Diverging from Ability "Scores" to Ability "Bonuses"

[Lackhand]

A way I've always wanted to try this is you still roll 3d6 to generate stats, but you can read the results off of the dice.
I've put exactly no thought into this: each 1-2 on the die is a -1, each 5-6 is a +1. That generates the same spread as B/X characters; might do the same thing with 4d6 (NOT drop low) for a 3e/4e style -4 to +4.
mathfix: To get the same probability for 18s, you need it to be a 1 on the die is a -1, a 6 on the die is a +1. But that doesn't have the same probability of giving more middling bonuses. But maybe that's okay

To make it less cruel, you might give bonus points to ensure the sum of stats is a +6 or something which they can spend around on their stats, allow mulligans, allow dropping dice, something like that.

But since I actually don't think point buy is a dirty word, I've never gone beyond the "noodling" stage with this

 

[Morrus]

I started a thread exactly like this back in 1999! Glad someone finally agrees!

 

[steeldragons]

I started a thread exactly like this back in 1999! Glad someone finally agrees!

I'm a wee bit slow on the uptake But I'm here now! hahaha.

 

[howandwhy99]

3rd edition collapsed *most* of Ability Scores into modifiers. 4th may have gone further, I dunno. But Ability Scores as scores means they represent an actual state, an attribute of the character sure, but scores upon relationships existent in the game. What those scores relate to with everything represented by them is another matter. Earlier D&D is considered inelegant because it had so many mechanics underneath those scores. Now we're getting dull games because we're switching to pure modifiers and ones soon to be without reference to anything in the game.

 

[delericho]

This is one of those "yes, but..." issues.

The approach the OP suggests is absolutely fine, and probably beneficial in many ways. And if the game doesn't actually use the raw score anywhere in the design, there's little reason to keep it. I would have absolutely no problem playing in a game where the DM had house ruled the abilities that way.

But. The six ability scores, and the 3-18 range, are sacred cows. So when it comes to the game, as presented in print, it's a somewhat different question.

 

[the Jester]

Like the title says...

Would diverging from the traditional 3d6, 4d6, et al methods of coming up with a bonus score and having that dictate the bonuses/penalties to a system which only applies Ability bonuses be something appealing to people in a new D&D-esque gaming system?

You'd still have your Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha...but instead of having 15 Int. award a +1 )or whatever) bonus, you simply have "built-in" bonuses to classes and races, and then a simple system (I'm thinking maybe even just a single d6) to apply however you want to your abilities. What the abilities are defined as/used for pretty much all stays the same: Con. still adds to HP, Dex. applies to AC, Cha. would apply to interactions, etc...

True20 uses this, IIRC- it's the engine behind games like Blue Rose.

Personally, I really prefer having a score. I'm sure some of this comes from tradition, but I also don't like having every increase in your ability equaling a +1. (I also really dislike gaining +2 to a stat as part of leveling up- I think +1 is much nicer.)

 

[DMZ2112]

I absolutely see the draw of this system, but have personally always fallen into a different camp. I tend to think that if the 3d6 ability scores can be simplified into a +/- range, then the ability score system ought to have a little more complexity.

I'm not proposing a return to the arbitrary-seeming bonus tables of AD&D1-2, but it is not unthinkable for Constitution to affect hit points differently than it affects Fort save, or for Dexterity to affect AC differently than it affects ranged combat.

I like the idea of an ability score as a single roll that determines multiple aspects of a character, rather than just one universal bonus.

 

[Lackhand]

True20 uses this, IIRC- it's the engine behind games like Blue Rose.

Personally, I really prefer having a score. I'm sure some of this comes from tradition, but I also don't like having every increase in your ability equaling a +1. (I also really dislike gaining +2 to a stat as part of leveling up- I think +1 is much nicer.)

I don't think the score is the only way to get this behavior. We only know that a Strength of 18 is a +4 modifier to strength rolls (or is it +3? Or +1 to hit and +3 to damage -- forgive me, it's been a while since I AD&D2e'd ) by rote and table lookup.
Once we've done that table lookup in character generation, why not just throw away the value you'd rolled and just say "I have a Strength of +4".

If you're worried about advancement being too steep, I think it's completely reasonable to have a Strength of +4.5, +4', +4*, or +4 1/2.
Some of those are a little sillier than others, but I'm just trying to say that nothing about "throw away what we currently call the score, keep what we currently call the modifier" requires that improvement be linear, whole number, or otherwise mathematically fiddly.

It just changes how we record and talk about it, y'know?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I could go either way of three

1) go back to 2e where there is a whole chart of things off each stat
2) Like M&M got to just mod
3) find a use for the score (I heard a good attempt with Save DCs set at score or if your Score is higher then the DC auto successed.