Numbers
Bounded Accuracy is great, but...it's actually not. Flattening the curve is a good idea, and removing boring number buffs is the best way to go about it. It feels much better to have your Strength go from 4 to 6 than it does to find a +2 sword. Gaining a +2 to hit from your class feels okay, I guess, but it's mechanically confusing.
The monster numbers are going to be completely rebalanced to make the game deadlier anyway, so let's not worry too much about upsetting the existing numbers. Let's start with something that's working fine for now, and think about tweaks later. Thus:
- 10 point buy at start, linear
- racial adds
- fighters and magic-users get +1 every 4 levels
- enhanced get +1 every level, higher caps
- meta gets +? every level
- proficiency bonus is +5 always
Numbers will be higher at low level, comparable until nearly epic, then trailing epic (using non-standard rules). Best solution for that is to introduce new ability score rules at epic level. Naturally, Enhanced characters will tend to exceed 5e norms at all levels; this is expected, and countered by their lack of maneuvers and powers (hopefully).
Saves
Saves work fine in 5e, I guess, but they're a little weird when it comes to multiclassing. Option A: leave it alone. Option B...
Option B
Eliminate save proficiencies altogether. However, you can make an argument for using any proficient skill, weapon, or tool to save in place of an attack's designated save. If the DM allows it, use that check instead.
Examples:
- A dragon breathes fire, causing 68 fire damage, with a Dex save (DC 15) for half.
- Drannus the fighter argues that, due to his massive shield, he can make a Block check against the attack. In fact, that's explicitly allowed by shields. The DM allows it.
- Zan the bard argues that he can perform a lovely ditty on his harp, and the dragon won't want to harm him. The DM doesn't buy it, and makes him roll Dex.
- Clogg the barbarian only has a +2 Dex, and doesn't like his chances. He argues that he can use Intimidation to dissuade the dragon, and maybe cause him to hold back a bit. A stretch, but the DM figures it's not likely the dragon will be intimadated, so he allows it, but with disadvantage.
- Skylar the rogue has a +5 Dex, but argues that her Acrobatics skill is really what she'd be using anyway. The DM allows it, and she enjoys a proficiency bonus to the save.
Certain skills will probably lend themselves to saves better than others, such as
Take 2
Of late, I'm disenchanted with ability scores in general. This is probably something I'll laugh at later, but for now, the reasoning is this:
- If your character sheet says "+7 Melee", and you roll a Melee check, which is 1d20 + 7...well, that makes sense. But if it says "Str 4, Melee +3" or worse still "Str 4, proficient in Melee" and you still roll +7, what gives?
- What does "+4" mean? What does "+3" mean? Why do I roll neither of these when attacking?
- Why are non-proficient checks worse than proficient ones? (There's a whole topic about making PCs roll things they're shitty at, which I'll get back to)
I think the theory of ability scores, originally, was that a great deal of the actions taken by PCs will represent some generic, freeform thing that wouldn't have been well-predicted by the system. That is, a PC might come up with some complex, cockamamie plan, and the DM needs some sort of roll to decide if it works or not, and that roll has to take into account the PC's relative strengths and weaknesses. Originally, D&D only really described combat, so, in essence, ability scores covered everything outside of combat. Which makes a certain kind of sense, since at least half of them have nothing to do with combat for non-casters.
Skills were a late addition to the game, not achieving first-class status until 3e--before that, they existed in various forms, but were still just ability checks. 5e has reiterated this status, but retains 3e's numeric bonus for proficiency (if much more numerically simple). PCs seem to prefer this--generally, they like it when the system recognizes and rewards the choices that make their character unique (and 5e offers very few customization choices besides skills).
This approach leads to some problems, though. It creates two classes of numbers: those meant to be achieved with the help of a proficiency bonus and an ability score, and those achievable with just an ability check. I'm not sure the latter category really exists, FYI, because combat is entirely balanced around the former, and non-combat DCs (if they can be said to be balanced at all) are as well--and even that challenge is nearly nullified by the entire party getting a crack at nearly every skill check, sometimes multiple times.
Now, numbers are numbers, after all--neither special nor unspecial. Those are just the numbers we have, right? Well, we still have to deal with the second class of numbers, which don't seem to have much of a place in the system. Let's list them now:
- Non-proficient skills: potentially interesting during an occasional, ill-advised non-proficient skill check that should have been avoided (e.g. a fighter using Stealth, or a wizard making an Athletics check), and is expected to fail. What role should such a check have at all?
- Non-proficient weapons: in theory, if you attack with a weapon with which you lack proficiency, you don't get your proficiency bonus. When would this happen? All 5e casters have infinite combat spells. All non-casters have plenty of proficiency with a variety of useful weapons. What circumstance does this cover? Does the dramatic potential of that circumstance warrant a special rule, as opposed to--say--disadvantage?
- Non-proficient saves: a slightly better argument than the above, perhaps. Fighters suck at Will saves, wizards suck at Fort saves, right? Yeah, I guess, unless you agree with me that saving throws are hot garbage and should be entirely replaced with reactions, or at the very least, opposed skill checks (some of which would be proficient and some not, right?).
- Ability scores: here's the rub. The dark secret. All of your ability scores are second-class numbers. No matter how much you cheese out the system, your ability scores are not impressive on their own. 20 strength? +5 modifier? Meh. That's considered dead average at level 5. Got a crazy belt of giant strength with a +7? Equivalent to a 10th-level fighter. What sort of Monty Haul DM is handing those out before level 10?
The fact is, if you want a good skill check, or attack roll, or spellcasting ability modifier, you have to add your proficiency bonus to it. And yet, you also must have at least a reasonably good ability score! I mean, sure, 5e is less punishing than previous editions in this regard, but why on Earth would you spend resources gaining proficiency in something if you have a crappy ability score?
And there's no way to win here by tweaking proficency bonuses. If proficiency bonus is too high, it drowns out the effect of a high ability score. Of course, you're still going to want the highest numbers possible, but you also won't really notice them. If proficiency is too low, cross-class abilities are overpowered, and the effect of your character's training doesn't feel well-described by the system. And either way, you're going to max out your best abilities--you'd be stupid not to.
The problem here is that (at least in my reckoning), people want two things out of an RPG:
- Recognition and meaningful reward for their individual choices (i.e. build)
- Recognition and meaningful reward for their effort (i.e. XP, level, gear)
In theory, ability scores cover the first one, and proficiency covers the second, right? Well yes, but they also detract from one another. When the numbers are carefully balanced across the level curve (as in the case of Bounded Accuracy or Oblivion), your level doesn't really impact your power, only your choices. I mean yeah, if you attack monsters half your CR, you'll crush them, but when does that happen? This tends to reward min-maxers and people who are best at gaming the system to pump up ability scores and other build-based numbers.
However, when level keeps scaling your numbers forever, eventually the ability scores become harder to notice. If my 20th level Pathfinder character has +25 to hit, an AC of 32, and does 4d8+40 damage...is that good? Bad? And, of course, if numbers don't matter, because it'll all wash out, then...why have a build at all? Why have any crunchy numbers in the first place?
Other systems usually try to circumvent this by dialing way back with numbers, and trying to bound them fairly simply; i.e. 1d6 is a bad skill, 5d6 is the best ever, or -1 is shitty, +3 is god-like. Okay, but...that's literally the same solution as deciding everybody in D&D is level 1 forever. Is it any wonder the most common problem with these systems is the lack of meaningful progression?
This is a pretty long-winded way to say that I'm frustrated with the lack of interesting approaches to building PCs, vis-a-vis determining ability scores, skill knowledge, proficiency bonuses, etc.
Maybe there's something to be said for a completely different approach? Just some thoughts:
- Let build choices dictact numbers entirely. That is, you invest directly in skills, and that determines the final number of the skill.
- Initial thought: d20 style skills (no cross-class)
- Max = 1/level? Too low at 1, too high at 20.
- 1-9 fail, 10-19 mixed, 20+ succeed? Maybe, what would about opposed?
- Max = 4 + 1 / 2 levels (or something). More complex, but at least it fixes the balance during levels 1-20
- 4th edition style?
- No bonuses? Just roll a d20? Expertise = adv, non-prof = disadv? Doesn't make a great distinction between different skill levels...
- Initial thought: d20 style skills (no cross-class)
- To represent your character's innate talent and potential: instead of vague, low numbers that factor into other numbers, how about a specific set of traits? What does it truly mean to be stronger than average? More dextrous? More wise? Ideas:
- Fallout 4
- Trait / Flaw system (Gurps, Savage Worlds)
- S7 Power Sources