Make Stats matter less

[Yakk]

I like the idea of PCs with increadible strength.

But the problem is that stats are so mechanically powerful in 5e that much variation in stats leads to the game not working well.

So here is the start of an idea.

First, we resurrect the proficirncy die from the optional rules. Next, we apply it *as well as* the proficiency bonus, but we remove adding stats to DCs, AC and d20 Tests.

When you'd add both an attribute and.proficiency, instead add prof bonus plus die. Your spellcasting DC is 8+prof+prof die, rolled each time you cast a spell.

We do something with AC (I like rolling? The roll is capped by your attribute bonus however (and by, say, +3 on medium armor?)

There are going to be some corner cases, like charisma bonus to all.saves, unarmored defence, flash of genius. But much stuff we now don't need to worry about large stats as much. I mean, a 40 strength means +15 damage, which is huge, but not +15 to hit huge.

I could make the prof die cap standard; an intelligence history is prof die (capped by int) plus possible training. Could even make prof dice explode (to the cap).

[Rilmani]

After such a change, ability scores would still apply to:

The number of Bardic Inspiration uses available to a bard,
The number of spells prepared by prep. spellcasters,
Weapon damage rolls,
…?


Game designers at wizards of the coast are aware of certain things that their players hate. Even if it makes the math difficult, they pay attention and avoid doing certain things. A Wizard who casts Enhance Ability (Strength) and is proficient in Athletics in your system is, mathematically, a better grappler than a Barbarian who is proficient in Athletics. Do you find this funny? Is this a benefit you intended from your change? Are non-spellcasters really supposed to just use their hit points to block damage while spellcasters get to meaningfully interact with creatures and the environment?

Players who prefer martial classes despise when spellcasters intrude on their domain of expertise at no cost. You have not suggested any new features to replace the redundant Unarmored features for barbarians and monks. You’ve made Shield into one of the strongest defenses in the game by removing a scalable accuracy bonus from enemies.

Also I have no idea what you’re talking about at the end, “charisma bonus to all saves?”

[Greywander]

Also I have no idea what you’re talking about at the end, “charisma bonus to all saves?”
I believe they're referring to Aura of Protection.


I like the idea of PCs with increadible strength.

But the problem is that stats are so mechanically powerful in 5e that much variation in stats leads to the game not working well.
Wouldn't something like Powerful Build be a much easier way to do this than mucking about with how ability scores and proficiency are added to things?

What is it that you're actually trying to do? What do you want from a character with high strength, and why is the current system not working for you?

[Yakk]

What is it that you're actually trying to do? What do you want from a character with high strength, and why is the current system not working for you?
If you want to make a PC that is insanely strong in 5e, the game simply breaks.

You could do "Powerful Build", "Giant Hands", and have a bunch of mechanics hooked up that emulate that. So we get 20 strength, and 20 strength*, where the * somehow says "actually stronger".

The core resolution mechanic of 5e doesn't handle large modifiers well. So we have to, design wise, keep those modifiers bounded. Which in turn limits how strong PCs are.

What more, because of how strong stats are in the core resolution mechanic, almost every PC needs to have a high modifier in the stat they are using in the core resolution mechanic. So we get a whole pile of PCs with 20 strength, 20 dex, 20 int, etc, especially by late T2. You hit the cap, and stop. It is very bland.

The game can't allow one PC to say "I am super strong"; it has to cap how strong you can be to avoid core resolution system collapse. They can hit 20. And stop. Another PC who uses strength might be weaker, at 18, but the difference is going to be tiny.

I want a PC with 14 strength, 14 dex, 14 charisma to not be a design error at level 20. I also want a PC with 30 strength to be in the same party, and the two of them to be peer combatants, even though the second PC is insanely stronger than the first.

But in 5e, that 2nd PC has a +16 to hit modifier, and the first one has a +8 to hit modifier. Any foe that the second PC doesn't auto-hit the first one usually wiffs on. They are completely different tier PCs.

By reducing the importance of stats and their modifiers, I make it so that the game no longer has to have as tight a reign on them. We can have a PC whose claim to fame is "I am insanely strong", and have that have real mechanical impact, without the game breaking down. It also means a jack-of-all-trades PC build isn't completely gimped.

If you want historical references, there was OD&D. In OD&D high stats (a) was useful in contests (DM says roll d20 under your stat), (b) gave you an XP bonus. As the game evolved, they started having other bnefits; but interaction with the core resolution mechanic only became insane in 3e D&D (where it was sort of hidden by other things like BaB).

In 4e, the problem remained; in it, because the rest of the system made the modifiers affine (half level) it means PCs where restricted to bumping 1 or 2 stats at every stat increase, with their core resolution mechanic (attack) stat bumped every time, to keep up with the math.

In 5e the affine system remained (proficiency instead of half level), and instead of having stats gain +8-10 over the level range they are capped at 20. Without that cap at 20 PCs would be required by the game to constantly and consistently invest in their prime core resolution stat (attack or DC stat) to keep up with the game's math. With the cap, PCs end up hitting 20 relatively quickly (unless they have a very good combo of feats or the like they are willing to delay it for).

The cap and rate and tradeoffs between stats and other stuff is restricted by the importance of +1s on the core resolution mechanic of the game. I want to free the game of that restriction, so PCs aren't forced into the same mold (or slight, temporary variations of it).

If I do this right, I think I can free the ASI from its feat vs prime stat bump trap, make naive characters by non-optimizing players work better, allow for characters whose "thing" is that they are inhumanly (stat) competent, and have these all work at the same table without extreme DM intervention to keep things on an even keel.

Does that explain why I want to do this?

[Greywander]

If you want to make a PC that is insanely strong in 5e, the game simply breaks.
Well, yes. If I can obliterate a bus with my pinky, why wouldn't I be able to make a mockery of almost any encounter you might throw at me? Being insanely strong is broken, and should be. Do you want stats to be purely cosmetic? If there are any benefits to being strong, then being insanely strong will amplify those benefits to a degree that breaks the game. If not, then it becomes meaningless how strong your character is.

This is what's confusing me. It sounds like you want a character to be able to say that they're insanely strong without it having a mechanical effect. But then what's the point?


Does that explain why I want to do this?
It sounds like there are two distinct problems you're trying to solve. The first is that you want players to be able to have high stats, e.g. super strength, without breaking the game. The second is that you are frustrated with how a player needs to max out their primary stat to stay competitive. These are separate from each other, and won't necessarily have the same solution.

For the first issue, the thing is that ability scores are the foundation of the d20 roll. They're at the very core of the system. If you start mucking about with them, you're going to create more problems that will need fixing, leading to more mucking about.

Instead, let's change our perception of ability scores. A 20 actually already represents superhuman ability. 15 is about the peak of what's realistically achievable in real life. But the PC are heroes, so they get to reach mythical levels of ability. Now, the problem is that this isn't always well represented in the mechanics. For example, the carrying capacity of a 20 STR character is impressive, but not superhuman. You could fix this by making carrying capacity scale exponentially with STR. You can also give characters with super strength access to features that grant advantage on STR checks and saves, to show that they're even stronger than someone with "just" 20 STR.

For the second issue, I feel your frustration. The good news is that you don't actually need to max your primary stat to be functional, only to be optimal. Something you might consider is removing ASIs altogether, locking a character's stats at character creation, barring powerful magic that can change stats. Use rolled stats or modify point buy to allow players to start with stats that can go up to 20. This makes your choices at character creation a bit more meaningful.

You can also look into adding new benefits to each stat to make them more appealing. Though exercise caution, or you might just make the problem worse. For example, mental stat bonuses shouldn't be much use to casters, who already have reasons to invest in mental stats.

You're not wrong that there are issues here. And they're not easy ones to solve. I hope you're able to find a solution that works well enough for you.

[Yakk]

Well, yes. If I can obliterate a bus with my pinky, why wouldn't I be able to make a mockery of almost any encounter you might throw at me? Being insanely strong is broken, and should be. Do you want stats to be purely cosmetic? If there are any benefits to being strong, then being insanely strong will amplify those benefits to a degree that breaks the game. If not, then it becomes meaningless how strong your character is.

This is what's confusing me. It sounds like you want a character to be able to say that they're insanely strong without it having a mechanical effect. But then what's the point?
I want a character to be strong without it making the game broken.

Someone with 30 strength is literally 50% stronger than someone with 20 strength at carrying stuff etc. But the 30 strength character breaks 5e math, because it comes with a +5 bonus on the core d20 check of "weapon attacks".

The fiction -- I'm a bit stronger -- doesn't match the effect -- any combat challenging to you is trivial to me.

Insofar as any stat that can be used to save, or impose DCs, is uncapped, the only way to be competent is to maximize that stat in 5e. The game mechanics don't permit another option, as written.

This is nothing fundamental about "very strong" that makes this true. It is the 5e mechanics (inherited from 3e) that makes it true.

And it is because it applies +1 every 2 points to d20 tests that makes this happen. It adding to damage is significant, but doesn't cause this kind of problem.

A +10 to damage is powerful, and can easily double your damage output -- but a +10 to hit means you are playing a different game, and things challenging to you are impossible to someone without the +10 to hit.

If you hit something 2/3 of the time with +10 to hit, the person without it hits it 1/6 times; you are literally hitting 4x as often. If you hit it 50% of the time, you are hitting it 10x as often.

On the DC side it is just as bad. If you had +10 to spell damage, that is an awesome ability that makes you significantly more powerful. If you had +10 to spell DCs, the game is broken; your spells either auto-land, or your allies spells basically never land.

Note: I'm leaving in the +strength bonus to damage. I want the strength bonus to apply, but not in an uncapped way to d20 tests and DCs, because at +1 every 2 points that means you have to restrict the range of reasonable strength (or whatever) scores to a very narrow range, or run into the problem I'm describing here.

Weapon attacks going from 1d8+2d6+5 (str 16, duelist, flame) to 1d8+2d6+12 (str 30, duelist, flame) is a 40% increase in competence at killing people with a sword.

Weapon attack rolls going from +9 (str 16, 6 prof) to +16 (str 30, 6 prof) is a 2x-3x increase in competence at killing people with a sword.

In baseline 5e, getting 30 strength instead of 16 strength makes you 3x-4x times better at fighting. If str doesn't apply to attack rolls (just to damage), it makes you 40% better at fighting.

40% better is really damn good, but it doesn't break the game. A PC 4x better than another, the other PC might as well not be there. A PC 40% better is just impressively better.

The 30 strength person will continue to be stronger -- can pick up heavier things, throw them, etc. They just won't mechanically dominate combat.

Similarly, the 30 intelligence wizard won't have a DC of 26 (8+2 item+6 prof+10 int), but instead 16+1d12. So will the 16 intelligence wizard. In baseline 5e, it is 26 and 19, again, a difference of 2x to 3x as many spells landing.

(I might even let spellcasters by default add their attribute to damage of spells; a nice bonus, but not an unbalanced one; assuming +spells known isn't enough.)

...

I mean, I could instead rescale how strength works. Have the carrying capacity of a character be strength * bonus (min 1), so a strength 20 person is 10x stronger than a strength 10 character.

And make the damage bonus be (strength-10).

And then change the range of stats so they are closer to 10 and harder to reach 20.

But, even that +5 range of DC/test modifiers is pretty dominant compared to most other things a 5e PC can customize their PC to do.

[MoiMagnus]

This is what's confusing me. It sounds like you want a character to be able to say that they're insanely strong without it having a mechanical effect. But then what's the point?

I think they want a system similar to superhero games. For example in Mutant and Mastermind, every 2 points of Strength double your carry capacity, while only giving +2 to a d20 when attacking enemies. The effectiveness of a character in battle is hence logarithmic in its "actual strength".

Because in superhero fictions, superstrength is actually not that effective during battles, and "plot armor" (or whatever you want to call it) tends to protect weaker characters in duels so that the confrontation is somewhat balanced. Even when the advantage is at the strongest, the advantage is rarely as significant as it should be because one-sided fights are boring.

[Unless we're talking about minions. Superhero games also recognise that in some circumstances you want the superstrength character to be OP against enemies, so non-heroic characters do not get the privilege of having a balanced fight against heroes.]

[Yakk]

Sure, but the range of strength in D&D games -- going from 15 to 30 only doubles your carrying weight -- isn't superheroesque. It isn't "double strength every 2 points", where 10 to 30 is a 1000x increase in strength.

On the other hand, the range from 15 strength fighter and a 30 strength fighter has already broken 5e combat math to the point that they really aren't peers. It is a +8 difference in their to-hit chance, which is bonkers.

#1 I want a PC that doesn't optimize their attack stat up to the cap to be not the self sabotage it is right now.

#2 I want a PC that breaks the attack stat cap to not break the game.

I can get #1 easily: "You can use twice proficiency instead of stat+proficiency on spell DC math and d20 Tests". I'm thinking that "You must use proficiency + proficiency die" is a bit more fun and gives me a lot of #2. It doesn't complete the job.

[Greywander]

I think they want a system similar to superhero games. For example in Mutant and Mastermind, every 2 points of Strength double your carry capacity, while only giving +2 to a d20 when attacking enemies. The effectiveness of a character in battle is hence logarithmic in its "actual strength".
I'm looking at doing something similar in one of my homebrews. I think this is the way to go because it lets you feel super strong because of how much you can lift without making your combat performance too overpowered.


#1 I want a PC that doesn't optimize their attack stat up to the cap to be not the self sabotage it is right now.
The problem is that if stats matter, then it's unoptimized to not max the stat out. If you "fix" this, it makes stats not matter. Using your idea of doubling up on proficiency, I could dump STR and still be equally competent with a greatsword. Is that a desirable outcome to you?

Maybe a better idea would be to add new stats to the game: Offense, Defense, and Support/Utility. You have a fixed number of points to distribute between them, so maxing them all out isn't possible. This allows some degree of customization where each option has similar value. This still has the issue of someone being able to fight competently with a greatsword even with low STR, but competence isn't automatically equal and still scales with a stat, so there's still a sense of needing to invest to be competent instead of getting it for free.

I think it's also worth mentioning again that maxing a stat isn't required. It's optimal, certainly, but you can be functional with just a 16 or even a 14. The real issue is that whatever you're getting in return isn't worth not maxing your primary stat. It doesn't have to be stronger, and shouldn't be stronger, it doesn't even need to be equal; it just needs to be different and interesting such that it opens up new tactical options that might be more interesting to a player. For example, most combat happens at distances closer than 120 feet, so there isn't really a reason to boost the range of EB to 600 feet when you could grab other features instead. But it's still interesting, and opens up the possibility of engaging enemies at extreme ranges when in an open space. It's suboptimal, but it's also a legitimate trade-off that could appeal to some players. Boosting a secondary or tertiary stat instead of your primary should feel similar, but most often does not.


#2 I want a PC that breaks the attack stat cap to not break the game.
I think the best way to achieve this is to not let it happen. Keep the constraints on stats, which keeps the bonuses to things like attack rolls from getting out of hand, and tweak the tertiary aspects of ability scores to suit the fantasy you want to create. As mentioned, you can greatly increase the weight a creature can carry with high STR, all while keeping their combat stats powerful but not broken.

I can't really see another way to do this. If you let a stat get super high, then the bonus to anything affected by that stat is also super high. You can either just not let the stat get super high, or you can make the stat not affect things. But if you take the latter option, then it becomes pointless to boost that stat.

[Yakk]

The problem is that if stats matter, then it's unoptimized to not max the stat out. If you "fix" this, it makes stats not matter. Using your idea of doubling up on proficiency, I could dump STR and still be equally competent with a greatsword. Is that a desirable outcome to you?
Right now, stats matter so much that the alternatives to boosting stats almost all suck.

Barring the feats people consider broken (SS/GWM/PAM/etc), the trade off between +2 to your prime stat and a feat is so much in favor of the +2 to your prime stat, not taking the +2 is sabotage.

Now, +2 to your wisdom on a fighter? That isn't a bad thing to have. It matters. If you could have +2 wisdom or nothing, you'd take +2 wisdom. It just doesn't matter so much.

And with double proficiency? Your chance to hit would be the same, but your damage wouldn't be. One would hit for 12 damage per swing, the other for 7. 71% more damage is a pretty nice thing to have.

Today, the +5 strength character is closer to +200% (3x as effective).

+3 vs +5, right now it is 45%. With no-strength-to-hit, it is 20%. The impact is halved.

Now throw in GWM (-5/+10). Now damage goes up by 29% (+0 to +5) or 10% (+3 to +5). Again, this matters. It just doesn't matter as much.

The choices aren't 0 and HUGE -- matters or does not matter. I want medium.

Hence make stats matter less.

I think it's also worth mentioning again that maxing a stat isn't required. It's optimal, certainly, but you can be functional with just a 16 or even a 14. The real issue is that whatever you're getting in return isn't worth not maxing your primary stat. It doesn't have to be stronger, and shouldn't be stronger, it doesn't even need to be equal; it just needs to be different and interesting such that it opens up new tactical options that might be more interesting to a player. For example, most combat happens at distances closer than 120 feet, so there isn't really a reason to boost the range of EB to 600 feet when you could grab other features instead. But it's still interesting, and opens up the possibility of engaging enemies at extreme ranges when in an open space. It's suboptimal, but it's also a legitimate trade-off that could appeal to some players. Boosting a secondary or tertiary stat instead of your primary should feel similar, but most often does not.
A fighter with 14 strength (using strength based weapons) in a party with characters with 20 strength is going to be noticably incompetent at fighting.

I can make a 14 strength fighter match in damage output a completely naive 20 strength fighter only by using every other optimization trick in the bag. Literally that difference in strength has as much impact as the combined total of all other optimization I can do.

And those points of strength ... stack with all of the other optimization I can do. So if I'm maximizing my optimization efforts, unless I'm doing something as a joke, the optimized fighter won't have 14 strength. And if I'm not maxing my optimization efforts, then the 14 strength fighter falls very far behind the 20 strength fighter. The "max optimization strength 14 fighter" is something I have never, ever seen in play (barring something like relying on belts of giant strength).

I have seen unoptimized 14 and 20 strength characters next to each other, and it isn't pretty. 1/6 attacks wiff on one and hit on the other, and when they hit they do noticably less damage. The 14 strength character is going to be about half as effective as the 20 strength character, and you can really really see that in play.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly there's nothing really unique about 5e in this regard,3e and 4e just mostly assume a higher ceiling on stats (soft capped at ~25 instead of hard capped at 20) and that you'd have an additional +5 to that from various sources. The game still broke just as much if you had a 14 primary stat when the game expected a 30. And honestly I can't see a way around it without getting rid of either levels or 'level appropriate encounters'.

I think D&D could handle super strength and the like, but it might have to sacrifice either bounded accuracy or the idea that you can operate at peak power all day. For the latter I'd imagine something like taking levels of Exhaustion or spending HD to add your Ability Score Modifier twice. I don't expect D&D to go full blown resource-based like Nobilis or Cypher. Build such abilities around momentary bursts rather than increases to the baseline and I think the game could withstand the occasional+22 modifier.

[JNAProductions]

Fighters also depend on stats more than other classes.

They get up to four attacks, at-will, all adding their stat mod to damage. At level 20, against AC 20, a Fighter with 20 Strength and a Greatsword does (assuming no GWF or GWM) 28.8 damage per action. Drop that to 16, and they deal 20 damage per action. That's pretty significant.

A Barbarian, at level 20, with a Strength of 16, 20, and 24, using Rage (unlimited at this level) does the following against that same AC 20 target. 14, 19.2, and 25.2.
But, add Reckless Attack to that, and they're now dealing 21, 26.88, and 32.76. Suddenly, even with a Strength of 16 before level 20 (where it raises by 4) their damage is fine.

Add on Zealot-adds 1d6+10 damage if EITHER attack hits, and you get your stats mattering even less, since your damage goes up by 13.5 if either attack lands, not just one.

I wouldn't WANT to play a 16 attack stat PC at high levels, but the game certainly doesn't break if you do. Not to mention there's plenty of stuff that doesn't rely directly on it-usually it's casting, though.

[Yakk]

Honestly there's nothing really unique about 5e in this regard,3e and 4e just mostly assume a higher ceiling on stats (soft capped at ~25 instead of hard capped at 20) and that you'd have an additional +5 to that from various sources. The game still broke just as much if you had a 14 primary stat when the game expected a 30. And honestly I can't see a way around it without getting rid of either levels or 'level appropriate encounters'.
I know that 3e started this problem, and that 4e continued it? That is what I said above.

Red Box D&D didn't have it. And you still had strong fighters in Red Box D&D.

4e had a cap of 30 in stats, not 25.

The problem in 3e 4e and 5e is that modifiers to d20 rolls are affine in effect, not linear. Against DC 11, +0 vs +5 halves your chance of missing, and against DC 16 it doubles your chance of success. If you boost the modifier and DC by 10 (DC 21/26 and +10 vs +15) the same holds.

Presuming we stay out of "auto-hit/miss" range, this means each +1 causes an exponential impact on your competence; roughly 1.1^x. Someone with a +10 modifier gap is 2.6x as competent.

We then compound this by having secondary, linear effects from modifiers -- more spells known, or more damage on a hit. The 5 base damage per hit hits 10, 15 or 20; then you multiply that in turn with the exponential accuracy term, and you get the very impressive return on bonuses.


I think D&D could handle super strength and the like, but it might have to sacrifice either bounded accuracy or the idea that you can operate at peak power all day. For the latter I'd imagine something like taking levels of Exhaustion or spending HD to add your Ability Score Modifier twice. I don't expect D&D to go full blown resource-based like Nobilis or Cypher. Build such abilities around momentary bursts rather than increases to the baseline and I think the game could withstand the occasional+22 modifier.
I mean, just remove strength-to-accuracy and super strength works in 5e.

Literally. Just make your attack be +prof*2 instead of +str+prof. And you can have PCs with 40 strength.

40 strength is good, understand; +15 to damage is awesome. But without strength-to-accuracy, it is relatively weaker than 29 strength is in baseline D&D.

Vanilla 5e:
Greatweapon fighter, flametongue greatsword, 4 attacks, GWF feat. Belt of 29 strength (+9 modifier).

+15-5 = +10 to hit for 4d6+19 damage (33), or +15 for 23.
With prof-for-accuracy:
6+6-5 = +7 to hit for 4d6+25 damage (39), or +12 for 29.

Crits do the same in both cases, so I'll neglect them (1.4 with advantage, 0.7 without, per swing).

Against a AC 20 foe with advantage: 80% hit rate, 26.4 damage per swing, vs 64% hit rate and 18.6 or 88% hit rate and 25.52 (don't use GWM for higher damage prof-to-accuracy with 40 str).
Without advantage, no GWM: 80% hit rate, 18.4 damage per swing, vs 65% hit rate and 18.9.

And 4 swings (so x4); Vanilla advantage is 105.6 (73.6 without), Prof-to-accuracy advantage is 102 (75.6 without).

At the other end, we have a flametongue halbard PAM character with 15 strength. 5 attacks for 5d10+1d4+10d6+10 total at +12 to hit.

With prof-to-attack they have +12 to hit. With advantage they hit 88% of the time for 66 total damage, and without hit 65% of the time for 49 total damage.
Without prof-to-attack they have +8 to hit. With advantage they hit 70% of the time for 53, and without for 34 total damage.

Strength still matters, but less.

[Greywander]

I think you're correct that bonuses to accuracy are much stronger than bonuses to damage. Heck, 5e hands out damage bonuses like candy, but accuracy bonuses can almost be counted on one hand.

It kind of sounds like what you're looking for is either a secondary STR track that only affects damage, carrying capacity, and maybe jump distance, or a class/character feature that does basically the same thing. For example, each time you get the feature, you get +2 damage, x2 carry weight, and x2 jump distance. You could even allow these to be taken without needing to max STR (though not maxing STR will impair your accuracy). I'm not sure how you'd award these, though.

[Yakk]

Except, I think the best name for that stat is "Strength".

There is nothing, zilch, about stats that says "this must be the way to increase accuracy, or increase spell DCs".

Doing so causes game problems. And Strength, other than that feature, reflects what I want to be less capped.

Like, literally, if I do away with stat-to-DC and stat-to-ATK, you can do away with point buy and just roll dice for characters and not worry about one PC being 2x as effective as another. You can have Giants with 50 strength, and Ogre PCs that start with 20, or whatever. Huge swaths of the game stop being exceedingly fragile.

...

Saving throws in general are ok -- they can fluctuate, and don't need that tight of control, honestly. There are 6 of them, finding a weak save isn't that hard.

Dex-to-AC and the like have issues I have to work out. AC is a lot like a DC (it basically is), so making it grow without bounds causes issues. DCs are worse than ATK bonuses really (which is why there are belts of 29 strength, but none of 29 int or dex).

Some class features, like Paladin +Cha to saves, or Artificer +Int to checks, have issues. For the Artificer, it is pretty easy; Int uses of +Prof to a check instead of Int uses of +Int to a check.

Spellcasters in general don't get enough use of the casting stat without DCs riding on it (mostly because the DC was so powerful, the D&D designers had little use for it). Easiest way is to say "can add Casting Stat to damage of a spell". Adding +X to fireball damage doesn't break much. Agonizing Blast has an issue; 1d10+(Cha*2) x4 is probably too much.

Attribute checks in general I think I can permit to use the full stat. Especially if we change to D&D One based grappling (an Attack, with a DC to escape, instead of being skill based). Even infinite initiative has bounded impact (don't get me wrong; it is very good).

Cha to saves is tricky. Could just make it +Prof to saves. Maybe make it Cha * 5' radius; that does mean I'd have to replace the feature at higher levels. But the save radius going up to near-infinite has bounded return, so I'm good with that.

Infact, instead of +Prof, +ProfDie, because that is a bit more active and less problematic when it gets big. Ditto for Artificer; Int times you can add +ProfDie to a save or check is pretty good.

What other issues need patching?

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, if you're removing ability score modifiers from attacks and DCs, remove them from AC and saves as well. You could collapse saves into the old set of three, give Proficiency to one, Double Proficiency to another, and nothing to the third. AC becomes 10+Proficiency+Armour, assuming you're proficient in that type of armour*.

For initiative there's a ton of systems out there that wouldn't require stats. You could do popcorn initiative, round the table, or anything else, but I'd be tempted to use the card-based system in Savage Worlds. Alert allows you to act on the better of two cards, and so on.

* Yes this favours heavily armoured front-liners. No, I don't see any issue with that.

[Yakk]

I might just make it:

Unarmored/Light: +Dex (max 5)
Medium: +Dex (max 2)
Heavy: No dex.

Given the cap on dex to AC in medium, having a cap on light works.

[biolante1919]

You could do +proficiency to armor class with the same modifier caps that heavy medium Nd light have

[JNAProductions]

You could do +proficiency to armor class with the same modifier caps that heavy medium Nd light have

Because screw anyone in light armor, right?

Medium armor gets 16 off the bat (Scale Mail) and raises to 17 with cash (Half-Plate).
Heavy gets 16 off the bat (Chain Mail) and raises to 18 with cash (Plate).
Light armor gets 13 off the bat (Leather), and raises to 14 with cash (Studded Leather). It then inches up by 1 every four levels, only matching your starting Medium or Heavy armor at level 9.

[Amechra]

Red Box D&D didn't have it. And you still had strong fighters in Red Box D&D.

The strongest possible Red Box Fighter was the equivalent of someone with 16 Strength in 5e.

...

Honestly, it feels like your issue is mostly Strength-related? It's really the only ability score that has any frame of reference outside of the system itself (because it modifies real world values like "how far can I jump?" or "how much can I lift?", while other ability scores only make sense within D&D itself).

If that's the case, just have people make Constitution checks instead of Strength checks and use Constitution instead of Strength for the purposes of making melee/thrown attacks. Strength gets to keep its saving throw and continue to modify your carrying capacity and jump distance. Done and done.

[biolante1919]

Because screw anyone in light armor, right?

Medium armor gets 16 off the bat (Scale Mail) and raises to 17 with cash (Half-Plate).
Heavy gets 16 off the bat (Chain Mail) and raises to 18 with cash (Plate).
Light armor gets 13 off the bat (Leather), and raises to 14 with cash (Studded Leather). It then inches up by 1 every four levels, only matching your starting Medium or Heavy armor at level 9.

I mean… yeah. Point buy is the official method for stats and would give a very similar armor class. Without shenanigans. And dexterity has always been an overutilized stat. Buying plate is a 5th level endeavor using wealth accrual in the book, and light armor is for skirmisher stules of play, why should leather be the same as plate, different builds are allowed to be different

[JNAProductions]

I mean… yeah. Point buy is the official method for stats and would give a very similar armor class. Without shenanigans. And dexterity has always been an overutilized stat. Buying plate is a 5th level endeavor using wealth accrual in the book, and light armor is for skirmisher stules of play, why should leather be the same as plate, different builds are allowed to be different

Currently, a Dex build will start at +3 with Leather armor. This goes up to Studded Leather pretty soon, and then +4 at level 4, and +5 at level 8 (6 if you're a Dex Fighter and don't need a feat).
You could start at +4 Dex mod, with Custom Lineage or a good stat allocation outside point buy/standard array. Hell, you can potentially start with +5 Dex mod!

Light Armor is already worse than Heavy Armor-it caps at 17 (usually at level 8) whereas Heavy caps at 18 (usually early Tier Two-can be earlier, can be later, based on wealth).

I'm of the train of thought that increasing PC defenses is generally good. It's why I do stats the way I do-an 18 in your attack stat makes the game deadlier and encounters more prone to alpha strikes. An 18 in a tertiary stat improves your saves and skills, but doesn't make the game any deadlier. AC is similar-a good AC makes a PC more able to take risks and lets them last longer. A bad AC makes them more prone to caution and less able to weather risks.

[biolante1919]

Currently, a Dex build will start at +3 with Leather armor. This goes up to Studded Leather pretty soon, and then +4 at level 4, and +5 at level 8 (6 if you're a Dex Fighter and don't need a feat).
You could start at +4 Dex mod, with Custom Lineage or a good stat allocation outside point buy/standard array. Hell, you can potentially start with +5 Dex mod!

Light Armor is already worse than Heavy Armor-it caps at 17 (usually at level 8) whereas Heavy caps at 18 (usually early Tier Two-can be earlier, can be later, based on wealth).

I'm of the train of thought that increasing PC defenses is generally good. It's why I do stats the way I do-an 18 in your attack stat makes the game deadlier and encounters more prone to alpha strikes. An 18 in a tertiary stat improves your saves and skills, but doesn't make the game any deadlier. AC is similar-a good AC makes a PC more able to take risks and lets them last longer. A bad AC makes them more prone to caution and less able to weather risks.

That’s fair. I still think it’s a good idea personally. A change to make most numbers based off of proficiency instead of abilities i think would be an improvement but would also change the game drastically and require a lot of rebuilding to make systems that were “balanced” around ability scores become “balanced” around proficiency. Armor is probably a good example of that.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly I think that AC for all PCs should key off of Proficiency Bonus on the same way that Attacks do. Most games I know that use a stat/skill distinction tend to key attacks and defence off of both, D&D is very weird because it doesn't let you improve martial defences via skill (but you can for magical defences, D&D is built weirdly).

So yeah, let's go back to armour modifying a character's AC, rather than the character modifying the armour's. I'm also going to suggest we move back to two armour types like in 4e, goving both options for +1AC to +5AC, with heavy armour getting damage resistance or the like in exchange for some drawback.

[Maat Mons]

If you don’t like having Strength determine accuracy, you could just have Dexterity determine accuracy for all weapon types. Honestly, there’s no reason being the Hulk should give you pinpoint precision. You could also go back to having Dexterity govern attack rolls for spells, like in 3rd edition. It’s kind of bizarre that 5e uses five different ability scores for attack rolls. Just pick an ability score and have it govern accuracy for everyone. Don’t have the same thing use different ability scores for different people.

If you’re going to eliminate ability score modifiers from d20 rolls, I’d go the rest of the way and remove ability scores entirely. That way, you could say your character is a bodybuilder or a genius if it suits your backstory, and you wouldn’t have to worry about it giving you any special advantages over other players. Similarly, you can decide that your character is physically weak or a moron, and you wouldn’t have to worry about being handicapped by your role-playing decision. I one knew a guy who had his heart set on playing a doofus, but the lowest stat he rolled was a 13, so he couldn’t play the character he wanted. He had no choice but to be notably smarter than average.

I’d say the problem with the implementation of feats in 5e is that they’re asking you to pick between numeric increases and interesting things. You should be picking between interesting things and other interesting things. If you have decisions as part of numeric progression, it should strictly be a choice between different numeric increases. Interesting things and numeric increases should never consume the same resources. But I question the wisdom of allowing players to allocate numbers in the first place. The game must design monsters and challenges with certain player numbers in mind. If encounters are scaled to the low end of expected player numbers, the result is that players who invest more heavily in bigger numbers will crush them. If encounters are instead scaled to the high end of expected player numbers, players who don’t invest in big numbers will struggle to contribute. If the game just gives players numbers appropriate to their class and level, you’ll never have to worry that player stats might not be in the right range for level-appropriate challenges. And then the only decisions you have to make when building a character will be interesting ones.

[Yakk]

Again, because accuracy is crazy important mechanically, if you tie it to an ability score that ability score's bonuses have to be highly controlled and be in a tight range between PCs, or you get a situation where one PC always misses and another always hits, which is really boring.

And, as I don't want ability scores to be constrained to a tight range, I don't want ability scores to determine accuracy.

[Herbert_W]

. . . I don't want ability scores to determine accuracy.

Having ability scores determine accuracy is deeply rooted in DnD's basic design assumptions. You could certainly have a game that doesn't use stats for accuracy, but it won't feel like DnD.

Maybe that's an acceptable tradeoff. However, if you make that trade, you're taking on the job of designing your "does my character succeed?" mechanic from scratch or almost from scratch. There's a lot of ways that you could do that.


. . . or you get a situation where one PC always misses and another always hits, which is really boring.

Is that necessarily boring, though?

Having situations where one character can definitely do something that another definitely can't isn't always bad. For example: a wizard who has a spell prepared and the appropriate components etc. can always cast it. A fighter who tries to wiggle their fingers and sing along to cast the same spell will always fail (unless you have a very generous DM).

Having situations where one character can definitely do a thing that another definitely can't becomes bad when that's thing is necessary and sufficient to win. To build on the previous example: encounters that can be reliably overcome with a single spell are generally considered not very interesting and encounters that absolutely require a specific spell are even worse.

So, let's apply this principle to attacks: redesign adventures such that hitting with melee attacks is merely very helpful and neither necessary nor sufficient. For example: getting into range with a mobile enemy to be able to make that OP strength-boosted attack is itself a major challenge, or enemies need to be not just beaten down but also burned to ensure that they stay dead, or the enemies are incorporeal or swarms of insects, or the challenge is not a combat encounter at all.

I think the issue here is that 5e is designed on the assumption of vertical rather than horizontal character advancement. Vertical advancement means that any reasonably-made party of a given level can overcome an encounter of the appropriate CR; a party that can overcome a CR1 encounter will grow to overcome a CR2 encounter with the same ease, and so on and so forth. Horizontal advancement would mean that parties can have varying skill levels for varying types of challenge, and can improve in terms of breadth of types of encounter as well as ineptitude at a single one. A party might be very competent at solving mysteries but weak in combat or vice versa.

There's a good reason why WoTC designed DnD with vertical growth in mind: it makes for easy plug-and-play design as any adventure module of the right level should work for any party of the right level. Horizontal growth requires a more careful fit of adventures to parties.

Yet, horizontal growth would also allow for characters who would otherwise break that single advancement track such as characters with super-strength. Sure, a super-strong character will break combat - but that becomes OK when there's a lot more than combat to the game and that character breaking it gives them an occasional chance to shine rather than breaking the whole game.

So , I see two options here:


Redesign the "does my character succeed?" mechanism to not be broken by very high ability scores and keep vertical advancement, or
redesign the game for horizontal advancement so that a party having dramatically above-par performance in a specific metric does not break the game.

Either would be a lot of work.

[animorte]

There's a reason this is in homebrew. I'm ok with the concept. Of course I'm also very open-minded and willing to try or design just about whatever concept presents itself. You just need to keep in mind the potential consequences and be willing to adjust accordingly.

It sounds to me like starting an entire base system would honestly be the best way to approach this. Give each individual their base proficiency stat that continues to improve with levels. Also, increase the rate at which that grows. Each and every character gets set number of proficiencies, some in specific areas (based on class, race, and subclass) with others applied as desired. This isn't unlike the current design.

The entire problem is the pre-existing stats mentioned in spells, attacks, and everywhere else. Replace everything with the proficiency!

[Yakk]

Having ability scores determine accuracy is deeply rooted in DnD's basic design assumptions. You could certainly have a game that doesn't use stats for accuracy, but it won't feel like DnD.
No, it isn't?

In old D&D, attributes gave an XP buff if they where high enough. Other than that, they where part of interacting with the environment, used for attribute checks. They did not impact spellcasting or combat at all.

Over time they started impacting the d20 roll. By AD&D with "exceptional strength", 1 in 21600 characters had a +3 bonus to hit from high strength, and a larger bonus to damage. Far more likely you'd have magic items that did this. It was well understood that changing your hit chance (the d20 roll) had far larger impact than changing your damage.

Magic swords modified your chance to hit by a larger amount, and far further back into D&D's history, than attributes every did.

The idea that spell effectiveness was tied to your casting stat didn't really show up until 3e. In AD&D, you got bonus slots and the like, and stuff like immunity to illusions, from high int/wis.

"Stats for accuracy" only became de-facto in 3e D&D, which generated a unified resolution mechanic. It was a unified mechanic, but that unified mechanic fell apart if you pushed at it at all; modifiers where treated as linear, not affine.

Rejecting that 3e conceit doesn't make something "not feel like D&D", unless your definition of D&D starts with 3e.


Maybe that's an acceptable tradeoff. However, if you make that trade, you're taking on the job of designing your "does my character succeed?" mechanic from scratch or almost from scratch. There's a lot of ways that you could do that.
5e has proficiency bonus.

I'm now leaning towards keeping stats-to-skills (ie, attribute checks) intact. With D&D One removing the problematic opposed athletics check to grapple, having people auto-succeed at skill checks with lots of investment isn't a problem as far as I can see.

And even initiative checks, while powerful, have bounded return on investment.

So I'm just going after DCs and Attack rolls.

Proposal:
If you are proficient with the weapon, you add your proficiency bonus plus your proficiency die to your attack roll

If you aren't, you just add your proficiency die (because dice are fun).

For your DC, PC DCs are "8 + Proficiency Bonus + Proficiency Die roll". Yes, you roll when setting a DC. Sometimes you'll roll a 12 and your awesome spell of kickassness will be hard to resist, other times you'll roll a 1.

...

The interesting part is, how do I make casting stats matter more than just spells known for spellcasters? I think "add casting stat to damage on spells that have saving throws or attack rolls" might be both enough, and not to painful. (this excludes magic missile)

Also, there are a few other spots where out of control bonuses cause issues. Constitution bonus times level, for example.

Is that necessarily boring, though?

Having situations where one character can definitely do something that another definitely can't isn't always bad. For example: a wizard who has a spell prepared and the appropriate components etc. can always cast it. A fighter who tries to wiggle their fingers and sing along to cast the same spell will always fail (unless you have a very generous DM).
The problem is it is the core combat resolution mechanic.

It is something that determines in a high-stakes scenario if your action changed the fiction or not.

And yes, it is boring if you have no control over the fiction in a high-stakes part of the game.

You'll note I'm leaving saving throws intact. So even when I allow for PCs with 30-40 in a stat or whatever, one benefit is that you win all saving throws against that stat. So long as PCs don't end up with 40s in EVERY stat, this isn't a problem, as there are 6 stats; immunity to (say) dex based effects is great.



So, let's apply this principle to attacks: redesign adventures such that hitting with melee attacks is merely very helpful and neither necessary nor sufficient. For example: getting into range with a mobile enemy to be able to make that OP strength-boosted attack is itself a major challenge, or enemies need to be not just beaten down but also burned to ensure that they stay dead, or the enemies are incorporeal or swarms of insects, or the challenge is not a combat encounter at all.
So, the issue is that one person has an OP strength-boosted attack, and the other doesn't.

This is a spotlight issue. And it is a LOT of work to work around as a DM.

[Wintermoot]

If you look at "super strong" characters in fiction where they fight along side normal peers, you'll notice that in actual combat they don't tend to hit harder or fight better than their normal peers. See Hercules the Legendary Journeys as an example.

So in my mind your super strong character can just have the same bonus as this 20 strength brethren when it comes to combat and some other things.

Where his immense strength shows up in fiction is in specific superhuman acts. Lifting enormous weights. Forcing up a porticullis. Throwing boulders like a giant.

So represent those abilities through some alternate bonus/metric. Perhaps he has the normal stat bonus in combat and gets an additional +5 bonus when doing certain athletic feats like those I describe above.

I don't think you'll get it to work in 5e without divorcing the things you want him to be able to do superhumanly from the core combat mechanic.

[Amechra]

In old D&D, attributes gave an XP buff if they where high enough. Other than that, they where part of interacting with the environment, used for attribute checks. They did not impact spellcasting or combat at all.

Strength was already contributing to attack and damage rolls with melee weapons by 1977. There was a three year period where it didn't, and then a forty-five year period where it did.

So unless your definition of "Old D&D" is literally just the stuff published before Star Wars came out, this is factually incorrect.

[Yakk]

Strength was already contributing to attack and damage rolls with melee weapons by 1977. There was a three year period where it didn't, and then a forty-five year period where it did.

So unless your definition of "Old D&D" is literally just the stuff published before Star Wars came out, this is factually incorrect.

No, I played red box D&D for a long time, and I don't think Strength added to attack rolls. Maybe super human or near cap might have.

AD&D had like ... +1 to hit at 17 strength, up to +3 at 18/00 strength; 17 strength was like 1 in 70 characters, and 18/100 was 1 in 21600 characters. Bonuses to attack from high strength was was mostly, but not entirely, the domain of magic items.

By 3e, a 12+ (like 40% of characters rolled 3d6 strait) got a +1 to hit. If you rolled 4d6 drop lowest, the majority of PCs had a 12+ in a stat. A +2 wasn't all that much rarer, and on up. 18s got you a +4. The degree of bonus to attack stats was much larger. And, WBL made more attribute tweaks even more common. 3e had a collapse of the rng, where bonuses exceeded the 1d20 in scale; this is one of the reasons why power attack was such a key feat, as it let you convert overshoot accuracy into damage.

In 4e, you where expected to have 26-30 strength (well, primary attack stat) by level 30 without any items helping you out, and if you didn't your character was falling behind. The range of acceptable stats tightened, as overshoot accuracy was mostly eliminated; every point of accuracy was precious.

5e kept the tight stats and most of the math of 4e and gave it new trade dress.

I've played almost every version of D&D, short of OD&D white box, and I've read that. I know my D&D history. I remember stats becoming crazy powerful and I know what it did to the game.

[Amechra]

No, I played red box D&D for a long time, and I don't think Strength added to attack rolls. Maybe super human or near cap might have.


Strength: With a low Strength score, it would be harder to hit monsters, and you would have a “minus” adjustment, a penalty. But your great Strength gives you a bonus, the “plus” adjustment. Your + 2 bonus helps you in fighting; it is added to both your Hit Rolls and to the Damage you do. It also helps when you try to perform feats of strength - like breaking open a stuck door, or lifting a huge rock.

The + 2 adjustment has already been included in your Hit Rolls for the Solo Adventures in this booklet.

You can also see worked examples if you look at p. 34 (which has six example characters) — the Magic-User has a -1 to hit and damage because of their 8 Strength, while the Thief, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling all have a +2 thanks to their 16 Strength.

To be entirely fair, though, the book is horribly organized, so I wouldn't be terribly surprised if you or your group just happened to miss this particular rule.

[Herbert_W]

No, it isn't? . . . Rejecting that 3e conceit doesn't make something "not feel like D&D", unless your definition of D&D starts with 3e.

We're wandering off-topic here, but I would like to say something brief in response to this. Amechra has already critiqued this statement from the standpoint of the relevance of strength to accuracy earlier in the game than 3e, so I'm going to respond from another angle.

Counting a conceit that started in 3e as deeply rooted is not unreasonable. Most people's personal definition of DnD is going to be the edition that they started with. For most players that's going to be 3e or later. 5e represented a large increase in popularity for DnD.

But that's besides the point. (In bold, not becasue I'm yelling at you, but becasue I'd prefer this thread to not get sidetracked.) You've made it clear that having stats affect hit probability doesn't feel like a required part of core DnD to you, and this is your homebrew.

Getting back to the point: how much of a priority is realism for you?

Realistically, strength should affect hit probability up to a certain point, with that point depending the weapon used. Once you're strong enough to whip a certain weight around like a pool noodle, a weapon of that weight won't benefit from further increases in strength.

DnD already kinda hints towards acknowledging this with finesse weapons, which can use dexterity as an attack stat. It's assumed that a character wielding a finesse weapon is strong enough that their dexterity becomes the limiting factor rather than strength (but then finesse weapons can still be used with strength anyways, 'cause hey, 5e isn't realistic.)

A more realistic way to acknowledge this would be to cap a character's attack bonus from strength in a way that depends both on dexterity and the type of weapon used.

For example: you could have a default rule whereby characters add either their strength or dexterity, whichever is lower, to attacks. Some weapons are heavy - they apply a penalty to a character's effective strength, so a character needs to be stronger than they are dexterous to make optimal use of them. Other weapons are light and apply a bonus to effective strength, making dexterity the limiting factor. (You could also have awkward weapons which apply a penalty to effective dexterity, or easy weapons which give a bonus to effective dexterity.) If these changes make a weapon better or worse, damage can be adjusted to compensate.

Under this system, a character could still break combat - but they'd need to boost two ability scores to insane levels in order to do it, which they might not have the build resources to do.

[Yakk]

I mean, a demigod tier fighter (L 20 character) figures out how to hit things accurately. A demigod tier wizard figures out how to land spells effectively.

It being brain power, technique, training, strength, speed, tactics ... I don't care to simulate it that deeply.

I like verisimilitude when it doesn't get in the way of the game. So, the physically strong fighter, when they hit, hits harder; if this doesn't cause game warping effects, then great.

If strength-to-accuracy and intelligence-to-save-DC didn't warp the game (stat maximization as a competence tax, thus stat capping as a competence limit; the damage it causes to randomly rolled characters; etc) as badly as it does, I wouldn't mind it either. But it does. So, drop it.

[DracoDei]

Three thoughts, each of which may or may not be of interest to you:
First off, while the "double or half your chance to hit/effect with spell" type swings apply at the ends of the overall AC/DC curves the effect in the middle is less (I am unsure if someone said this already or not, if they did, skip to the next point). Also, when looked at as DPR (damage per round), the effect of to-hit bonuses IS linear. Of course, with strength ALSO applying to damage it becomes slightly more exponential, but the base damage from the weapon and other sources of bonuses to both to-hit and damage tend to add some linear elements to moderate that in the 2nd degree (?) polynomial. DPR = Ax^2+Bx+C.

Second, while it is more about a minor way of helping to deal with MAD vs SAD in my games, and those are 3.5, what I do is not give +1 or +2 to ability scores, but rather use Point Buy, and then give additional point-buy points at a more frequent basis than the direct ability score increases would arrive. Frankly my players are not fans of the resulting fractional ability scores, and those would be almost entirely useless in 5e* until one hit an even number**, but it DOES allow their to be more of an incentive to spread the ability scores out, as well as
*I use fractions for basically EVERYTHING, including magic item bonuses, which would be way too much math if I weren't also using a custom-made spreadsheet as the character sheets.
**Carrying capacity is basically the only place it would easily have any effect, and even there "Oh, look, I have 1/3 of a point more strength, I can carry 5 lbs more equipment." is hardly exciting.

Third, would it really hurt so much to allow racial modifiers to raise (and for homebrew stuff with penalties, lower) the maximums, as well as the starting scores? I mean I know bounds are a design prrincple in 5e, but that seems a bit rediculous to me... shouldn't elves be more dexterous than dwarves in their respective top 0.05% (or whatever percentage) as well as in their common citizens?

Disclaimer: I would have put this first, but I didn't want to come off as subtly rude (which would have been a false impression) before I had presented by attempts to be helpful. Anyway, I am much more of a 3.x/PF guy by personal preference and thus degree of experience, so maybe I am missing something.

[Herbert_W]

If strength-to-accuracy and intelligence-to-save-DC didn't warp the game . . . as badly as it does, I wouldn't mind it either. But it does.

I think I understand your priorities now. You want a game that remains balanced with diverse build choices and which is friendly to rolled characters - and while realism is nice, it's a secondary concern.

Dropping the direct relationship between ability scores and attack bonuses makes perfect sense in light of that.

I'd take that as an opportunity to tie attack rolls to something else more interesting, such as a flat bonus associated with each weapon. Different weapons are differentiated by damage die already, so having different attack bonuses seems like a good counterpoint to that - sometimes you want a high attack bonus and sometimes you want high damage, so this would encourage players to use a variety of weapons situationally.

A similar thing could be done for spells and spellcasting implements. For example, a wand might require only one hand and grant a moderate bonus, casting using a spellbook requires both hands and grants a larger bonus, a spellcasting circle must be inscribed on the floor before use and grants an even larger bonus, etc. Once again, this would encourage the use of different implements in different circumstances: if you can inscribe a circle, go for it. If you're kicking down a door, you can make do with a more portable but less powerful version.

With that being said, completely eliminating any relationship between ability scores and the ability to make attacks effectively might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You said that you wanted a PC with 14 STR, DEX, and CHA to not be a design error at level 20 - but do you want a fighter with 8 STR and DEX to be viable, or even possible, at that level?

I'd recommend implementing ability score minimums for certain weapons, where players who don't meet the minimum cannot become proficient and/or make attacks with disadvantage, or something like that. These minimums wouldn't need to be high, just high enough to make verisimilitude-breaking combos like a 8 STR fighter swinging a greatsword around impossible. Bringing back ability-score minimums for feats (not high ones, just high enough to feel plausible) might also be a good idea.

Speaking of feats: feats currently compete with ASIs. If ASIs no longer directly boost combat performance, and feats do, then everyone's going to feel compelled to take as many feats as they can. There's a few ways to avoid this problem; one in particular that I like is having feats cost a level-dependent amount of XP when taken plus some percentage of earned XP going forwards, which makes players "pay" for them by having their character level-up later than their peers.

I'd also suggest restoring the link between classes and ability scores, which was broken now that key ability scores aren't a thing, by having ASIs grant increases to specific ability scores depending on class. For example, a fighter could choose to increase any physical score, a wizard any mental score, a sorcerer CHA, WIS, or CON, etc.


(stat maximization as a competence tax, thus stat capping as a competence limit; the damage it causes to randomly rolled characters; etc)

This is something that I've been thinking about for a while.

Having stat maximization as a competence tax is a way to prevent verisimilitude-breaking combinations like a 3-STR fighter or a 3-INT wizard, but it's not a great way. (I say 3, becasue that was the minimum for PCs in 3e.) It has harmful side-effects which you've quite eloquently and succinctly described above.

I think the only reason that DnD has this system at all is historical. Deep in the very early history of DnD, all characters were rolled and stats were a prerequisite for classes. It was accepted that some characters were just better than others (and lethality high enough that this would average out for each player). Now that characters have more control over character creation, that lucky alignment of "wow, these are the perfect stats for that class!" has become the baseline expectation . . . and we're stuck with those side-effects.

If I was doing a clean-sheet redesign, I'd make class selection something that's prior to stat generation and which influences stat generation. The details could be worked out in various ways, e.g. fighters roll 3d6k2+6 instead of 4d6k3 for physical stats. Characters with incongruously weak ability scores for their class wouldn't be ruled out by being nonviable; they'd be ruled out by being impossible or very unlikely to be made.

[Yakk]

So, I'm thinking about con to HP. One idea is that your total con-to-HP is capped at your constitution score.

For someone with a typical 5e build (14 con), that would leave their HP alone until level 7.

It still doesn't feel great, because con 10-16 still has massive impact on your character's durability. Hurm.

[Herbert_W]

How do you feel about having CON not affect maximum HP at all, and instead enhance a character's ability to heal?

Characters already receive hit points equal to their constitution modifier whenever they spend a hit die - so a character with an insanely high constitution modifier won't break combat by being invincible, but they will have a near-endless well of short-rest healing. That won't break the resource economy of the game. Even if all of the characters in a party have it, they'll still need to manage resources so that they don't run out of whatever they need in order to not take more than their HP in damage in a single encounter.

Likewise, characters with low CON would still be viable. They'd just need to lean more heavily on magical healing.

If you want to take this further, you could make all natural healing depend on CON. For example, instead of regaining all lost hit points on a long rest, characters could gain double the normal number of hit dice (i.e. regain HD equal to their level up to a maximum of twice their level) with the option to spend them immediately when the long rest ends. That might be too much rolling for your player's tastes, so you might also consider replacing the "spend HD" mechanic with a healing reserve that can heal a total amount of HP equal to the average results that would be obtained from rolling those HD.

If you want in-combat healing to be more powerful without affecting longer-term resource management, then you could let characters spend a limited amount of HD (or healing reserve) whenever they receive magical healing - say, up to a maximum of one HD per level of the spell that caused the healing, for example.

If you remove the CON bonus to HP, it might make sense to give characters either a flat or a class-based bonus to HP to compensate.

[Yakk]

Hmm. Well, I also consider level 1 PCs to be over-fragile.

So I could
1) Give level 1 PCs extra HP equal to their CON score.
2) Give level 1 PCs an extra feat.
3) Remove max-HP from first HD.

A 14 con d8 HD character before had 10 HP. Afterwards, has 19.
A 14 con d12 HD character before had 14 HP. Afterwards, has 21.

And getting +1 max HP per con from high con doesn't scale like (level * con/2) does.

It might be still too important at level 1.

The other thing I've done is give level 1 PCs a "racial" HD (d8 for medium, d6 for small), representing your HD/HP from before you gained a class.

With no con-to-HP, I could just maximize all HP from HD when you level. For d8 classes, this corresponds to a +3 con bonus, for d6 classes a +2 con bonus, d10 +4 and d12 +5. And the high-HD classes could use the extra gas actually.

...

I've also played with PCs burning HD when they are magically healed.

---

Healing: Magical healing uses your life force. Whenever you are magically healed, you must spend a HD as well, and you regain HP equal to the amount of magical healing plus your HD roll. If you have no HD to spend, magical healing can only stabalize you if you are unconscious, it cannot cause you to regain HP.

The exceptions to this are the Regeneration spell, Paladin Lay On Hands, the Heal spell, the Mass Heal spell, and the Ring of Regeneration.

In addition, the Cure Wounds and Mass Cure Wounds spells can replace its d8s with the HD the target expends; so a level 3 Cure Wounds on a Barbarian can heal 4d12 HP.

---

If I add your con bonus to this, that is a nice perk. A healing word healing you 1d4+1d10+5 instead of 1d4+1d10 is nice.

(The idea is that small, weak healing spells over-rely on the target's HD; larger healing effects are more efficient.)

...

So...

1) Max HP from HD are maximized at all levels; barbarians gain a d12 HD and 12 HP every level. You do not add your Con bonus to max HP.
2) You gain an extra HD at level 1. It is d8 if you are medium, d6 if you are small, and d10 if you have Powerful Build or are Large. Logically, this is your HD (and HP) from before you gained your class.
3) When you receive (most) magical healing, you MUST expend a HD to get healed. You heal an extra amount equal to your HD plus your con bonus from the healing.

[Herbert_W]

Hmm. Well, I also consider level 1 PCs to be over-fragile.

Indeed they are. That's been true AFAIK since the beginning; what's changed is that this fact is now more widely regarded as a bug than a feature - but regardless of what other people think, you see it as a problem, so let's solve it.


The other thing I've done is give level 1 PCs a "racial" HD (d8 for medium, d6 for small), representing your HD/HP from before you gained a class.

This is IMO the best solution.

This has the effect of making race (or "species," which is a term that's less likely to be misunderstood in politically awkward ways) more important in the early game than at higher levels. That's perfectly fine and already pretty much expected. Many player races provide options such as darkvision that become less significant once the party has access to more items and spells.

Solutions that depend on constitution have the weird side-effect of making CON matter more at low levels, potentially making it matter too much. Personally, I'd find having ability scores be of such greatly differing value at different levels to be incongruous with how I'd expect a DnD-like game to work. Plus, having ability scores differ in value like this would give players an incentive to replace their high-con character with a low-con one when the campaign progresses to higher levels - which is not compatible with fully enjoying the experience of seeing a single character grow in capability.


With no con-to-HP, I could just maximize all HP from HD when you level. For d8 classes, this corresponds to a +3 con bonus, for d6 classes a +2 con bonus, d10 +4 and d12 +5. And the high-HD classes could use the extra gas actually.


I like this. It's simple, and it removes a way for a single roll to permanently make a character strictly better or worse. (People who play barbarians joke that their d12s are cursed for a reason, ya know.)

This also gives me an idea. You could have players sometimes roll the HD that they spend to see how much HP they recover, and sometimes just receive the maximum amount. Say for example, you could roll HD when recovering HP in combat (becasue in-combat healing is less efficient and predictable, and dice-rolling in combat is fun) and simply give characters the maximum result while resting (becasue resting is the best way to recover, and rolling a bunch of dice as a mere bookkeeping exercise is tedious).


I've also played with PCs burning HD when they are magically healed. . . If you have no HD to spend, magical healing . . . cannot cause you to regain HP.

From a game-design perspective, this is a nifty mechanic.

From the perspective of actual play experience, this would create a very uncomfortable resource-management paradigm. Not being able to be healed magically feels like a very nasty predicament. (Maybe it's not usually actually so bad, given the limited utility of in-combat healing, but it still feels bad - and it could situationally be life-threatening.) The effective value of a HD varies greatly - if you use it to recover some HP during a rest, it's good to have. If you use it to enable magical healing when a character's life would be at risk otherwise, it's a very important thing to have. Players will be reluctant to spend HD because they'll feel worried that they'll need it later.

As a general rule of thumb IMO, resources that serve as a buffer against disaster should be separate from resources that a character invests tactically, becasue these resources evoke different mindsets: "eek I hope I don't run out!" in one case, and "what's the best way to spend this?" in the other. The main exception to this rule is characters who are desperate, reckless, or unconcerned for their own well-being. There's a reason why spending one's own health to power spells is a common trope for practitioners of dark and forbidden magic: their application of "how should I spend this?" thinking to resources that buffer against disaster is a demonstration of the same recklessness, desperation, or callous mercenary attitude that was also necessary for them to be willing to practice such dark arts.

This mechanic makes that crossing of resource-management mindsets part of the base experience of playing the game, for all classes.

If you had a class feature for warlocks that had words to the effect of "Once you use this feature, you loose the ability to be healed by magic. Magical healing cannot cause you to regain HP, but can still stabilize you if you are unconscious. You also cannot use this feature again. You regain the ability to be healed by magic, and to use this feature, when you finish a long rest." then that could be very cool and thematically on-point.

I also think that there's room in the game for magical healing that depends on the recipient's own vitality, as that would provide clutch "heal NOW" without changing or without significantly changing the total amount of healing that a character can undergo in a day. That would make perfect sense for an arcane (i.e. sor/wiz/etc.) healing spell, which could give more classes some healing ability while retaining a special benefit for the use of divine healing spells. I just don't think that this is how all or most healing should work by default.

[Amechra]

The other thing I've done is give level 1 PCs a "racial" HD (d8 for medium, d6 for small), representing your HD/HP from before you gained a class.

A possible alternative would be to give players a "background" HD instead of a "racial" HD. So someone who was a Sage would be a little squishier than someone who was a Soldier.

[PhantomSoul]

A possible alternative would be to give players a "background" HD instead of a "racial" HD. So someone who was a Sage would be a little squishier than someone who was a Soldier.

Or go full wild and have a base d4 for everyone and your race(, background) and class can all offer increased die sizes such that d12 is the maximum possible combination (or you have a system for splitting it to two dice). E.g. maybe a halfling (base d4 / no boost) wizard (no boost) with the sage background (no boost) gets you a d4, a halfling (base d4 / no boost) barbarian (two increases, so d4->d8) with the sage background (no boost) gets you a d8, and a goliath (base d6 / one increase) barbarian (two increases, so d6 -> d10) with the soldier background (one increase, so d10 -> d12) gives you a d12. Obviously to divide as pleasure strikes!

[Yakk]

A possible alternative would be to give players a "background" HD instead of a "racial" HD. So someone who was a Sage would be a little squishier than someone who was a Soldier.
The d6/d8 is a nod to the 5e monster rules that small creatures have d6 HD and medium have d8 HD.

That rule has nearly no effect on the game. But the idea is that a "classless" untrained person would have their size-based HD for a bit of simulationism; then you add in your class HD after that.

[GloatingSwine]

A possible alternative would be to give players a "background" HD instead of a "racial" HD. So someone who was a Sage would be a little squishier than someone who was a Soldier.

That's open to everyone basically just doubling up on the level 1 HP gap, because people who choose a squishy background are probably pairing it with a squishy class.

Whereas having a base creature HD smooths off that gap because everyone has the basic D8 medium creature HD and builds their class on it.

[Yakk]

That's open to everyone basically just doubling up on the level 1 HP gap, because people who choose a squishy background are probably pairing it with a squishy class.

Whereas having a base creature HD smooths off that gap because everyone has the basic D8 medium creature HD and builds their class on it.
The d6 for small is a flavour thing honestly. As there are only a handful of small PCs, balancing that issue is a bounded problem if it is a big one.

[Rilmani]

So we have Hit Dice for our character level which benefit from Constitution. If we get rid of the accuracy bonus that comes from the other five ability scores for weapon and spell attacks… What if we grant Points corresponding to a class’s Saving Throw proficiencies which are spent on penalizing effects, or on emergencies? So a Fighter would have Strength and Constitution points. At level one they’d have 2 points in each category, plus additional points corresponding to their STR and CON modifiers.

You can spend Strength points in a few ways. When you make a weapon attack which adds Strength to its damage roll, if you roll a 2 on the d20 roll you can spend 2 points to reroll that attack roll. If you roll a 5 (a likely miss), you can spend 5 on that attack roll to reroll it. The same applies for Strength saving throws, if you roll a 3 on the die you can spend 3 points to reroll it. Strength ability checks could work the same way as saves and attacks. Points reset on a long rest, or you can spend hit dice to recover them during a short rest. If we stick to the current ability score caps, a level 20 fighter would have 11 strength points, potentially rerolling 11 natural ones that involve strength. So strength still affects weapon accuracy in a limited way. Now, if ability score caps are removed then a 30 strength fighter would have 16 strength points.
Perhaps a natural one is a miss that cannot be rerolled, I have no preference.

Now consider battlemaster maneuvers, specifically ones which force a saving throw. Those require superiority dice and rolling high on a superiority die is beneficial… but the superiority die does not affect the Maneuver DC. So perhaps there’s a way to allow one to spend Strength points to pay for battlemaster maneuvers, nixing the die?


Different classes and feats could offer different ways to use the points in different ability scores. Perhaps sorcery could use charisma points to recover sorcery points. The cost would be that they could ,it’s opportunities to reroll attack spells which add charisma to damage.


All of these cases still take a reaction, or more depending on the class or subclass. But this solution could work as a middle ground where (after removing ability score mods to accuracy) accuracy is not solely limited to die rolls and ways to gain advantage. It must be carefully managed.

Perhaps, exclusive to martial classes, the optional Healing Surge bonus action could make a return. Gain hit points or temporary hit points equal to your con modifier, roll the hit die, and recover ability score points (strength, intelligence, etc) equal to the die roll.