Clumsiness of ability scores

[Altamont Ravenard]

What about ability drain and damage?

- Kemrain the Feebleminded.

it's a wonder why they didn't make it a fixed number (akin to what they did to the animal stat boost spells)

AR

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes, for the most part the ability modifier is all that matters.

Ability scores are still used for spellcasting (10 + spell level minimum to cast), feat prerequisites (always odd), carrying capacity, and direct tests of the ability (you don't make opposed Str checks to armwrestle, you compare Str scores). Ability damage and drain make the actual ability score matter as well.

In 3.0, ability scores were also used to break ties in checks.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

What about ability drain and damage?

- Kemrain the Feebleminded.

Just halve the amount or die it would do and apply directly.

For example, Ray of Enfeeblement imposes a penalty of -6. That's -3 to the stat modifier in question. Something that does 1d6 ability damage currently would instead do 1d3. Same for bonuses. Bull's Strength (normally +4) would add +2 to Strength (and therefore attack, damage and strength-based skill checks).

The one oddity that I can come up with is when increasing ability scores through XP. Currently, if you have an 11, when you get an ability point you can up it to a 12 and get a +1. Solution? Halve the number of ability point increases you get to one every 8 levels. Not a great solution, but it would work.

As for bonus spells, work out somethng similar to what we have now, but just replace the chart's numerical stats with the modifiers. Thus, a +1 Wisdom would give bonus spells equal to the 12-13 row as it stands now.

For randomly generating stats, go to a point-buy scenario. Optionally, roll 1d6-2 for each stat, giving a range of -1 to +4, then apply racial modifiers (for instance, elves would get +1 to Dexterity, -1 to Constitution). I mean, realistically, how many people do you know that enjoy playing anything below, say, an 8 in an ability score?

Of course, this would mean recalculating any feat prereq that had a minimum ability score. Power Attack would require Strength +1 instead of Strength 13.

They COULD do it. But I doubt that they will.

It would work.

 

[Trainz]

But some things need the score like for spell casting. Actually thats the only one where the though process doesn't go: Ability > modifier > answer....

I know, but if that's all, things should be changed. Merge the benefits of 12 and 13 in a 12 stat (incidently +1).

Easy.

 

[BryonD]

I think CON = 0 = Dead makes more sense than CON = -6 = Dead.


I like that odd ability scores provide a little texture (a point of ability damage buffer, feat prereqs, etc..)

I don't see it as a big deal either way, but just using mods would add more annoying little things than the current system does, imo.

 

[Silveras]

:: chuckle :: The very thing you see as clumsy I see as elegant. By making the stat bonuses change on even numbers, Players must think sometimes before deciding where their stat boost goes. The odd numbers become a buffer against ability damage/drain. Before the revision, if you rolled well on your Cat's Grace, you could get up your bonus up by 3, presuming you had an odd-value Dex.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

If you have D&D attributes go from 3:18 to -4:+4 you will trigger Ragnarok and I will side with the gods on the field of endless battle and pick you out of the giant army so as to challenge you to single combat.

Just letting you know the consquences of your actions.

 

[Kelleris]

And something a few other posters have almost pointed out: feat prereqs typically require an odd ability score number.

Also, I for one would find it a major pain to halve all those ability damage dice. I despise rolling anything smaller than a d6, to the point of begging my DMs to let me use a d8 for the falchion, despite losing an average of half a point on the rolls.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and what BiggusGeekus said too.

 

[ARandomGod]

Ha!
I often TALK like that when referring to characters.

Me: "So I've got a 4 in INT on the mage."
UnInitiated: "Wait, your mage can't have a FOUR!"
Me: "Sure, it cost a lot, but I felt it was worth it. That's an important stat, I don't really mind having a -1 in strength."
UnInitiated: "Wait, what?"
Me: "OH, I mean an 18. I always get that mixed up because 18 has no actual meaning. Four is the meaningful stat."

 

[Gregor]

I totally agree that it would probably make the game more efficient...but I would REALLY miss the ability scores. One of the things that always screamed d&d to me was having ability scores in the 3 - 18 (generally) range. It wouldent feel like d&d to me without them.

Cheers,