as having a huge Dex score, no matter what their CR might be). Every monster have a weakness isn't a universally horrible thing from a design perspective (although the game was already heavily bent towards 'the wizard wins or loses the fight hours before it happens by successfully preparing the right spells this morning based on the divinations he cast last night'), in a game where the brave archer is supposed to shoot the dragon, distracting it so the valiant knight can charge it with sword or lance and the spellcasters do something like Bless or Web or the like, instead messing around with Dexterity-damage spells feels a little like 'I messed around with the game's source code until it took me to the victory screen.'

From a Player's perspective, running into monsters which did stat-X damage was 'simply too much' (not to preemptively prevent). A DM could know ahead of time what monsters would be least hurt by a caster's ability damage spells, but a character couldn't retroactively been maxing their charisma because they are now running into an ugliness golem or whatever. So a special ability (often a touch attack, to boot)... which could make you paralyzed for days... that's worse than most 'save-or-____' effects in the game, and those are considered some of the most high-powered things in the edition. So what do you do? You find a way to be immune. And that seems to be what high-level 3e play was like: take the 5-6 most over-the-top devastating effects in the ruleset (grappling, touch attacks, energy drain, save-or-die/suck, etc.) and compare notes on who had access to which powers, and who had immunities to which powers, and whichever team happened to have a strong attack where the other side was weak ended up prevailing. And that is part of the reason why a lot of people dislike high-level 3e and end up playing variants like E6 or the like simply to avoid that level of play.

So, that's where we are. 5e is a reaction to the pitfalls of 3e (amongst plenty of other things, but that seems the relevant one here). There are only ~2 things that still do such effects (and Intellect Devoureres in particular are looked at as something of a 'incentive not to split the party' still). All in all, I think they made the right choice.


As an aside, what's up with the huge paralysis/stun/other crowd control durations in 3.5e? I want to bring some monsters in from 3.5 but getting a save every round feels a bit too good. Conversely, being paralyzed for almost the whole fight/the whole party wiping because the carrion crawlers got lucky seems too harsh. I feel like there's something I'm missing.

You are-- the save math. 5e is built around the idea that characters and monsters will fail more saving throws than they will succeed. 5e was built around the idea that it sucked how often spellcasters would cast a spell and... nothing happened. Thus they re-jiggered it such that usually something would happen... it just wouldn't be as big an effect or it wouldn't last as long. Not everyone is going to have a good ____ save, and even if they do, it will be something like +5 at level 1 and +11 at level 20. If you drop a couple of Hold Persons on the front line of an adventuring party, most likely a couple of people will fail their saves (unlike 3e or worse AD&D, where failing such a save would be a rare occasion). Thus you will get some utility out of that spell... even though in the long run they will be likely to shake it off.
*yes, with lots of riders and exceptions.