If they're serious about "flatter math," then WotC needs to deal with ability scores.

[B.T.]

Problem: The difference between an 18 (+4 modifier) and an 8 (-1) is five points. This might not seem like a big deal, but it is. You're looking at a 25% difference in hit rates, which is pretty ridiculous. Some solutions:

• Reduce ability score spread (ability scores might range from 12-18 instead of 8-18).

• Alteration in how ability score modifiers are calculated (high/low ability scores might not provide as large a bonus; an 18 might give a +2 bonus rather than =4, for instance).

• Separation of ability scores from combat abilities (a fighter might have an attack bonus that ignores his Strength modifier altogether).

Thoughts?

 

[Jester David]

I'm fine with that 25% variability because the wizard who can barely lift a broadsword should not be that effective with it. As it stands, they might only by that 25% less effective than the fighter, having a reasonable chance to hit. And if said hypothetical wizard has advantage but the fighter doesn't they have roughly even chances to hit a low AC foe.

That's so much less than 4e (25% plus magic plus proficiency plus feat) or 3e (25% plus magic plus BAB disparity plus feats).

And the 25% variance only applies of people are rocking that 18. Only one of the five playtest characters has an 18, two have 17s, and the rest have 16s. So the variance is likely only 20% to 15%.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not telling strength or dexterity affect attack rolls has occured to me before, but ... I don't know - what _is_ affecting attack roll then anymore? Is it just luck? Do we get a weapon skill? Even with that - it seems odd.

The alternative, use different ability score modifiers, may actually be more compelling. But even then, people may be hunting for the glorious 18 or whatever, since it's still the only way to get a bonus to one of your most important attacks.

I would like to see a system where you could play a "smart" fighter and be effective, all be it in a very different way then if you are a "strong" fighter. Stuff like using ability scores as feat prerequisites or something like that. But it's all very vague and seems difficult to pull off. And even if you can play a smart instead of a strong fighter, if you're a fighter, you should need/want some strength IMO. Just not necesarily a 16+, a 13 could be satisfactory, the rest compensated by your intellect.

Maybe there should be a cap on ability-based modifiers, and instead of having one modifier rule it all, you can add two or three ability modifiers (maybe even flexibly so, some kind of build decision for characters.
Maybe one score is determined by class or weapon choice (Strength for most melee weapons except light weapons, Dexterity for most ranged weapons except heavy thrown weapons), one by class choices (Fighters may have Constitution or Intelligence, Barbarians Constitution or Charisma, Rangers Constitution or Wisdom, Rogues Intelligence or Charisma, Bards Charisma or Intelligence etc.) and maybe a third by your choice. Only prerequisite that they must all be 3 different ones. Maximum modifier you can can get might be +5, and most people would usually get that +5 in their class-typical weapon choices. But you still have the option of doing it all via one score or doing it with multiple ones.

If you want to play a party leader type of Fighter, you pick Strength, Intelligence and Charisma as your most important scores, and get a Strength of 15, a Dex of 12, a Con of 13, a Int of 12, a Wisdom of 10, and a Charisma of 14. These aren't really uber stats, but they cover exactly what your character is about. You can use charisma in social situations to act as party leader, use intelligence for planning, and strength for beating sh*t up.

 

[Morrus]

You're looking at a 25% difference in hit rates, which is pretty ridiculous.

I'd need to be convinced that this qualifies as "ridiculous" first.

 

[Li Shenron]

Problem: The difference between an 18 (+4 modifier) and an 8 (-1) is five points. This might not seem like a big deal, but it is. You're looking at a 25% difference in hit rates, which is pretty ridiculous.

...

Thoughts?

25% difference is small, considering that +4 is almost the maximum possible for a human and -1 is a less-than-average human. Unlikely that the latter character would even be an adventurer unless he had other aces up his sleeves than fighting (in fact it's very very rare that a player chooses to put a negative modifier into the ability he intends to use for most of his attacks). My thought is that this doesn't need fixing.

 

[Umbran]

When they speak of "flatter math", I think they mean there will be less of a rise in numbers as characters go up in level.

Unless ability scores increase greatly with level, they're not really part of "flatter math".

 

[Ahnehnois]

That 25% difference relatively small compared to the difference in level-based bonuses. A 10th level 3e (or 2e, I think) fighter is 45% better than he was at 1st, by virtue of base attack alone, and probably has feats, magic items, and ability increases that increase that substantially. All this when, in reality (and perhaps moreso in fantasy), physical attributes often outweigh the importance of skill. I think the level-based bonuses are a far more appropriate and viable target than ability bonuses in the quest for flatter math.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

A difference of +5 does not happen accidentally. IMO the one boon/goal of flatter math is not whether the expert PC hits really often, it is not whether the incompetent feels incompetent, but that someone with moderate skill does not feel their effort is worthless.

If the Rogue with a Str 12 does not feel worthless against the monster with very thick hide because the can still hit, say, 25% of the time, why does it matter that the superfocused Fighter can hit 40% or even 60% of the time?

If the complete weakling of Wizard feels that picking up a tree branch and flailing away at the same monster is pointless, well, who cares?

 

[Yora]

An 18 with a +4 modifier is supposed to be a huge deal.

In rolling 3d6, 80% of all ability scores will be in the range of 7 to 14 and 50% between 8 and 13%. The chance for a modifier outside the -2 to +2 range is only 10%.
And in 3rd Edition Point Buy 25, a single 16 already eats almost half your points.

18 is big? Well, it's supposed to be big.

 

[Minigiant]

Is someone suggesting that 25% is too large and the gain from ability scores should decrease. So a clumsy oaf and a desturous acrobat have only 10% difference of chance between them?

In the famous words of Mr. Horse.

"No sir, I don't like it."