If they're serious about "flatter math," then WotC needs to deal with ability scores.

[B.T.]

Is someone suggesting that 25% is too large and the gain from ability scores should decrease. So a clumsy oaf and a desturous acrobat have only 10% difference of chance between them?

In the famous words of Mr. Horse.

"No sir, I don't like it."

This is actually how it worked in older editions of D&D.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Is someone suggesting that 25% is too large and the gain from ability scores should decrease. So a clumsy oaf and a desturous acrobat have only 10% difference of chance between them?

In the famous words of Mr. Horse.

"No sir, I don't like it."

Except that an 8 is hardly a clumsy oaf. It's slightly below average.

 

[Minigiant]

This is actually how it worked in older editions of D&D.

And for the most part, modifiers were either ignorable or extremely important (but most likely ignorable).

The other issue is if you lower the gain of a high ability score, you must also either increase the class/skill based proficiencies or lower the target DCs to maintain the same accuracy rates.

Except that an 8 is hardly a clumsy oaf. It's slightly below average.

It would still be noticeably clumsy. Especially compared to a 18 Dex natural gymnast.

 

[the Jester]

Problem: The difference between an 18 (+4 modifier) and an 8 (-1) is five points. This might not seem like a big deal, but it is. You're looking at a 25% difference in hit rates, which is pretty ridiculous.

While I disagree with your assessment of the problem, I agree that we'd be better off flattening ability bonuses.

Some solutions:

• Reduce ability score spread (ability scores might range from 12-18 instead of 8-18).

First of all, to some of us, the spread is still 3-18.

Ain't no way in hell I'm playing any version of D&D where your minimum score is a 12.

• Alteration in how ability score modifiers are calculated (high/low ability scores might not provide as large a bonus; an 18 might give a +2 bonus rather than =4, for instance).

I favor stat mods about like:

1-3: -2
4-7: -1
8-12: 0
13-16: +1
17-19: +2
20+: +3

 

[Mercule]

One change that I noticed during the course of the 3e, and continuing into 4e was the expectation that a fighter would have an 18 strength, a wizard would have an 18 intelligence, etc., as starting characters. It's not an absolute, by any means, but it certainly doesn't seem to be remarkable to see multiple 18s in one party. I know my group has seen a bit of escalation, in this area, over the years. In AD&D, we typically felt pretty good about a 16 in the prime requisite stat, saw a number of 15s, and either rejoiced at our luck (if using dice) or made sacrifices (point buy) when we had an 18.

In 3e, we slowly went from 28 point buy as standard, with 32 for special circumstances, to 32 as standard, with 36 as special. Part of the reason, I think, is because we'd start a new campaign after playing the last set of characters up to level 10-15, so the starting stats looked a bit lackluster. When 4e showed up with the higher racial mods, it just about made my head pop, but it also made me realize just how high our stats had gotten.

Personally, I hope "flatter math" includes "flatter stats", too. I don't want to see the range change, and I'm okay with the modifiers. But, if the system performs very well at lower stats, I'll be quite pleased. Hopefully, an 18 can feel like something special, again.

 

[Umbran]

All this when, in reality (and perhaps moreso in fantasy), physical attributes often outweigh the importance of skill.

My own observation of reality does not agree with yours. By this notion, the fit, young, unskilled combatant should often beat the older, wiser, but past-physical-prime mentor.

That's like... the Karate Kid having a good chance of beating Mr. Miyagi! Nuh-uh! Ain't happenin'!

 

[Mercule]

My own observation of reality does not agree with yours. By this notion, the fit, young, unskilled combatant should often beat the older, wiser, but past-physical-prime mentor.

This is probably my biggest worry about what I've seen of the skill system. Training should be able to surpass natural talent. My first 3e character was a rogue with a 16 strength and a 14 dexterity, who focused on gymnastic skills over the traditional thief skills. One of the most fun characters I've ever played. It couldn't have happened if those stat choices were a poison pill.

Reality also does not bear out the idea that natural talent is better than training. My younger daughter is threatening to overtake my (much more gifted) eldest in the piano, just based on hours of practice and enthusiasm.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My own observation of reality does not agree with yours. By this notion, the fit, young, unskilled combatant should often beat the older, wiser, but past-physical-prime mentor.

That's like... the Karate Kid having a good chance of beating Mr. Miyagi! Nuh-uh! Ain't happenin'!

The young upstart doesn't usually beat the old mentor, but he beats the in-his-prime experienced nemesis pretty often. Zero to hero stories are common.

 

[Mercule]

The young upstart doesn't usually beat the old mentor, but he beats the in-his-prime experienced nemesis pretty often. Zero to hero stories are common.

But, that's usually because the nemesis lacks empathy, friends, or the ability to sacrifice himself for a greater purpose. Alternatively, the upstart learns a tip, trick, or technique that puts him on more even footing with the nemesis in the particular field of battle. The former is not-statistical and can be factored into the adventuring group structure. The latter is part of the relatively rapid level advancement PCs have always undergone.

Occasionally, you do see a "kid" who wins by natural ability. Many times, this is accompanied by some sort of prophecy or revelation of special ability of the kid in question. A higher base stat buy would be a means of reflecting that accident of birth, if you wanted. I sure wouldn't want it to be the normal means of power.

 

[BobTheNob]

For my own 2 cents. I think the objective of flatter probability growth is the single most exciting innovation announced for 5e. I havent as of yet panicked about the stats as they stand as if I was to compare best-to-worst and see a 25% variation, that (to me) a pretty small variance.

Maybe something to keep an eye on, and Im still to see any form of multi-classing as of yet (forcing m0re MAD buildds, and how that will influence stat spread). "Watch this space" is the best level of concern Im giving this one.