agree on that,
this is atempt to solve the problem by making the thing worst than before.
Now people will have to dodge 3 junk scores per ability modifier instead of 1.
Flatter Ability Score Bonuses
agree on that,
this is atempt to solve the problem by making the thing worst than before.
Now people will have to dodge 3 junk scores per ability modifier instead of 1.
am i the only one who likes having the wider spread for stats?
I like having the pure mechanical (and not just fluffwise) measurement of let's say, how characters start in this range, can get stronger over time via magic or items, or whatever, and a specific creature may be at this level, and a better creature at a higher level, etc.
I find flattened math makes it all seem too artificial.
Instead, i'd prefer the game to support a wide stat table, but have suggestions to the DM for maybe the type of game they playing, that indicates the level 1, 10, 20, 30 range for stats. That way, for the players who enjoy detailing every little aspect of their character including stat increases or items such as ioun stones, etc, that DM can tailor the game accordingly.
For the old skool player who says 18 should the max period, 20 at level 20 maybe, they can accomodate that as well.
Sanjay
I like having the pure mechanical (and not just fluffwise) measurement of let's say, how characters start in this range, can get stronger over time via magic or items, or whatever, and a specific creature may be at this level, and a better creature at a higher level, etc.
I find flattened math makes it all seem too artificial.
Instead, i'd prefer the game to support a wide stat table, but have suggestions to the DM for maybe the type of game they playing, that indicates the level 1, 10, 20, 30 range for stats. That way, for the players who enjoy detailing every little aspect of their character including stat increases or items such as ioun stones, etc, that DM can tailor the game accordingly.
For the old skool player who says 18 should the max period, 20 at level 20 maybe, they can accomodate that as well.
Sanjay
the Jester
Legend
Sounds like you only came to the game with 3e. Flatter ability bonuses is QUITE D&D; in the old days, you needed to have a 15 to get a +1 in most cases.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Actually, one of things I was thinking is that it was so un-D&D. In AD&D, most ability scores gave you nothing through the average range, and then kicked in a bonus that went up with each point.
STR is perhaps the worst offender. A 9-15 STR gave you no combat bonuses. 16 gave you a mere +1 damage, 17 +1 to each, 18 +1/+2, up to 18/00 giving you +3/+6. That's far from 'flat.'
The OP's idea is to give a bonus for merely above avera
Actually, one of things I was thinking is that it was so un-D&D. In AD&D, most ability scores gave you nothing through the average range, and then kicked in a bonus that went up with each point.
STR is perhaps the worst offender. A 9-15 STR gave you no combat bonuses. 16 gave you a mere +1 damage, 17 +1 to each, 18 +1/+2, up to 18/00 giving you +3/+6. That's far from 'flat.'
The OP's idea is to give a bonus for merely above average, and then give a slightly better bonus to the range of high scores that paleo-D&D gave a sharply increasing series of bonuses to. He's going in the same direction Gamma World went in 1992 and D&D went in 2000, when ability bonuses were put on a more linear progression, he's just reduced the slope.
5e is looking very hard at AD&D to get that 'classic feel.' Innovations from 3.0 may not be in nearly as much danger as those from 4e, but some of them might yet be wound back. ge, and then give a slightly better bonus to the range of high scores that paleo-D&D gave a sharply increasing series of bonuses to. He's going in the same direction Gamma World went in 1992 and D&D went in 2000, when ability bonuses were put on a more linear progression, he's just reduced the slope.
5e is looking very hard at AD&D to get that 'classic feel.' Innovations from 3.0 may not be in nearly as much danger as those from 4e, but some of them might yet be wound back. And it seems unlikely anything is going to continue to move in the same direction it did in 3e & 4e.
Last edited:
Arctic Wolf
First Post
I would like to see something like this but I always felt that it could be easier without negatives. I know that isn't very *orginal D&D* compared to what 5e is looking like. The values I liked that seemed ok would be:
3-8 = +0
9-14 = +1
15-20 = +2
21-26 = +3
27-31 = +4
With 5 in between the next +x, I believe it would make people focus on their other stats to so that way way they could increase other defenses and skills. It also makes it easier to track since you prolly won't get higher than 30 (+4) compared to 4e where 30 was +10 which is pretty high. But that is my opinion and I am just throwing it out there
3-8 = +0
9-14 = +1
15-20 = +2
21-26 = +3
27-31 = +4
With 5 in between the next +x, I believe it would make people focus on their other stats to so that way way they could increase other defenses and skills. It also makes it easier to track since you prolly won't get higher than 30 (+4) compared to 4e where 30 was +10 which is pretty high. But that is my opinion and I am just throwing it out there
Grimmjow
First Post
I would like to see something like this but I always felt that it could be easier without negatives. I know that isn't very *orginal D&D* compared to what 5e is looking like. The values I liked that seemed ok would be:
3-8 = +0
9-14 = +1
15-20 = +2
21-26 = +3
27-31 = +4
With 5 in between the next +x, I believe it would make people focus on their other stats to so that way way they could increase other defenses and skills. It also makes it easier to track since you prolly won't get higher than 30 (+4) compared to 4e where 30 was +10 which is pretty high. But that is my opinion and I am just throwing it out there
i agree with this it would make things a lot easier and it would take the stress off of rolling bad
Dice4Hire
First Post
I guess I am going to go against the trend and say I would prefer more in the ability scores. I would like the 'rolling' method plus bonuses to not reach above 20 in any case, but to have high scores significantly different than low scores, as that better simulates reality with the d20
If you are rolling d6s, a +1 is a big improvement, but for a d20, the same +1 is only a third as powerful. In fact a d6+1 is almost as strong as a d20+4, which is a big difference.
On the other hand, I do not want the ability scores plus miscellaneous mods to end up negating the need for d20 rolls.
If you are rolling d6s, a +1 is a big improvement, but for a d20, the same +1 is only a third as powerful. In fact a d6+1 is almost as strong as a d20+4, which is a big difference.
On the other hand, I do not want the ability scores plus miscellaneous mods to end up negating the need for d20 rolls.
ArmoredSaint
First Post
I think I'd like 5e to use the ability score bonus progression from Castles and Crusades. That one satisfies me the most, keeps the power-crawl to a minimum, and still feels like D&D.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Anyone looked at myth and magic ability scores and skills?
It uses attribute-10 for skills and BECMI scores for everything else.
It uses attribute-10 for skills and BECMI scores for everything else.
kitsune9
Adventurer
I would like the distribution of ability scores between modifiers and penalties to have the same ranges. In the OP, a -2 penalty was just a score of 3, and a -1 penalty was a range of 3 numbers while a +2 bonus had a range of 3 numbers and a +1 bonus had a range of 5 numbers. I don't mind the bonuses and penalties being lower or flatter, just an even distribution though.
Similar Threads
