Odd-Numbered Ability Scores

[Falling Icicle]

From what I've seen so far, I wouldn't be shocked if ability scores gave no + at all. Each number just is what it is, used for saves and skills. If so, it would divorce bonuses to stats "funneling" options.

How would that work?

 

[Traken]

How would that work?

It would probably change to a roll-under system for those checks.

If you have an 18 in STR, you need to roll an 18 or lower to succeed.
If you have a 6 in STR, you need to roll a 6 or lower to succeed.

It works well in GURPS (and other systems), but I don't think the general D&D populace would buy into it.

 

[Alzrius]

It works well in GURPS (and other systems), but I don't think the general D&D populace would buy into it.

I agree; after two editions of "rolling higher is better," a roll-under mechanic would leave a lot of people cold, especially if only some rolls require low numbers while others require higher ones.

Personally, I'm becoming disenchanted with how important high ability scores seem to be for 5E. My last few campaigns have, using point buy, started with several PCs having a 20 in their class's primary ability score. I'd like to see this particular power curve scaled back, please. (For what it's worth, I've tried to push rolling ability scores; my group was having none of it.)

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

It would probably change to a roll-under system for those checks.

If you have an 18 in STR, you need to roll an 18 or lower to succeed.
If you have a 6 in STR, you need to roll a 6 or lower to succeed.

It works well in GURPS (and other systems), but I don't think the general D&D populace would buy into it.

Mathematically, d20 <= Score is the same as Score + d20 >= 21.

Therefore the same system you suggest can be presented in a familiar-to-D&D-players way by simply having a normal d20-style X + d20 >= DC, where people simply use the ability score directly for the roll rather than using a bonus calculated from it.

Of course, the "standard" DC 21 could be varied up or down. As I suggested in an earlier post, setting the default DC to 25 instead of 21 would mean that a character with an ability score of 10 has a 25% chance of success; a character with an ability score of 14 has a 50% chance of success; and a character with an ability score of 19 has a 75% chance of success.

 

[Hassassin]

Personally, I'm becoming disenchanted with how important high ability scores seem to be for 5E. My last few campaigns have, using point buy, started with several PCs having a 20 in their class's primary ability score. I'd like to see this particular power curve scaled back, please. (For what it's worth, I've tried to push rolling ability scores; my group was having none of it.)

But if you need decent scores in all abilities for saves, that will reduce min-maxing one ability.

 

[Alzrius]

But if you need decent scores in all abilities for saves, that will reduce min-maxing one ability.

I'm sure that's the intent - I just don't think it will play out that way.

I think that instead we'll see greater attempts to min-max all ability scores (given that the designers understand the importance of higher ability scores, I don't doubt that the game will have plenty of resources that can be used by min-maxers in this way). This may even the spread somewhat, and so we won't see just one ability raised to incredulous heights, but having all ability scores raised to highly-above average isn't an improvement to me.

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

Personally, I'm becoming disenchanted with how important high ability scores seem to be for 5E. My last few campaigns have, using point buy, started with several PCs having a 20 in their class's primary ability score. I'd like to see this particular power curve scaled back, please. (For what it's worth, I've tried to push rolling ability scores; my group was having none of it.)

I think it might go the other way to what you fear.

I'm hoping that with 5e (apparently) using all your ability scores for various rolls and saving throws, the days of hyper-specialised PCs with one really good score and the others being terrible will be over.

So putting a 20 in your class's primary ability score won't be worth the trade-off of having terribly low numbers in others and leaving yourself very vulnerable.

 

[Hassassin]

I'm sure that's the intent - I just don't think it will play out that way.

I think that instead we'll see greater attempts to min-max all abilities (given that the designers will understand the importance of higher ability scores, I don't doubt that the game will have plenty of resources that can be used by min-maxers in this way). This may even the spread somewhat, and so we won't see just one ability raised to incredulous heights, but having all ability scores raised to highly-above average isn't an improvement to me.

Is it still "min-maxing" if you "min" nothing?

 

[Alzrius]

Is it still "min-maxing" if you "min" nothing?

I think it'll still be min-maxing, just that the "min" part will still be incredibly high, but not as high as the "maxed" part.

I think it might go the other way to what you fear.

I'm hoping that with 5e (apparently) using all your ability scores for various rolls and saving throws, the days of hyper-specialised PCs with one really good score and the others being terrible will be over.

So putting a 20 in your class's primary ability score won't be worth the trade-off of having terribly low numbers in others and leaving yourself very vulnerable.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[Mokona]

The linear power scale, +1 per 2 points above/below 11, has been bad for non-standard characters. I believe they've hinted at flattening out the power curve and this would be a place to cut that down. If your dwarf fighter can't get +2 to strength he'll never measure up against those that can which is probably why they changed 4e dwarves to get +2 strength if they wanted it.

The default in 4e that I've seen is that 16 in your class' primary stat was a huge disadvantage.