Ability Scores

[Meophist]

Wizards in 2e get a lot more for high intelligence than they do in d20, for example an 18 int means an 85% chance to know spells, but it's just 35% for a 9 int, a 50% swing.

I don't quite want to get in the way of your point, but if I remember correctly in 3.5e, a Wizard with 9 INT can't even cast spells.

It doesn't really have anything to do with the modifier system, however.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think what I'd really like to see is hit rate divorced from stats - no matter how much of a bonus it is, as long as your chance to hit is involved people will game for the higher bonus. Take that off the table and other options open up.

But this is a rather slippery argument. If ability scores affect skills, people will game for higher bonuses to that. In the end, we might as well take away ability scores entirely if we're going to argue that "having scores makes people want more cake!"

It's a silly argument.

CharOP folks are really a minority, and not hard to deal with at all if your DM has some rocks. We shouldn't twist the entire game up in a knot attempting to deal with what is a minor problem to some, and actually fun for those people.

----

Regarding the OP, I would rather not utilize the bell curve for non-rolled numbers. I had that in college, and high-school. All it meant was that effort and planning wasn't rewarded. It would have been better to randomly assign grades 1-100 to everyone in the room than to make people try their hardest only to find out that since everyone tried their hardest, a 90% is a fail. It's like reverse Communism.

 

[Minigiant]

As much as not having linear progression may be appealing, low numbers are bad.

The d20 is to big for any bonus under +3 to matter.

 

[Scars Unseen]

2e's bonuses/penalties for high/low attributes can be the same as, or even in many cases more extreme than, those in d20 D&D.

18 dexterity grants a +4 bonus to AC in both systems. 18 wisdom grants +4 to saving throws in both. A 2e cleric with 18 wisdom gets 6 bonus spells. A d20 cleric gets 4. 18 constitution grants +4 hit points in both systems. In 2e, 18 con allows a 99% chance to survive system shock, 7 con is only 55%, a 44% variation. 18 intelligence grants 7 bonus languages in 2e, only 4 in d20. Wizards in 2e get a lot more for high intelligence than they do in d20, for example an 18 int means an 85% chance to know spells, but it's just 35% for a 9 int, a 50% swing. The bonuses for high charisma are also massive, for example +7 reaction adjustment for an 18 charisma versus +0 at 12.

Oh, I'm not advocating a direct return to 2E or anything. Where d20 was all power treadmills and bland sameness(and I'm not qualified to say what 4E was or wasn't), 2E was often wildly inconsistent, though there was an odd logic to many of the decisions made. I notice you did not mention the limitation on maximum spell level obtainable by intelligence score, for instance. I'm fairly convinced that(again, assuming a 3d6 generation method for adherence to the probability curve) this was intended as an attempt to balance out the power disparity between magic users and mundane classes. Obviously not very effective in practice, but there was an intention behind the decision.

D20, on the other hand, had only a single rationale behind it's math: unity at any cost. Simplify the math. Homogenize it so that you only need to know a single mechanic: that d20 + modifer => DC means success. It wasn't a horrible idea, and it may even been exactly what was needed at the time. But the idea was flawed. Basing everything on the roll of a d20 was okay(and far preferable to 2nd Edition's additions, subtractions, percentile rolls, etc), but look at what happened. Ability scores are hugely important for class effectiveness, yet paradoxically, upgrading from an even to an odd score means exactly nothing.

Of course, the whole situation was highly exacerbated by the ease with which an ability score could be raised after character generation. Periodic gains through leveling, ubiquitous magic items(that are easily made by a player), etc. In contrast to 2nd Edition, it actually became highly uncommon to see a character that didn't get at least one stat over 20.

Anyway, mini-rant aside, I do see your point, though a lot of the things you mentioned are not directly related to class effectiveness(and the +4 HP for con only applies to warriors), and some others that are directly related were, IMO, designed to limit casters, especially the chance to learn spells and limited spell level access. All in all, it was a system designed to take advantage of the 3d6 random roll, at least more so that the d20 system ever will be. I don't want to return to it exactly, but I would prefer that the new system take advantage of the curve, rather than sticking to the linear growth that they seem to be eliminating in other portions of the game already.

 

[Scars Unseen]

As much as not having linear progression may be appealing, low numbers are bad.

The d20 is to big for any bonus under +3 to matter.

That depends on how prevalent modifiers are in the game. If it's easy to stack up +5 or more to adjust your roll, then sure, 10% extra is only 10%. But if straight additive bonuses are rare(and it sure seems like WotC wants them to be in 5E), then even a +1 is beneficial. What isn't beneficial is to have an ability score be so important to class effectiveness that nearly every member of a given class is likely to have close to identical ability scores when using the same point buy or array method.

Make the ability scores matter... just don't let them define class effectiveness.

 

[Minigiant]

That depends on how prevalent modifiers are in the game. If it's easy to stack up +5 or more to adjust your roll, then sure, 10% extra is only 10%. But if straight additive bonuses are rare(and it sure seems like WotC wants them to be in 5E), then even a +1 is beneficial. What isn't beneficial is to have an ability score be so important to class effectiveness that nearly every member of a given class is likely to have close to identical ability scores when using the same point buy or array method.

Make the ability scores matter... just don't let them define class effectiveness.

What I mean was having a +2 bonus to hit a DC of 15. How many bonuses will you add up to get the +6.

If the total bonus doesn't grant at least a 60% success chance, the roll is to swingy.

 

[Scars Unseen]

What I mean was having a +2 bonus to hit a DC of 15. How many bonuses will you add up to get the +6.

If the total bonus doesn't grant at least a 60% success chance, the roll is to swingy.

Honestly? I'd rather that bonus come from a combination of class features and player decisions made during play than a single roll/choice that was made at character creation.

 

[keterys]

But this is a rather slippery argument. If ability scores affect skills, people will game for higher bonuses to that. In the end, we might as well take away ability scores entirely if we're going to argue that "having scores makes people want more cake!"

It's a silly argument.

Nah, skills are good. There's a _lot_ of reasons I mentioned attack. Your ability to succeed offensively in combat is the one thing people are least willing to give up, followed by their ability to survive combat.*

Assume ability scores affect skills and saves - so you choose to have higher in one stat vs another, you've just affected different skills and saves. No matter what abilities you're talking about! Congratulations. If you want a charismatic, wise, or intelligent rogue, you can do that no problem and it has ramifications on the game.

I'd much rather have that, then pick whether my fighting style values accuracy over damage, or whatever, to modify my attack total.

Instead, every class had better get as high a bonus as possible in their primary stat, even to the detriment of the others. Cause +1 to every attack and/or save DC you do _and_ +1 to some skills and saves will always trump +1 to some skills and saves

* So if you can get Dexterity as your attack stat, so it also affects your initiative, your AC, and your attacks, as well as a host of great skill and saves? Win.

 

[Scars Unseen]

double post

 

[Scars Unseen]

Of course, now that I think of it, there's a much more straightforward solution to the problem of people minmaxing... Let them create their characters, design the adventure to repeatedly attack them in their lowest stats, and after they die, end the session with, "Now repeat after me: there is no such thing as a dump stat. Now break out some fresh character sheets."

Of course I'd rather change the system... much better player retention than TPKs...