Change in ability score = proportional change in bonus/penalty...

[B.T.]

If you really wanted to get crazy, you could dump ability score altogether and stick straight with the modifiers (something that True20 tried). Thus, the dwarven fighter would have a +3 Strength score, not a 17 Strength with a +3 modifier.

 

[Kinak]

They could always reconfigure the math so instead of adding a modifier you're adding the entire ability score. That way you get the 3-18 spread and the ability scores still mean something.

This is the fix I'd go for, well, if I were going to change anything.

As a bonus, it's very close to the old ability checks and non-weapon proficiencies. So it's not totally weird.

They'd need to do something with attack rolls and damage, though, either decoupling them from attributes or reworking what they mean. Adding your whole strength to damage would be pretty over the top.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Trance-Zg]

Variant that I made up is:

average ability 10(sacred cow) and abilities and modifiers go one-for-one.

abilities for PC's and NPC's go from 6(-4 mod) to 14(+4 mod) before racial or other adjustments.

for average NPC's stats, the roll is 8d2-2(from 6 to 14) average 10

for average PC's rolls are 6d2+2. from 8(-2) to 14(+4), average 11(+1)

for above average PC's rolls are 4d2+6, from 10(+0) to 14(+4), average 12(+2)

for point buy you start all stats at 9(-1) and costs are:

up to 12, 1 for 1
12->13, 2pts
13->14, 3pts

npc's get 6 pts

average pc's 13 pts

above average pc's 18 pts.

 

[TerraDave]

Obviously you wouldn't design it like this from scratch.

What they have is a pretty good compromise. Abilities as they have been for over a decade, on a scaling that has existed from the start, modifying many of the same things (well, since supplement I) and very similar to a pre 2000 system (Moldvay Basic).

And the old idea of using a bell curve like arrangement to generate the scores, is also a pretty good one. At least for those that will still role for scores.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

It is clear that tradition is more important than every other thing in the 5e design, don´t expect a better rule only because it is better, it would be changes for changes sake :-D

 

[kitsune9]

Makes perfect sense. Never going to happen.

That sums up my feelings.

 

[Campbell]

While it might feel more intuitive to get rid of ability scores in lieu of bonuses the most intuitive design isn't always the best design.

• You don't actually gain that much. The current bonus/penalty structure isn't overly complicated. Figuring bonus from ability score is a rather trivial equation and need only be done at chargen or at rare increases. I do not forsee a return to Ability Score damage or the frequent Ability Score increases of 3e/4e.
• You lose the ability to use the actual score in calculations where negative values do not make sense. See D&D Next's rather intuitive Jump and Encumbrance mechanics.
• The feel of rules can be just as important as their function. Ability scores seem like tangible real things.
• The current range of ability scores enable random generation without resorting to charts while also keeping DCs close to the range of the d20. Being able to relate mechanical language closely to the game's principle randomizer allows for a more intuitive play experience. I prefer intuitive play over intuitive character generation.

 

[El_Gran_Jefe]

Consider also that you need values that are NOT only human or player centric.

If you base everything about a person, say a standard man of 70kg, then you'd give a woman's weight as -15 (she weighs 55kg) and an ogre's as + 190 (he weighs 260kg)
This is a ridiculous example but it may help.

As it is, the 3-18 thing is already too human centric, with a large meaningless middle band and bonii scrunched up in the ends. It was MUCH worse in 2nd ed.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Why not give a +1 bonus for each point above 10? A 10 would be +0 and an 18 would be +8. That way, every point means something. That may seem extreme since we're not used to it, but since this edition is placing more emphasis on ability scores and largely doing without things like skill ranks and attack/save bonuses (or very little of them), it might work out just fine.

This also makes the rules for passive checks easier. Instead of using your score in the ability - 5, you'd just use your score in the ability as your passive check. Passive checks become simple and intutive this way, since your ability score is what you would get if you rolled a 10 on the d20. Likewise, instead of having to say that your AC is 10 + your dex mod + your armor/shield bonus, it would simply be your Dexterity score + your armor/shield bonus. This also works very well for people who prefer 4e-style defenses instead of rolled saving throws. Instead of your target making a charisma save, you attack, using their charisma score as their defense. Easy.

The other benefit I can see is that it works better with the d20. Bonuses of -1 to +5 (and maybe +3 from a skill or proficiency) makes the bonuses from your stats have too little weight compared to the d20 roll. This results in the math being very swingy. It may seem like alot; a character with a 20 attribute is getting +10 instead of +5. But he's also not getting +20 to hit from his attack bonus or +23 from skill ranks (like in 3.x), or +15 from 1/2 his level (like in 4e). So the end result is that the difference between competent and average/incompetent characters will still be far narrower than it was in those editions.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

Why not give a +1 bonus for each point above 10? A 10 would be +0 and an 18 would be +8. That way, every point means something. That may seem extreme since we're not used to it, but since this edition is placing more emphasis on ability scores and largely doing without things like skill ranks and attack/save bonuses (or very little of them), it might work out just fine.

This also makes the rules for passive checks easier. Instead of using your score in the ability - 5, you'd just use your score in the ability as your passive check. Passive checks become simple and intutive this way, since your ability score is what you would get if you rolled a 10 on the d20. Likewise, instead of having to say that your AC is 10 + your dex mod + your armor/shield bonus, it would simply be your Dexterity score + your armor/shield bonus. This also works very well for people who prefer 4e-style defenses instead of rolled saving throws. Instead of your target making a charisma save, you attack, using their charisma score as their defense. Easy.

The other benefit I can see is that it works better with the d20. Bonuses of -1 to +5 (and maybe +3 from a skill or proficiency) makes the bonuses from your stats have too little weight compared to the d20 roll. This results in the math being very swingy. It may seem like alot; a character with a 20 attribute is getting +10 instead of +5. But he's also not getting +20 to hit from his attack bonus or +23 from skill ranks (like in 3.x), or +15 from 1/2 his level (like in 4e). So the end result is that the difference between competent and average/incompetent characters will still be far narrower than it was in those editions.

I agree 100% with this, it would be much better than the current rules.