Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scars Unseen" data-source="post: 5925476" data-attributes="member: 10196">I posted this on the WotC forums, but I thought I'd put it here too and see what sort of reaction it gets from different communities.My biggest complaint about the playtest so far is the ability score bonuses.  I can't speak for the earlier editions, but in 2nd Edition, ability score bonuses were designed around the probability curve of a 3d6 generation method.  This ensured that, assuming that method was used, exceptional ability scores - and the bonuses that came with them - were  the exception.  For those that fell in the majority scores, your ability wasn't important enough to overshadow skill(though the differences did still matter for ability checks).  Additionally, since it was very difficult to raise abilities above 18(the girdles of giant strength being the most common exception), even those with exceptional ability had only a minor advantage over his companions.In 3E, this all changed.  Rather than the elegance of a probability curve, WotC decided to go with the simplicity of linear growth.  Anything beyond the two numbers surrounding the mathematical average on a 3d6 got a modifier, for better or worse.  What was once the domain of the truly exceptional was now in the hands of the slightly above average.  Worse, because of the incredibly simplistic math employed, the exceptional score's modest bonus had been inflated to what was previously beyond the capability of men(and other playable humanoids).  Even worse than that, the system allowed for easy advancement beyond what was previously possible, inflating those numbers even further.With linear growth, the difference between the bonus for a 12 and a 14 may only be 5% on a d20, but take the difference between a 7(-2) and an 18(+4).  That's a a difference of 30% chance of success on a d20.  Is there any wonder that people don't want random stat gen in the newer games?  In 2nd Edition, the same difference in ability scores only creates a difference of 5% chance of success.  That's right:  3E and onward inflated the numbers so badly that the difference between 7 and 18 became the difference between 10 and 12.Now some might call out exceptional strength.  Well  in order to get a +2 to hit, you would need an 18/51.  You have a 0.23% chance of getting that or better.  That's 1 in 400(compare to 1 in 200 for a straight 18).  To get a +3 to hit, you need an 18/00.  You have a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting that.  I don't think that probability is even worth considering.Linear growth is bad design(my opinion).  Over time, it turns into a bonus point arms race, which WotC seems to be trying to avoid in other areas of the game.  Moreover, it creates a large numerical difference between a character with a 12(which should be considered to be a decent if not great score) and an 18.  This puts a lot of system generated pressure on the player(when less random methods are used) to get a high score in the class's relevant ability, which leads to less interesting cookie cutter character builds. So how about the rest of you?  Do you feel that there was a benefit to the WotC method?  It is certainly simpler, I'll give it that.  I had to look up all the values I've mentioned for 2nd Edition in my PHB.  3E I don't even have to memorize.  But I feel that what was lost due to ability inflation far outweighs any benefit its simplicity may have granted it.</blockquote>

Verification