Diverging from Ability "Scores" to Ability "Bonuses"

[steeldragons]

Like the title says...

Would diverging from the traditional 3d6, 4d6, et al methods of coming up with a bonus score and having that dictate the bonuses/penalties to a system which only applies Ability bonuses be something appealing to people in a new D&D-esque gaming system?

You'd still have your Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha...but instead of having 15 Int. award a +1 )or whatever) bonus, you simply have "built-in" bonuses to classes and races, and then a simple system (I'm thinking maybe even just a single d6) to apply however you want to your abilities. What the abilities are defined as/used for pretty much all stays the same: Con. still adds to HP, Dex. applies to AC, Cha. would apply to interactions, etc...

Taking the simplest example I can think of, your human fighter starts with, say, an automatic +2 to their Strength and +2 to their Con. You roll your d6, getting [let's just say] 3 more "points" to apply across your ability scores.

This particular hypothetical player says, "Ok. I'll put another 2 in Strength and 1 in Dex. to help my use of missile weapons and apply to AC."

So the PC's sheet says: Str. +4, Dex. +1, Con. +2, Int. 0, Wis. 0, Cha. 0

For rolls on skills, saves, whenever-Str.-is-applicable the player is +4 on those rolls. For rolls involving Dex., they get +1 to their die roll, etc...

Does this sound like something people would like or want? Are there other systems that do this already? If so, how did you like it/how did it play at the table?

I am curious and, thinking on it...more and more...it seems like something that might be just plain easier/more accessible for new players of a new game. Not "traditional", certainly, but the effects are the same...you just don't have a score of 3-18 [or whatever]. You wouldn't ever be rolling to "beat" your ability score...just add your bonus (if you have one).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

What you suggest would be a better system in many ways. Unfortunately, the concepts of rolling up a character and an 18 strength are deeply ingrained in D&D culture. Even I would hesitate to change those.

 

[Lackhand]

Many games do this; for instance, I'm a FATE-fan, and it just has bonuses; white wolf's Storyteller just has bonuses, etc.
During the d20 glut, the Blue Rose/True20 system did this for D&D-alikes. Worked fine there.

Just retaining the ability bonuses would remove a simple stumbling block that new players always seem to face, so I'd be in favor of it. It's much more accessible than the legacy way.
It's also the notation I use for my NPCs/monsters.

Unfortunately, I think that part of D&D's cachet is that a character can have an "18 charisma", so I don't see it getting dropped any time soon.
Devil's Advocate: We managed to drop percentile strength!

 

[keterys]

I was noodling around with a d20 variant where your "score" would be your bonus.

Ie, if you have an 18 Charisma, you'd add 18 to Charisma rolls.

Requires a fair amount of math on the rest of the system, though.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It wouldn't bother me, but I don't see the point. Then again, I've been playing D&D since about 1994, or more to the point 3e and 4e for their entire production span, so converting an ability to a stat mod is automatic for me.

I don't think the conversion makes things harder, but then it is an extra step. How would you handle level-based stat mods?

 

[Desdichado]

It would be marginally more elegant, assuming you could have a similar method to generate the bonuses. But why bother? The traditional system is traditional, and it's not like it's hard. Any alternative rolling methods would have to be just as hard. I suppose you could create a custom d8 that went from -3 through +4 with a 0 in there too to roll stats, but that's already quite a bit more work than the current method. And it would give you a flat rather than bell curve distribution, which isn't really desireable, in my opinion.

Using some kind of point buy would be fine, I guess, but a lot of folks prefer to roll stats, regardless of whether or not they're sold on the tradition of the 3-18 base value.

Your system below assumes the non-D&D-like 10/+0 as a minimum rather than a median score. Although, I'll admit that functionally, a score below 8 in a character I've seen played, at least since 3e, is pretty rare.

I dunno... I don't think there's anything wrong with your idea, it just seems like fixing something that isn't particularly broken. I don't think the existing method is a stumbling block to new players.

 

[steeldragons]

What you suggest would be a better system in many ways. Unfortunately, the concepts of rolling up a character and an 18 strength are deeply ingrained in D&D culture. Even I would hesitate to change those.

Right. There is this...but is it a "change" or just rolling/having/looking at different [much smaller] numbers?

Many games do this; for instance, I'm a FATE-fan, and it just has bonuses; white wolf's Storyteller just has bonuses, etc. During the d20 glut, the Blue Rose/True20 system did this for D&D-alikes. Worked fine there.

Just retaining the ability bonuses would remove a simple stumbling block that new players always seem to face, so I'd be in favor of it. It's much more accessible than the legacy way. It's also the notation I use for my NPCs/monsters.

Unfortunately, I think that part of D&D's cachet is that a character can have an "18 charisma", so I don't see it getting dropped any time soon.

But ho hard would it be to say, because of class race and your own decisions, "My elf Bard has a +12 Charisma" [or whatever you decide to put your points in?]

Devil's Advocate: We managed to drop percentile strength!

Thank you Devil's Advocate. That's kinds what I'm thinkin'. We've managed to drop and/or get used to plenty of things over the iterations.

I love the "roll 'em up" thing as much as the next gamer...and this would still have some of that...you still roll...just not as much/as big numbers. As a trade-off you get to make more meaningful character decisions along the way.

Do I want my Fighter to be +18 Str? Maybe I do. Maybe I want the most damaging damagey damager that ever rolled damage...But he's dumb as a post, grating on everyone and, overall, can't really be "good" at anything else. That is certainly a valid character concept and choice. Not someone I would want to play...but diff'rent strokes an' all. You're still rolling but overall numbers just wouldn't be in the abundance of the legacy.

I was noodling around with a d20 variant where your "score" would be your bonus.

Ie, if you have an 18 Charisma, you'd add 18 to Charisma rolls.

Requires a fair amount of math on the rest of the system, though.

Oo. Yikes! Yeah...I wouldn't do that. Part of the whole impetus behind this is the concept of keeping numbers low. Some player wants to make "Super-Constitution-man", they certainly can...but see above re: not being good at anything else.

If, as the levels accrue, you end up with +18 to stuff, that's fine. But I wouldn't want that for a starting character (and the system wouldn't allow for such a high number at level 1)...But that's just me/my preferred style of play...which, naturally, a system I am designing is going to reflect.

 

[steeldragons]

It wouldn't bother me, but I don't see the point. Then again, I've been playing D&D since about 1994, or more to the point 3e and 4e for their entire production span, so converting an ability to a stat mod is automatic for me.

So, what if you didn't have to convert? The number is just the bonus.

I don't think the conversion makes things harder, but then it is an extra step. How would you handle level-based stat mods?

Well, assuming I have such a thing...coming from way before 1994, there was never any such thing as "level-based stat mods"...and as I said in the previous response, as a system created by me, the system will reflect my play-style preferences. That said, I could easily see incorporating something along the lines of +1 per level or every other level, to apply wherever you want. OR maybe, to incorporate sooth the "but I wanna roll" folks, you get the d6 or d8 or whatever the initial player roll would be every other level or every 3 to add/distribute as you wish. It doesn't hurt my immersion-o-meter that the fighter gaining experience increases their abilities in this or that way...or the rogue wants to add to their Int. to pick up some more languages...or the cleric becomes more wise or better at dealing with people...that all works for me.

So, I guess, t answer the question...something like that. A roll or static bonus that can be applied every X levels.

It would be marginally more elegant, assuming you could have a similar method to generate the bonuses.

Well...yeah, it would be "similar"...you would roll a die or dice.

But why bother? The traditional system is traditional, and it's not like it's hard. Any alternative rolling methods would have to be just as hard. I suppose you could create a custom d8 that went from -3 through +4 with a 0 in there too to roll stats, but that's already quite a bit more work than the current method. And it would give you a flat rather than bell curve distribution, which isn't really desirable, in my opinion.

I don't know what/how this makes the math more "flat" than "bell curve"? If you have a 16 Strength and and an 18 Con., you have a +2 and +4 (let's just say) respectively. So...if your character would/could still be a +2 Str. and +4 Con., just no 15 or 18...*shrug* What am I missing? Yes, the classes and possibly race choices would start you off on one step ahead in certain things...but after that...it's up to you/the player.

Using some kind of point buy would be fine, I guess, but a lot of folks prefer to roll stats, regardless of whether or not they're sold on the tradition of the 3-18 base value.

Oo! No. Yeah. No point buys in this system.

Your system below assumes the non-D&D-like 10/+0 as a minimum rather than a median score. Although, I'll admit that functionally, a score below 8 in a character I've seen played, at least since 3e, is pretty rare.

Right. The PCs are assumed to be "average" for everything except what it is their class is good at. Even just thinking now, an optional "penalty" system seems easy enough to incorporate...if you want to take -1 to this, you can add +1 to that...or go WAY originale and say -2 to 1 stat to add 1 to another. heh heh.

I dunno... I don't think there's anything wrong with your idea, it just seems like fixing something that isn't particularly broken. I don't think the existing method is a stumbling block to new players.

Well...no. It's not a "stumbling block", I guess, really, or broken. But...why have to go through, "I rolled a 16 for strength. So what does that mean?" when you can have it, right off the bat on your character sheet, "I'm want to be a Fighter. [and right there it says] That's Strength +2..."?

I can't argue, the traditional way is not "broken" nor overly complicated. Certainly not. I'm just kinda thinking...this isn't either and might be, as you said "marginally"easier for new players to wrap their heads around...esp. with a NEW game...not D&D, but something else like it. Experienced players can grasp it immediately...but "I don't get to roll 3d6?!?!" doesn't strike me as a "Well, I'll just never play THIS bit o' shennanigins!" appropriate response.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't know what/how this makes the math more "flat" than "bell curve"? If you have a 16 Strength and and an 18 Con., you have a +2 and +4 (let's just say) respectively. So...if your character would/could still be a +2 Str. and +4 Con., just no 15 or 18...*shrug* What am I missing? Yes, the classes and possibly race choices would start you off on one step ahead in certain things...but after that...it's up to you/the player.

No, you're missing my point, I think.

If you roll 3d6, you have a range of 3-18, with a median of about 10.5. But you get something approaching a bell curve distribution, i.e., most rolls will be close to the median, and extremely high or extremely low scores will be very rare. This is still true (more or less) with the 4d6 drop lowest, except of course, that it skews that mean and median upwards.

With your system, all of that probability gets thrown out.

I'm not saying that that's good or bad, but it's certainly different, and it's certainly worth noting, because it will make the experience of generating characters quite a bit different.

 

[steeldragons]

No, you're missing my point, I think.

If you roll 3d6, you have a range of 3-18, with a median of about 10.5. But you get something approaching a bell curve distribution, i.e., most rolls will be close to the median, and extremely high or extremely low scores will be very rare. This is still true (more or less) with the 4d6 drop lowest, except of course, that it skews that mean and median upwards.

With your system, all of that probability gets thrown out.

I'm not saying that that's good or bad, but it's certainly different, and it's certainly worth noting, because it will make the experience of generating characters quite a bit different.

Ah. Yes. Gottit. Yes, that probability is thrown out...or lessened, at least, for a smaller roll. But yes, the mean/median is definitely skewed "up."

Thus, mandating the hypothetical "penalty" system for those that ay they want to play a fighter with no strength or a dim-witted mage.