Odd-Numbered Ability Scores

[Falling Icicle]

So we know that ability scores are going to be central to DnDN. I'm curious if we're still going to see the same modifiers that they've been using since 3e (a +1 for every even number above 10, a -1 for every even number below 10), or if odd numbered ability scores will actually do something in this edition. I hope they will. A +1 for every single point above 10 would make odd-numbered ability scores valuable, and would make ability scores have a meaningful impact compared to the d20 roll.

 

[Hassassin]

Maybe they'll have a use for each ability score and not just the modifier? Like Con to hit points in 4e.

Strength score already affects carry and lift capacity. Not sure how the others could work, except power/spell points could be ability score dependent.

I wouldn't want ability scores to have a larger numerical effect on the die roll than now.

 

[Iosue]

I like:

3: -3
4-5: -2
6-8: -1
9-12: No adjustment
13-15: +1
16-17: +2
18: +3

 

[Falling Icicle]

I wouldn't want ability scores to have a larger numerical effect on the die roll than now.

Why not? We know that you will get much less bonus from levels and such than in 3rd or 4th editions. A +4-5 bonus from even an 18 or 20 ability score (which is supposed to be amazing, legendary, a prodigy) is insignificant compared to the d20 roll itself. With a mere few pt bonus on rolls even from having such a high ability score, the character will still fail far more often than you'd expect such a talented person to, due to the huge degree of randomness of a d20 roll compared to the small bonus you're getting.

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

From the sound of things, they're wanting to emphasise the use of ability checks as saves and skills, and de-emphasise the numerical bonuses you get for your level.

If they want to do that then they're going to have to either ramp up the ability score bonuses or simply do away with them and use the scores directly. Otherwise the size of the random factor will far outweigh the size of the bonuses and the game will be far too swingy and random.

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

So we know that ability scores are going to be central to DnDN. I'm curious if we're still going to see the same modifiers that they've been using since 3e (a +1 for every even number above 10, a -1 for every even number below 10), or if odd numbered ability scores will actually do something in this edition. I hope they will. A +1 for every single point above 10 would make odd-numbered ability scores valuable, and would make ability scores have a meaningful impact compared to the d20 roll.

To be honest, if they're going to simply go for +1 per point above 10 and -1 per point below 10, I'd rather see the DCs simply fudged by up 10 so you get the mathematically equivalent but much easier "add your ability score" rather than needing to have a separate bonus at all.

 

[Hassassin]

Why not? We know that you will get much less bonus from levels and such than in 3rd or 4th editions. A +4-5 bonus from even an 18 or 20 ability score (which is supposed to be amazing, legendary, a prodigy) is insignificant compared to the d20 roll itself. With a mere 4-5 pt bonus on my roll even from having such a high ability score, the character will still fail far more often than you'd expect such a talented person to, due to the huge degree of randomness of a d20 roll compared to the small bonus you're getting.

Compare ability score 3 to 20. The difference between -4 and +5 already covers half the range of the die. -7 to +10 would cover almost the whole die.

I think +/-5 is a fairly optimal range. Someone average would succeed in an average task half the time, a very gifted one 3/4 the time and someone weak 1/4 the time. That's not a small difference.

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

Compare ability score 3 to 20. The difference between -4 and +5 already covers half the range of the die. -7 to +10 would cover almost the whole die.

I think +/-5 is a fairly optimal range. Someone average would succeed in an average task half the time, a very gifted one 3/4 the time and someone weak 1/4 the time. That's not a small difference.

While I agree in principle that the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 success rate is good for "weak", "average" and "gifted"; I think that assuming that that range is represented by a 3-20 spread isn't realistic. Characters aren't likely to have that much spread.

I think that that (with standard array, point buy, or 4d6-drop-lowest; combined with racial and class bonuses) most characters will have ability scores in a range of say 10-19 rather than 3-20.

Which would give you exactly the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 success rate you're looking for if (for example) skill rolls were simply ability score + d20 and the "standard" DC was 25. No score/modifier distinction needed.

 

[Hassassin]

While I agree in principle that the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 success rate is good for "weak", "average" and "gifted"; I think that assuming that that range is represented by a 3-20 spread isn't realistic. Characters aren't likely to have that much spread.

I think that that (with standard array, point buy, or 4d6-drop-lowest; combined with racial and class bonuses) most characters will have ability scores in a range of say 10-19 rather than 3-20.

Which would give you exactly the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 success rate you're looking for if (for example) skill rolls were simply ability score + d20 and the "standard" DC was 25. No score/modifier distinction needed.

As long as rolling is supported, there will be characters with << 10 ability scores. I don't really see the benefit in pushing the PC average higher and higher. Having a six is quite common even with point buy or array + racial modifiers.

 

[Number48]

From what I've seen so far, I wouldn't be shocked if ability scores gave no + at all. Each number just is what it is, used for saves and skills. If so, it would divorce bonuses to stats "funneling" options.