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

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm not hard over on the 3E/4E ability scale or the BECMI model -- both are good -- but would like to see flatness achieved by (1) limiting the maximum number of bonuses that can be applied to a particular roll (say, +5), (2) reducing the number of possible bonus stacks, and (3) reducing the number of related items a bonus applies to (for example, STR bonus applies to either "to hit" or damage, but not both).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

25% is not a big deal.

Furthermore, using the example of Strength, if you have a PC for whom Strength is important (fighter, etc) you're very unlikely to roll him up with a sub-par strength. Thus, the actual spread in practice will be much smaller.

 

[Rhenny]

One way to make it more likely that the burley fighter will beat the weak mage in an arm wrestling competition is to give the burley fighter "Advantage" when making the skill roll. So I'm not so worried about smaller % differences when PCs engage in contests.

And with the skill threshold +5 over DC for automatic success, I think that will help curb anomalies like burely fighter tries to break down door (DC 12)...rolls a 1 or 2, fails....weakling rogue pushes door, rolls a 15..the door opens.

I'm not sure how attacks will go. Still need to see more.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Looking at their DC table, a "trivial" task is DC 10, and a moderately difficult task is DC 14. I would expect that a person that has achieved the pinnacle of human perfection in an ability score (20, +5) and is trained in the task being attempted would almost always succeed at a "moderately" difficult task. And yet, he will not. With his +8 total bonus he needs to roll at least a 6 on his d20 to succeed, meaning he has a 25% chance of failure.

There were issues with 3e, but one of the Good Things was how it was possible to show some dedication and consistently put out Olympic Silver medal-winning performances by mid-levels. It was nice to actually feel like your character was heroic and impressive while requiring neither magic nor high, high levels.

Not only should it be possible to always succeed at DC 20, but not allowing such to be a practical by mid-levels screams Not Heroic.

Even if had a DDN Skill Mastery to Take 10, how would I ever get a +10 net skill?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

25% is not a big deal.

Furthermore, using the example of Strength, if you have a PC for whom Strength is important (fighter, etc) you're very unlikely to roll him up with a sub-par strength. Thus, the actual spread in practice will be much smaller.

It is not? How many Fighters with Strength and Dexterity 10 or lower did you see then?

 

[arscott]

Two things:

First: I want it to be just fine to play a character with a 16 in their primary ability. And at least okay-ish to play a character with a 14 in their primary ability. This was true of all the editions up through 3e. (1e Paladins and such excepted). In 4e, you basically had to have an 18 or 20. The game was written expecting it -- heck, they re-vamped racial ability bonuses in essentials because people were only playing race/class combos where the race got +2 to the class's primary ability. Primary stats seem to be even more important in DDN than they were in 4e, and I am not a fan.

Second: I want a rogue who is trained in climing to be better than a fighter who isn't. I want a rogue that is trained in lying to be better than a sorcerer who isn't. I want a rogue who is trained in searching to be better than a wizard who isn't. And I want all of those things to be possible at the same time. In 3e, maxed skills were +4 at first and went up from there. in 4e, trained skills were +5. But in DDN, it's only a +3. Which means the Rogue needs 14 or better in the associated stat to be better than the other classes with their 18s. That's just insufficient.

 

[Greensnakedrex]

The -3 to +3 spread appeals to me.

I think 5e needs to reward players who choose to stick with subpar stats in some way. Also, I would like to see support for developing characters that are born in the player's mind instead of by dice rolls, without using a point buy system- which I have found to really blandify character stats.

I propose adding options for character generation that even themselves out in some manner.

Option 1- Guaranteed 18 -Take an 18 in the stat of your choice, roll the rest, reroll any subsequent 18's.

Option 2- Above average- Take two 16's in the stats of your choice, roll the rest, reroll any roll of 16+.

Option 3- Underdog- Assign low scores where you please, for every -1 modifier you get a %10 bonus to XP, or bonus feat or skill training. Roll the rest.

These are totally off the cuff ideas, I'm sure they can be improved upon. What I think 5e should shoot for is to let players have the appropriate stats that match their conception for their character while keeping mechanics in balance.