Splitting Attack Bonus From Stats

[JonSetanta]

This came to me in a dream, oddly.

I had the idea of separating attack bonus for spells, melee, and ranged combat from stats mostly from 5e and its bounded accuracy.
My brother said, "Why not just have no bonus and roll a flat d20 at level 1?"

So I went to something that didn't require adjusting AC to -5 of what it originally is, which is more work.

Note that this concept works best with the "feat per level" method.


Accuracy

You do not add your ability scores to attack rolls. Instead, you use a set number that increases with your level.

When choosing this feat, pick Melee, Ranged, or Spellcasting. The feat can not be chosen more than once per type.

Level Bonus
1 +4
2 +5
3 +5
4 +6
5 +6
6 +7
7 +7
8 +8
9 +8
10 +9
and so on

This number is added to Base Attack Bonus.

[...You Lost Me]

I think this is much better as a fundamental part of the combat rules.

[OgreBattle]

It's a good idea

I think base stats should only be used for defenses and universal skills like athleticism

[JonSetanta]

So far good reviews.

I agree, it should not be a feat but an integral part of each class.

But perhaps it could be left as a feat so that players can select their specialties and collect them..

[JonSetanta]

I made one minor adjustment, setting the bonus increase to every even level so that other benefits such as spell slots can stay to their place as odd levels.

[codeGlaze]

Definitely on a track iike, as well.
I've always thought adventure-necessary skills (fightiness, perceptiwarification) should auto level with you to some degree.

[Lokathor]

I like this, but I still don't get why this is a feat.

This sounds like it should just be a rule that the entire play group uses or not.

If you're non-proficient you roll 1d20 flat, if you are proficient you roll 1d20+FastChart for attacks, and SlowChart for Saves/Skills/Whatever.

Pick whatever you want for FastChart and SlowChart. I think that the base proficiency rate is maybe a little too slow, but that's just me.

[JonSetanta]

I think that the base proficiency rate is maybe a little too slow, but that's just me.

It's meant to emulate having an 18 in a stat to begin, then advance from there.

[Foxwarrior]

Yes, ability scores are mostly pretty lame, so partially getting rid of them is beneficial. That said, it's not a very worthwhile use of math to make everyone keep track of the same number written multiple times.

[JonSetanta]

So, overall, it's a good idea to use this as part of core rules rather than feats?

How would a character advance in a variety of combat styles if they can't grab another track?

[Lokathor]

If it's a core rule there are no tracks, clearly.

[Mord]

So, overall, it's a good idea to use this as part of core rules rather than feats?

How would a character advance in a variety of combat styles if they can't grab another track?

You get one of these free when you take your first level of your first class. For some classes (Wizard) you don't get a choice of which one (Spellcasting), others (Ranger) let you pick (Melee or Ranged). Anyone can burn a feat to pick up another. Bam.

[JonSetanta]

What if I provide a flat bonus of +4 and it stays that way for 20 levels?

Less math, but cheats players out of what would be an emulated stat boost.

[Lokathor]

I mean you'd have to adjust a bunch of other values probably.

The biggest thing is that even if two guys of the same level hit/block each other the same rate, I (as a player) want to be assured that I'm actually gaining levels by being able to hit lower level things more often over time. So, there needs to be some sort of level_difference calculation that factors into it. You can have that be totally implicit if everyone gets +Level added to Attack and AC instead of all the normal fiddly crap, but it has to be there somehow.

Otherwise you have DnD 5e (and that's bad).

Note: too much auto-scaling and you might become DnD 4e on accident (and that's also bad). Some elements of the world need to just plain be level-less, like the AC of hitting the right square with a grenade attack, or the DC to climb a particular kind of wall.

[MGuy]

I am not 100 percent sure what you're trying to achieve with this idea. It just looks like you're making a BAB track and you don't want attributes to be a part of the calculations. That's fine and all but what does this improve for your game? Attribute differences are just another thing that differentiates one character's stats from another and I don't personally see it as particularly bad if they add to one thing or another as long as your overall numbers don't get crazy. I also don't think its bad to have them not interacting with your attack bonuses or whatever but that's not a very big deal. It makes me curious about what you're going to have attributes do overall but just taking them from your BAB stat isn't really rocking the boat very much. Just evens up the numbers. What are you really looking for advice on?

[RobbyPants]

I am not 100 percent sure what you're trying to achieve with this idea. It just looks like you're making a BAB track and you don't want attributes to be a part of the calculations. That's fine and all but what does this improve for your game? Attribute differences are just another thing that differentiates one character's stats from another and I don't personally see it as particularly bad if they add to one thing or another as long as your overall numbers don't get crazy. I also don't think its bad to have them not interacting with your attack bonuses or whatever but that's not a very big deal. It makes me curious about what you're going to have attributes do overall but just taking them from your BAB stat isn't really rocking the boat very much. Just evens up the numbers. What are you really looking for advice on?

This type of thing was discussed here a while ago. I've been recently rereading some TNE threads, and it's in there at least once.

The idea is that you don't use your stats to calculate your attack bonus, but you do for defense. The reasoning is supposed to be "you're all adventurers and you should be competent". So, you don't penalize the wizard for having high STR or the knight for having high INT; they're still just as effective offensively. The difference would be is that particular wizard would be more resilient to physical attacks and that knight to magical attacks (or whatever). Without that sort of thing, you pretty much have to make your wizards all have high INT and your knights have high STR, of they're doing it wrong and can't keep up with everyone else.

This was one thing I remember Frank and K disagreeing on.

[MGuy]

I remember that thread but I don't see that being discussed here as far as I can tell. There's been no mention of damage or soak. Just what seems to be a BAB track.

[deaddmwalking]

It relates to a disconnect with expectations. In a level-based system, you can't 'advance' without gaining a level. If you can perform an activity (say rock-climbing) in-game without gaining a level, it doesn't matter how much time you devote to the activity - you'll never get better.

A D&D character, given 40 years, who never kills a monster, can climb every fantasy peak and never get better at the skill.

A character that doesn't climb any mountains but does kill monsters will gain a level and can become a better climber than the 'expert'.

Some of that is related to how advancement works, obviously, but effectively taking stats out of the equation serves to put a hard cap on your advancement. It doesn't matter how much you exercise or practice relative to anyone else - all that matters is what level you are.

Some people are going to have an easier time accepting that as a limitation on the game than others. Personally, I'm inclined to allow people to 'spend resources' and improve their attacks at least within a certain limit. There's certainly a problem if someone pushes themselves off the RNG. And even for myself, I'm willing to accept the limits for some things. For example, it doesn't matter what your Dexterity is or your movement speed, you're still limited to a single standard action in D&D each round. That's a situation where it doesn't matter how many push-ups you do or how many marathons you run - if you want to get a 2nd attack you have to raise your BAB to +6. So while I can see allowing people to spend resources to get 'better attacks', I'm leery of letting them spend resources to get 'more attacks'.

[RobbyPants]

I remember that thread but I don't see that being discussed here as far as I can tell. There's been no mention of damage or soak. Just what seems to be a BAB track.

I don't mean the whole of the TNE engine. It's just something that I noticed at least in those thread, and possibly elsewhere.

I saw it mentioned here, specifically.

No bad characters. Ok, you what if you want to make an "sea wizard" who is a swashbucker that carries a cutlass and swings from ropes and can bail water with the best of them. You choose a high Str. Then some guy comes up to you and says "Oh, the only high Str magic attacks are Necromancy...so I guess you are a necromancer, eh?"

Hell no. You want people to actually not able to make mistakes in character creation AS WELL AS be able to make the character they want.

Some people might say, "but hey, you can just make abilities that favor some stat for every kind of thing that people want." In an ideal world, that might work. Since we don't live in an ideal world and are not going to write a thousand abilities and we want the "sea wizard" from the above example to be able to cast Wind Blast and Lightning Bolt and Mists of Deception, we can't limit people's active attacks by their stats.

Granted, Frank didn't agree with K, but that's the overall idea I'm seeing here. You attack based on level, not level + stats.

The advantage is all berserkers axe people the same regardless of STR, all pyromancers burn the same regardless of INT, and all necromancer enervate the same regardless of CHA. It also helps reduce the number of wrong choices at chargen. Also, depending on how multiclassing is implemented (if at all), this could really help get rid of MAD and reduce the good and bad combinations of classes.

[angelfromanotherpin]

It relates to a disconnect with expectations. In a level-based system, you can't 'advance' without gaining a level.

This isn't necessarily true. You can give characters a fair amount of shallow breadth without meaningfully affecting their overall power level. A few extra points in Climb is basically meaningless, even at the low levels where it would be the biggest relative bump. There absolutely is room for advancement within a level, especially if that advancement is 'mundane skill of little real utility.'

[deaddmwalking]

Yeah, but no system actually does this. You buy abilities with points (or you get abilities when you level up). You could permit or encourage players to spend their points later (or even give a small pool for in-level advances) but nobody actually does that, now.

[Roog]

Mutants and Masterminds does it.

[Lokathor]

Yeah, but no system actually does this.

I've been giving out skill points between game sessions that are in addition to the level up points since 2014.

It's a really good additional rule to use with 3e.

[MGuy]

I have gotten rid of the regular skill point distribution a while ago. I remember a while ago Lago made a really big deal of making sure that attribute bonuses and size should fall in importance over time. It was supposed to get to the point where any base attribute bonus or size bonus gets overtaken by leveled bonuses at higher levels. I thought it was an interesting idea even though I really don't mind attributes, size, and racial abilities giving out things that advantage a character even at higher levels.

I do not think that this discussion on these BAB tracks have gotten as interesting as that. Decoupling attributes from giving bonuses to stuff isn't offensive or anything but without knowing what the end goal is I can't read the value of just having a list of numbers. What is the big shift supposed to do to his game overall outside of just making everyone more samey as far as attack bonuses go?

[JonSetanta]

What is the big shift supposed to do to his game overall outside of just making everyone more samey as far as attack bonuses go?

But that's the whole point of this. I don't want low STR/DEX warriors to suck at hitting, nor casters with improper stat alignments to never hit (and rely on save-only spells)

The idea is that you don't use your stats to calculate your attack bonus, but you do for defense. The reasoning is supposed to be "you're all adventurers and you should be competent". So, you don't penalize the wizard for having high STR or the knight for having high INT; they're still just as effective offensively. The difference would be is that particular wizard would be more resilient to physical attacks and that knight to magical attacks (or whatever). Without that sort of thing, you pretty much have to make your wizards all have high INT and your knights have high STR, of they're doing it wrong and can't keep up with everyone else.

Exactly.