D&D 5E Ability checks not using modifier

[Szatany]

If the basic rule for ability checks (but not saves, attacks etc.) was to use score -10, instead of modifier, would it benefit the game?
The pros I can see is this works better with new feat system, and allows for higher granuality of character's "skills".
The cons I can see is slight increase in complexity.
DCs of course would have to be slightly adjusted, with maybe +2 to hard difficulty DC and up to +5 for highest difficulty DCs.

Opinions?

 

[Sadrik]

I think this ramps stats too fast. So rather than going -5 to +5 it goes -10 to +10. I don't see why there cannot be a module that modifies this dynamic of the game. I personally would like to see it go the other direction -3 to +3. Less emphasis on the stats. But like me, there is, I am sure, one person who wants less and and another that wants more. Probably best to keep it the same and add a quick module for super stats and weak stats options.

 

[Szatany]

I'd be fine if this was done with a module. But regardless of modularity, we can discuss the idea.

-3 to +3. Less emphasis on the stats.

But then you have a game that places most emphasis on randomness (1-20 roll) and very little on actual skill or proficiency of a character (-3 to +3, or 0-6). Not my cup of tea.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The biggest Cons I see are twofold:

1) You are splitting the mechanics of ability checks off from the mechanics of attacks and saves. To have the ability check modifiers (Score - 10) and attacks/save modifiers (Score - 10 / 2) is to create a disparity between mechanics to solve a problem that could probably be solved in another way. Right now... it seems like the reason for something like this is all to just solve the "+1 to ability score from even to odd grants no benefit" idea. Which to my mind isn't as big of a deal as it seems others feel it is. Do you "get anything" by going from 14 to 15 in a score? Yes. You are getting one step closer to your modifier going up next time.

It seems like some folks think that ability mod bonuses and feats need to be balanced in a vacuum... that one specific mod bonus has to equal one specific feat. Instead of look at the totality of character advancement... where the question is "do these 5 or 6 ability mod advancements on a whole over the life of a character equal the bonus abilities he'll get from feats?" When you look at it like that... going from 14 to 15 without having the mod go up a point isn't as big of a deal (since that mod *will* go up the next time a score gains a +1).

2) Using (Score - 10) is not really the best idea when you're stuck with the concept of a 3-18 span for ability scores, because you get so wide of a modifier span from ability score alone. Which means you are less inclined to add bonuses for being skilled or trained in things, because that will just widen the spread between scores even more. When two characters at first level might have a +8 and a -2 on the same check... a spread of 10 full points... would we be inclined to then make that even worse by layering training on top of it? I don't think so. As a result... any extra bonuses we might have wanted to give to PCs to reflect what they were interested in or good at get stripped from the game, because they've been replaced by the ability score modifier.

I personally would rather have a +5 from a maxed ability score and a +5 from trained skills / other bonuses for my character for a total of +10... then a +10 from a maxed ability score and that's it. The former just seems more interesting to me, even if it does remove the "I gained a +1 to my ability score but got nothing to show for it!!!" feeling.

 

[the Jester]

I dislike this idea because then you're talking about an 8-point difference (on a d20 check) between an "average Joe" and a (f'rexample) burly fighter.

That's too much swing, especially when we're already flattening the math.

I'm actually of a mind that +4 for an 18 is a bit too high as it is, but am willing to let the game develop and judge it based on actual play. So far I find it viable and interesting, but making that +4 into a +8 could easily put pcs back into a "Must have high primary stats to keep up" mentality.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I could see a setup where the default is Ability Score - 10, but if you use skills, it becomes the traditional array with skills filling in for the remaining five points. I'm not saying it's a good system, but it could be made to work.

 

[Szatany]

I could see a setup where the default is Ability Score - 10, but if you use skills, it becomes the traditional array with skills filling in for the remaining five points. I'm not saying it's a good system, but it could be made to work.

You can have skills without having skill bonuses. Under this system I would opt for such solution.

 

[keterys]

Stupid question time - why the -10? If you're going to do it, just roll ability score, done.

 

[Szatany]

Actually that's great idea. I don't know why I didn't think of it.

 

[Warbringer]

Stupid question time - why the -10? If you're going to do it, just roll ability score, done.

Which is basically 2e