Should each ability scores get it's own table?

[Falling Icicle]

I much prefers BECMI's bonus list, but 3e+'s is one of the best changes since upward AC...

What is BECMI?

 

[FreeXenon]

BECMI refers to the original D&D boxed sets:

Basic
Expert
Companion
Master
Immortal

 

[Falling Icicle]

BECMI refers to the original D&D boxed sets:

Basic
Expert
Companion
Master
Immortal

Thanks.

 

[Blackwarder]

Here some more stuff I would like to have in the tables.

Con - system survival shock chance.
Int - maximum number of known spells per level, and spell learning chance.
Wis - high wis lead to immunity from certain attacks and spells.
Cha - maximum number of henchmen.

I admit that some of those could be just plain old ability checks but I would like the numbers to be decoupled from the to hit bonus.

Warder

 

[fuindordm]

It's more detailed, but I think the elegance of consolidating these things was one of the best features of 3.X-- and one of the biggest elements of 3.X I want to keep.

It was an OK change but ultimately unnecessary. And I think it was actually a step backward for Strength, because the to-hit and to-damage bonuses are synergistic. I like the fact that 1e had the to-hit bonus increasing at a slower rate, which flattens the expected damage output somewhat.

 

[the Jester]

Each ability score should get its own table of sample DCs, but the ability bonus should be the same regardless of ability; it's far easier to remember and track that way.

 

[Yora]

I once tried to streamline 2nd Edition and it really turned out that all the differences in the tables are really mostly "fake differences". They were just written down in really weird ways, but put all the bonuses in one place, and all the penalties in another place, and you end up with the basic tables that are really very straightforward.
Yes, it does look more interesting when you get a +2 to damage and +1 to attack instead of having +1/+1 or +2/+2. But when you go through the tables, you find that the next lines says +3/+2, +4/+3, +5/+4, and so on. It just looks different for the sake of appearing to be different and complex. Either they didn't know any better, or they did it on purpose. Either way, it's bad game design.

And when you roll 3d6 for the stats, there's actually only a very small chance that you will have anything but +0 to anything. So in the few cases you actually did get something, there was even less chance that you would feel "it's always the same".
One table for all abilities is the way to go. That way, you can remember the numbers and don't have to look them up all the time.

 

[TerraDave]

Sure, each gets its own table, including stuff listed above...and on each, a 12-13 gives a +1 to relevant d20 checks, a 14-15 a +2...

 

[shamsael]

I really liked it, when playing 2e, that each ability score had it own table and each table was different from the others in its progression, so my question to you is, what do you think about the current ability score table in the PT?

Personally, beside it being functional I find it a bit bland, I love the concept that your character abilities will get central stage but I feel that each should get some more oomph and be more interesting.

What do I mean by oomph? Well for example have the encumbered weight threshold advance in a non linear way, disassociate range attack bonuse from Dex defense bonus, none linear followers progression with charisma, that sort of things.

Warder

All the while I was playing 2E I secretly longed for the adjustment table from BECMI/RC.

3 -3
4-5 -2
6-8 -1
9-12 +0
13-15 +1
16-17 +2
18 +3

 

[FireLance]

You know, I think it would be really interesting if we had a sourcebook for each ability score - Complete Constitution: Character Options for Tough Heroes, or something like that. You could have themes, backgrounds, alternate race and class features, etc.