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

[dd.stevenson]

I would like to see a return to the pre-3E model, where ability scores didn't improve attack rolls and damage so much as they gave other benefits. Such as immunity to certain spells, special abilities, and improved chances at successfully performing out combat tasks.

 

[JamesonCourage]

...if I was to compare best-to-worst and see a 25% variation, that (to me) a pretty small variance.

This is where I'm at on it, and unlike BobTheNob, this small variance greatly concerns me. I don't mind if people start out only 10-25% apart, but at high level, I expect the Fighter to be more than 25% better than the Wizard when it comes to accuracy. And that's even if the Wizard has a decent Strength.

So, unlike the OP, the 25% difference is too small for me. You'll often have people with lower ability scores outperforming people with higher scores, and in a system with a seemingly less defined skill system, this is only going to be magnified. This is actually one of the weaker points of the system, in my mind, and I'm hoping that it changes (but I'm not expecting it to). As always, play what you like

 

[Remathilis]

Easily fixed by using BD&D's scale.

Score/Adjustment
3/-3
4-5/-2
6-8/-1
9-12/0
13-15/+1
16-17/+2
18/+3

There is never more than a 30% difference between 3 and 18

 

[Umbran]

The young upstart doesn't usually beat the old mentor, but he beats the in-his-prime experienced nemesis pretty often. Zero to hero stories are common.

Backing up what Mercule said - the young upstart usually gets beaten down by the nemesis some first, and then only beats his nemesis *after* the training montage.

 

[Mercule]

I would like to see a return to the pre-3E model, where ability scores didn't improve attack rolls and damage so much as they gave other benefits. Such as immunity to certain spells, special abilities, and improved chances at successfully performing out combat tasks.

The mods in 3e aren't too far off 1e dexterity, constitution, and wisdom. When you include percentile strength and convert the charisma percents to d20, the mods are smaller. Intelligence didn't seem to modify much, but looking at the difference in learning a spell (spellcraft) between a 10 and 18 intelligence, that's about a +8 equivalent.

Now, I'd love to see some of the oddball perks return. I like the theory of max spells known, immunity to illusions, systems shock check, and (especially) resurrection survival. I don't know how much some of those add to game play, but they sound good. Several of those would also work just as well as saving throws or skill checks in a unified system (which is something else I support). Maybe what we need isn't a return to weird stat tables, but having things like resurrection and polymorph call out a constitution/fortitude save to survive.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Easily fixed by using BD&D's scale.

Score/Adjustment
3/-3
4-5/-2
6-8/-1
9-12/0
13-15/+1
16-17/+2
18/+3

There is never more than a 30% difference between 3 and 18

I prefer this spread as well. Overall, a difference of 1 or so isn't huge. The bigger issue is overall stat inflation. 3-18 generated by 3d6 or possibly 4d6 without constant stat increases for level would help out a lot.

Point buy and optimization have worse effects on the game than a point or so of difference in stat modifiers.

 

[Lanefan]

Flatter bonuses (-3 to +3 range, max.) and having said bonuses apply in fewer situations might be an answer.

One thing I've not seen mentioned in a long time here is in 1e the Strength bonus to hit is often different than to damage; the damage bonus goes up faster. 3e tied them together, giving (I have to assume intentionally) a side effect of making things slightly easier to hit for a strong person compared to older editions.

In 1e Str. 18 gave +1 to hit, +2 damage - in 3e it's +4 to both.

Lanefan

 

[Minigiant]

Flatter bonuses (-3 to +3 range, max.) and having said bonuses apply in fewer situations might be an answer.

One thing I've not seen mentioned in a long time here is in 1e the Strength bonus to hit is often different than to damage; the damage bonus goes up faster. 3e tied them together, giving (I have to assume intentionally) a side effect of making things slightly easier to hit for a strong person compared to older editions.

In 1e Str. 18 gave +1 to hit, +2 damage - in 3e it's +4 to both.

Lanefan

But isn't this the "Ability modifier is everything" edition.

I prefer the 3E model for math reasons.

1) Natural and Skilled bonus can remain equal while maintaining good accuracy.

Currently a 16 STR fighter gets +3 to attack from strength and +3 to attack from class. Against a moderately good AC or 14, the expert hits on an 8 for 6)% accuracy.

Dropping 16 to +2 drops importance from natural bonuses under skill bonus. Unless you drop the proficiency bonus to +2 as well. Then you go back to 4E's flurry of misses and I'm out if 50% accuracy returns .


2) I just don't see the gap between the 8-18 being that bad. Unless you encourage max stats, the ability section of character sheets would look nearly identical. That annoyed me.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

One change that I noticed during the course of the 3e, and continuing into 4e was the expectation that a fighter would have an 18 strength, a wizard would have an 18 intelligence, etc., as starting characters. It's not an absolute, by any means, but it certainly doesn't seem to be remarkable to see multiple 18s in one party. I know my group has seen a bit of escalation, in this area, over the years. In AD&D, we typically felt pretty good about a 16 in the prime requisite stat, saw a number of 15s, and either rejoiced at our luck (if using dice) or made sacrifices (point buy) when we had an 18.

My experience is the exact opposite.

Once the 1e/2e players (and the DM) got hooked on the bonus to HP, they expected 15 or 16 in their second or third best stat. Having less than an 18/% Str as a meleeist was simply an exercise in self-flagellation.

When we switched to 3e, we mostly went with 32 point buy and once 36. In all cases, having higher than a 16 starting stat was the minority choice. A big factor here was that players seemed to like having a 14 in their save stats. Further more skills are fun, so there was also reluctance to have less than an 12 Int. That 18 stat now starts looking expensive for most classes.

If you have just made the switch, a +3 mod (16 Str) feels much like an 18/% Str to a old-time 1e/2e player.

 

[billd91]

But isn't this the "Ability modifier is everything" edition.

Not really, no. Rolling an ability check is important, exactly what the bonus is for any giving value of the statistic is up for grabs.