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:

1. The number of Bardic Inspiration uses available to a bard,
2. The number of spells prepared by prep. spellcasters,
3. Weapon damage rolls,
4. …?

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.