No negative ability score modifiers?

[seasong]

My idea is this: ability scores give a flat +1/2 the score (rounded down). Thus, a STR of 8 gives a +4 to hit and damage.

Most things won't actually change, but there won't be whacky, weird things like "a STR 8 person wielding a one-handed weapon with both hands does LESS damage" or "a DEX 8 person who is flat-footed is harder to hit".

INT bonus to skills and languages would need to be reworked. This is one of the few things that really changes under this system. I don't like the way this works anyway, so it's not a big deal to me .

(Side note: a house rule I'm considering is that INT doesn't give you any bonus skill points at all - there's no reason a wizard should have a +4 to all INT-based skills AND 4 extra skill points to put into Jump; I would also bump up the skill points of each class by 2 if I did this, however, since that's the average modifier PCs seem to try for).

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

So, how would you generate the ability scores? Just do 4d6, drop lowest, -10? But then what would you do about negative scores?

 

[seasong]

So, how would you generate the ability scores? Just do 4d6, drop lowest, -10? But then what would you do about negative scores?

Same way you always do. 4d6, drop lowest. There would be no negative scores.

-seasong

 

[AeroDm]

So an ability score of 8 would be +4 instead of -1? I guess I am not seeing how languages is the only thing that changes under this system. Are you intending to increase all DCs and such by 5 to compensate? Please elaborate more.

 

[DaveStebbins]

Most things won't actually change, but there won't be whacky, weird things like "a STR 8 person wielding a one-handed weapon with both hands does LESS damage" or "a DEX 8 person who is flat-footed is harder to hit".

A STR8 person does not do less damage using a weapon in two hands. From the SRD 3.5:
"Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus."

Notice it says you multiply your strength bonus, not your strength modifier.

And for flat-footed the SRD 3.5 says:

"At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed."

Again, it mentions a bonus, not a modifier. A negative AC modifier from dex appears to apply even when flat-footed.

Granted, these situations do cause the two-handed damage and flat-footed AC situations to scale in a non-linear manner with different STR and DEX. But it is not so bad as your initial statement would make it seem.

-Dave

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Same way you always do. 4d6, drop lowest. There would be no negative scores.

-seasong

So the average modifier for all scores would be +5? Seriously, isn't that a bit...I dunno, overpowered?

 

[Norfleet]

A STR8 person does not do less damage using a weapon in two hands. From the SRD 3.5:
"Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus."

Notice it says you multiply your strength bonus, not your strength modifier.

The interesting side effect, something which makes very little sense, is that a character of less than 14 strength gains absolutely NOTHING from wielding a weapon two-handed.

I've been fooling around with the idea of instead of working on a +50% strength bonus, going the bonus equivalent to +X% strength, instead. Numbers between +25% and +50% have various theoretical results.

No-negative-modifiers tends to simply require extensive recalibration of the entire system, however, which doesn't seem to work out well. Personally, I think this would have worked very well had it been done at the very beginning of 3E, eliminating issues like the two-handed weapon effect, but now it's a bit too late, since tweaking this would require waaay too much adjustment.

 

[Technik4]

Pumped

Some effects I see off the bat:

Spell DCs are way higher
countered by
Save bonuses are way higher

Strength bonuses to attack and damage are higher
countered by
Dex bonuses to attack and AC are higher, as are Con bonuses to hp

However, this ends up belittling a few things. For instance, an outstanding fighter with 18 Str has an attack and damage bonus of +9. With a 1-handed weapon his damage differs only by 2 pts between a dagger and a longsword, but those 2 points are a smaller percentage than they would normally.

Example

18 Str Fighter, +4 to hit, dagger 1d4+4 (avg 6.5) or longsword 1d8+4 (avg 8.5). This is basically a 25% increase in damage by using a sword over a dagger.


18 Str Fighter, +4 to hit, dagger 1d4+9 (avg 11.5) or longsword 1d8+9 (avg 13.5). This is only a 15% increase in damage by using a sword over a dagger.

The higher the strength scores go (esp with 2-handers) the less difference it makes what weapon they are wielding. The falchion becomes much better than the greatsword, because 2 extra points of damage mean less in this system.

In a similar vein, rogues will become tougher because their d6 means less than usual. This also favors wizards, and anyone else with a low HD, since their actual roll means less than the bonus hit points from Con, comparatively you are tougher than under 3.0.

Speaking of less, hit points are going up, spell DCs and saves are going up, but spells are still doing the same damage. A 5d6 fireball can be expected to annihilate a group of orcs, but if they suddenly have 1d8+6 hit points instead of 1d8+1, they are less likely to die from a damage spell. This would seem to get aggravated the higher the numbers go, if spells aren't messed with they won't make enough difference damage-wise at higher levels.

Its an intriguing idea, but the ability score system seems to be one of the building blocks of the d20 system. If you alter it, the ripples touch many different aspects, some not even realized immediately (for instance most of the common DCs in the books will be off, a strength check of 20 is far easier when youre rolling +9 instead of +4 and this applies to both ability checks and skill checks).

Technik

 

[Al]

Too many knock-on effects for my liking. The current system is balanced for the current ability modifier system, and a paradigm shift of this magnitude seriously messes things up.

For example, low HD (and low Con) classes get a better deal. Take Joe Fighter, with his d10+3 hit dice (Con 16). He goes up to d10+8, an increase of some 58%. Now, however, take Bill Rogue, with his Con 10 and d6 hit dice. He goes up to d6+5, a very nifty increase of 142%- clearly a better % benefit than Joe. In turn, this represents a significant power-boost for the low HD classes.

'Flat damage' becomes hugely weakened. Technik already adeptly pointed out the 'hidden nerf' on all direct-damage spells, but these are not the only 'flat damage' circumstances: sneak attack, elemental weapons and crossbows are just three extra examples...

...but here's the problem. Since the increase in HD affects different classes differently, 'flat damage' *cannot* be upgraded to recapture balance. Nor, indeed, can variable damage. Let's say all damage is doubled. Joe is about 20% worse off than before, since he has less than twice the number of hit points; whilst Bill is about 20% better off since he has more than twice the number of hit points.

Unfortunately, it can't be balanced without a full overhaul of the system. If you really want to go for it, good luck- you'll need it.

 

[the Jester]

Interesting idea for a new system, but the consequences would be far too far-reaching for my taste for any 3.x dnd game.