Ability Scores

[Connorsrpg]

Back to rolling for sure, and make 18's + rare again. Certainly should not be a necessity to start like that. Also, don't go crazy on increasing Ability Scores throughout.

I liked the idea that three were offence-based and three defensive. Ability scores could even serve as the non AC defenses.

Would certainly like to see Ability Scores be your skill checks too, with skills/skill feats adding a new use or unique ability rather that a modifier.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No 3-18 and I am out... oh, and 3 offense and 3 defense is also a very bad idea... If you want offensive and defensive scores, dexterity needs to be divided into 2 stats.

seriously, why change a working system?

What needs to be changed is bonuses to skills and attacks... and I agree, that the bonus to attack rolls needs to be a lot lower than the bonus to skills...

 

[Baumi]

I would like to see the modifiers gone and completely work only with the scores itself (3-18). I don't think that it would be to hard to use these alone for skill-tests and attack/damage doesn't need to be linked to them at all.

For Attacks just give out fixed Points, which is easier, more balanced and in the end the last two Editions every character had nearly the same modifiers anyway (+3 to +5 at first level).

 

[delericho]

We've been through this a few times recently.

I think Ability Scores have become far too important in the game (this may have been true as far back as 1st Ed - BECMI D&D was about right, though). So, I think they need to look at that very carefully, and reduce the importance of having the 'right' stats significantly.

Then, they should present three Stat Gen methods side-by-side (without necessarily making any recommendation):

1) A standard array. 16-14-13-12-10-8 would seem to be about right.

2) 4d6-drop-lowest, arrange to taste.

3) A point buy system that works out very slightly worse than either methods #1 or #2 (on average). If using the 3e costs, that would be 25-point-buy.

(The Starter Set should only offer one method, being either #1 or #2.)

The reason #3 should be a bit worse than #2 is that #3 allows for exact placement of scores, and so allows for more clever optimisation. Thus, a skilled player gets more bang for his buck. (In 3e terms, 4d6-drop-lowest works out to about 28-points on average.)

You'll never get consensus between the "roll" and "point buy" methods, so the game should support both. And, for the new player, either method #1 or #2 is obviously better - point buy is a bit of a nightmare.

 

[Baumi]

By the way, I really liked the Gamma World approach. Your Primary Attribute is 18, your secondary 16 and if both are the same than you get a 20 in that. The other Attributes are rolled with 3d6 in order!

So you have fun randomness while retaining high Scores in the essential Attributes.

 

[Henry]

When you start talking about sacred cows, I believe that the six ability scores and the "regular human" range are altogether one of these cows. Certain things are the most absolute core of "D&D"ness, and SDCIWCh 3-18 are one of them.

Redefine their mechanical effect all you want -- but like the wrongness of taking the horse ornament off of a Mustang and still calling it that, they just have to be there -- at least in my mind

 

[Oni]

By the way, I really liked the Gamma World approach. Your Primary Attribute is 18, your secondary 16 and if both are the same than you get a 20 in that. The other Attributes are rolled with 3d6 in order!

So you have fun randomness while retaining high Scores in the essential Attributes.

Ew, I really don't like that.

I would very much like to get away from the 'everyone has a stat of X in their primary attribute, because they need it to function' thing. It's so boring.

 

[delericho]

By the way, I really liked the Gamma World approach. Your Primary Attribute is 18, your secondary 16 and if both are the same than you get a 20 in that. The other Attributes are rolled with 3d6 in order!

So you have fun randomness while retaining high Scores in the essential Attributes.

Fun for a one-off. And it might work for a Starter Set.

But I would hate that for campaign play.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

yes, everyone with an 18 in the main attribute is boring. When you read the DDXP seminar description, it sounds as if skills and ability scores will be linked more closely... which also should mean, that the link between ability scores and attacks needs to be loosened, because otherwise every fighter does xxx good, every bard xxx... which will be very boring!

 

[darkwing]

Gamma world works.

That being said, Ability Scores are hindering the game. You take an average group of kids who want to play a fantasy game and pull the old switcharoo and show them it's really a game about math. They lose interest and you get Hasbro complaining that D&D isn't making enough money.