5.5e - Moving Away from Ability Mod per Long Rest?

[Oramac]

Just something I've been thinking about. It seems here recently that most of the official WOTC books have moved to using a Proficiency per Long Rest mechanic (PLR, I call it), instead of Ability Modifier per Long Rest (ALR).

Generally I agree with this move, but it does concern me in that it reduces the incentive for players to bump their ability scores (outside of dealing damage), especially when the feature in question keys off a secondary or tertiary ability.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Personally, I would like to see both options used (PLR and ALR) depending on the feature, but I'm afraid WOTC is going away from ability scores entirely.

EDIT: for context, I'm currently designing a class for my homebrew world. Most of the features key off PB, and it works. But there's one feature in particular that I think makes far more sense to key off (in this case) a secondary ability score modifier. I'm trying to decide if this is even going to be a thing moving forward.

[KorvinStarmast]

Divine Sense is a good case in point. I think it would be fine either way, given how I have only once ever used them all up (Started with a 16 Cha and I maxed Cha due to how I want my character to work.

[Ortho]

I can see the benefit, but I think I prefer ALR. It's much more thematic to tie in abilities directly to an ability score.

Also, I'm of the opinion that racial abilities shouldn't be PLR abilities at all. It makes no sense; races don't have a proficiency bonus.

[KorvinStarmast]

races don't have a proficiency bonus. That objection strikes me as a non sequitur; every PC has a proficiency bonus that scales with character (aggregate) level - it informs all of what they do: proficiencies and tools from their background, saving throws, attack bonuses, saving throw bonuses (where proficient) and so on. The more powerful the PC, by total level (even with three or four MC choices) the more uses of X they get.
It fits the game's design framework just fine.

The racial features that are 'always on' or 1/ long rest (see half orc) don't rely on PB and I am fine with that not changing also.

[Ortho]

That objection strikes me as a non sequitur; every PC has a proficiency bonus that scales with character (aggregate) level

I was referring more to NPCs with that comment. If you were to make, say, a harengon blacksmith NPC, how far can they leap?

It just doesn't make sense to me that you would unlock racial abilities through leveling up. For example, I don't see why the harengon wizard, fighter, and monk would all be equally good at jumping with their rabbit hop ability throughout their entire careers.

[MrStabby]

I was referring more to NPCs with that comment. If you were to make, say, a harengon blacksmith NPC, how far can they leap?

It just doesn't make sense to me that you would unlock racial abilities through leveling up. For example, I don't see why the harengon wizard, fighter, and monk would all be equally good at jumping with their rabbit hop ability throughout their entire careers.

Though I would say the same is true for class features. If you take 10 levels of a different class why should it upgrade your first class feaures?

[KorvinStarmast]

I was referring more to NPCs with that comment.
Oh, yeah, makes better sense to me now. :smallsmile:

[Ogun]

I don't see the benefit of using PB for anything really.
It means every character will get the same exact benefit from the features of the class, no matter how the allocate their Ability scores.
Allocation of scores will mean that much less.
For racial abilities, tying the numbers of uses to an Ability score is a way to encourage certain races to have higher Abilities without forcing them to.

Of course I also think recharge of abilities on a short rest forces meaningful choices on a party, and I see no benefit to doing away with that mechanic.

[Psyren]

I was referring more to NPCs with that comment. If you were to make, say, a harengon blacksmith NPC, how far can they leap?

That depends on the statblock you use for "blacksmith." Assuming you're using a standard Commoner though, that would be 10 ft. (CR 0 = PB +2.)

The table you need is on MM pg. 8.

[Cass]

Pros:
Proficiency is predictable which helps with game balance
Reduces dependency on the limited ASI which lessens the burden of "building correctly"

Cons:
Sometimes it just feels overused and unintuitive (How far the Harengon can jump feels like should be dependent on Str but amount of times might be acceptable as Proficiency)
Abusable by multiclass

Possible fixes:
Each ASI increases more abilities (3 or 4) at a time by the same amount to get closer to the proficiency predictability
To decrease multiclass abuse, character level and proficiency should be separated by class and not aggregated together

[Leon]

I don't see the benefit of using PB for anything really.
It means every character will get the same exact benefit from the features of the class, no matter how the allocate their Ability scores.
Allocation of scores will mean that much less.


Exactly the reason it is a good thing to tie to PB is that then everyone is on the same page and ramping down overinflated rush to have 20s in X stat

[animorte]

Proficiency bonus has always made sense to me, even if you multi class. It just seems logical that if you consistently use something most days over the course of weeks/months/years, you will continue to gradually get better with that skill/ability.

Proficiency bonus provides a balanced way of showing that, something that levels up over time from a very small amount to a noteworthy amount. It certainly helps when a lot of things that include it also happen to include the relevant ability scores.

[Selion]

If you think about it, the difference in between ability mod and proficiency is only about character's investment in specialization.
The proficiency is good in respect to ability mod in two cases:
a) unoptimized characters, which allocates their modifiers for flavor (such as, a barbarian with high cha)
b) extremely optimized characters, which have less resources to allocate in specialization because they need to min max in other abilities (ex, multiclass)

I'm ok with rules that benefit both scenarios, i think that freedom in build design is a good thing, and i don't care too much about balance induced by constraints (i mean, core mechanics should be balanced, but game designer shouldn't worry too much about testing every possible combination of exotic abilities, which is precisely what power players do).
Balance should be obtained by fair play IMHO, the core feature of a rpg is giving the player a huge sand box to build a character the way they want. The optimum would be if a players though of a fantasy trope, a story, a background, and that it find in rules something that fit perfectly with it.
Having a huge sand box at disposal means that weird and powerful combination are possible. Usually in internet forums they are the only things about there is a discussion, but in real games in my experience things are different.
(i derailed a little, but i really think that linking abilities to proficiency and not ab mod is a design choice to give players more freedom)

[Luccan]

I don't think shifting to PB times per day on class resources reduces the value of bumping stats, really. You need to actually have the to-hit bonus to reasonably trade away for GWM and the like and you want your spells to be more difficult to resist. Attributes look like they'll still have a pretty big impact on your effectiveness, they just might not dictate how often you can do something. Which is fine, IMO. Is there really a valuable difference between characters that can use and ability 2x vs 3x per day? Or is the first character just less useful overall? Honestly, if this has any impact on stats I think it will mostly be a boon for MAD characters without badly impacting standard PCs

[Psyren]

(How far the Harengon can jump feels like should be dependent on Str but amount of times might be acceptable as Proficiency)

So dex-based and caster Harengon can't jump? Why even have a jumping trait then, the normal jump already does this.


To decrease multiclass abuse, character level and proficiency should be separated by class and not aggregated together

Just ban multiclassing if you consider PB being based on character level to be "abuse."

[Oramac]

Great input everyone!! Thank you! I'm loving the discussion here.



I don't think shifting to PB times per day on class resources reduces the value of bumping stats, really. You need to actually have the to-hit bonus to reasonably trade away for GWM and the like and you want your spells to be more difficult to resist. Attributes look like they'll still have a pretty big impact on your effectiveness, they just might not dictate how often you can do something. Which is fine, IMO. Is there really a valuable difference between characters that can use and ability 2x vs 3x per day? Or is the first character just less useful overall? Honestly, if this has any impact on stats I think it will mostly be a boon for MAD characters without badly impacting standard PCs

This is my general thought, with the caveat that the shift to PLR instead of ALR changes the power curve as a character levels.

For example:

Say you have a feature that keys off Intelligence currently (on an Int class; doesn't matter which one). At 3rd level, you can reasonably expect to use it 3 times per LR. At 4th through 7th, you can expect to use it 4 times per rest. From 8th to 20th, 5 times per rest. Your uses are fairly frontloaded, and past 8th level you don't really get the satisfaction of "yay I get another use this level!".

Now change that feature to key off proficiency. At 3rd, it's a nerf, since you can now only use it twice per LR, instead of 3 times. But once you hit 5th level, you get the "yay I get another use this level!" effect predictably at every fourth level, all the way to 17th level. Additionally, you end up getting one use more than you would if it keyed off intelligence (6 prof vs 5 int).

The above is the part I like. But the thing I don't like is that, for specific features, it feels like they should key off an ability. Admittedly, there aren't many features that feel like this, but occasionally using PLR just feels wrong.

[Pex]

Ability score still matters for to hit and damage and saving throw DC.

[Ogun]

Exactly the reason it is a good thing to tie to PB is that then everyone is on the same page and ramping down overinflated rush to have 20s in X stat
By this logic one should eliminate ability scores altogether.
Every character could be even more "on the same page".
No one would have any rush to get anything in any stat.
It would be a flat playing field between characters of the same class and level.
Maybe have them use the same weapons and armor while your at it?
Tying any ability to PB is a step closer to that.
I don't see that as better and don't see what problem it is addressing.

[Necrosnoop110]

Just something I've been thinking about. It seems here recently that most of the official WOTC books have moved to using a Proficiency per Long Rest mechanic (PLR, I call it), instead of Ability Modifier per Long Rest (ALR).

Sorry, dummy here can you explain that all for me?

[KorvinStarmast]

Proficiency bonus has always made sense to me, even if you multi class. It just seems logical that if you consistently use something most days over the course of weeks/months/years, you will continue to gradually get better with that skill/ability.

Proficiency bonus provides a balanced way of showing that, something that levels up over time from a very small amount to a noteworthy amount. It certainly helps when a lot of things that include it also happen to include the relevant ability scores.

My only complaint with PB is that CR 1/4 and lower ought to have PB=1 not PB=2. :smalltongue:

[JNAProductions]

By this logic one should eliminate ability scores altogether.
Every character could be even more "on the same page".
No one would have any rush to get anything in any stat.
It would be a flat playing field between characters of the same class and level.
Maybe have them use the same weapons and armor while your at it?
Tying any ability to PB is a step closer to that.
I don't see that as better and don't see what problem it is addressing.

Some amount of similarity is good-it allows you to balance opposition and challenges much more easily.
Completely homogeneous characters is not-different classes should play differently, and even in the same class, two PCs shouldn’t be the exact same mechanically.

Just because you want one thing to be more similar doesn’t mean you want everything to be the same.

[Ogun]

Some amount of similarity is good-it allows you to balance opposition and challenges much more easily.
Completely homogeneous characters is not-different classes should play differently, and even in the same class, two PCs shouldn’t be the exact same mechanically.

Just because you want one thing to be more similar doesn’t mean you want everything to be the same.

Ok.
Why do you want these particular abilities to be similar?
What problems have their dissimilar number of uses caused?
I haven't seen a character feature that keys off a stat cause problems but
I have seen dissimilar hit points, AC and saves cause great difficulty as some player characters simply fall down faster than others in the same encounter.
I almost always take healing word and aid because of this, which could be considered a kind of tax...

[JNAProductions]

Ok.
Why do you want these particular abilities to be similar?
What problems have their dissimilar number of uses caused?
I haven't seen a character feature that keys off a stat cause problems but
I have seen dissimilar hit points, AC and saves cause great difficulty as some player characters simply fall down faster than others in the same encounter.
I almost always take healing word and aid because of this, which could be considered a kind of tax...

I don’t care much either way. The post was to object to your slippery slope.

[Psyren]

Sorry, dummy here can you explain that all for me?

Some per-Long-Rest abilities have a number of uses based on proficiency bonus (e.g.a Firbolg's Hidden Step.)
Some per-Long-Rest abilities have a number of uses based on an ability modifier (e.g. an Artificer's Flash of Genius.)
Some per-Long-Rest abilities have a number of uses based on a different progression entirely (e.g. spell slots.)

OP is saying it looks like we're getting more of #1 and less of #2 in recent design, and wants to get people's thoughts on it..

[kazaryu]

I was referring more to NPCs with that comment. If you were to make, say, a harengon blacksmith NPC, how far can they leap?

It just doesn't make sense to me that you would unlock racial abilities through leveling up. For example, I don't see why the harengon wizard, fighter, and monk would all be equally good at jumping with their rabbit hop ability throughout their entire careers.

NPC's have proficiency scores...they're numbers are derived the same way PC's are. in fact, statblocks even list a creatures proficiency bonus.

as far as why a a rabbit guy is just as good regardless of class...because they practiced just as much? im confused as to where this point is coming from. like...

[Chronos]

Quoth JNAProductions:

Some amount of similarity is good-it allows you to balance opposition and challenges much more easily.
A very common misconception, and many, many game companies have made that mistake. In fact, similarity makes balance harder, and differences make it easier. If everyone's good at completely different things, then as long as those different things all come up, they all end up balanced against each other, and it just comes down to which of those things you prefer. On the other hand, if you make all of a set of options very similar to each other (though obviously not identical, because then they're not options at all), then what differences do exist can be compared directly, with "all else being equal" because it is, and the better and worse options become quickly apparent.