if you keep this only to PC's, then the change is somewhat easy. you can use MM stats as normal.Well, you'd have to rebuild the point-buy tables, and you'd probably have to recalculate most monster statistics, because having a -2 to all your rolls due to having an 8 would be...rather bad. Having a -8 to Intelligence stuff due to being an animal would be very bad (they'd essentially always fail Int-related rolls.)
I actually agree.Cryptic title but easy enough concept...
Once in a while, I hear someone talk about empty levels or how it annoys them that ability scores have the same modifiers if you had a 14 or a 15.
So, I was thinking if an ability score of 20 is +5, what if we made that 15 instead, with each point giving you a +1 increase to your modifier?
Of course, bonuses would change, numbers affected, etc. and the golden 3-18 wouldn't mean as much.
Now, personally I find bounded accuracy too bounded, so this wouldn't bother me, even if PCs could still get to 20 and have a +10 modifier.
Could the system be persuaded to move to a larger level of bonuses again, without, however allowing the treadmill effect of prior editions?
Such a return would also promote greater proficiency bonuses, I think ranging from +2 to +12, and exchanging Expertise for either advantage or an increasing "floor" roll, leading to something like Reliable Talent in the end.
Without magic or another feature, the maximum bonus would be +22 (10 for ability and 12 for proficiency), which while certainly larger is not that far from the current maximum +17 via Expertise.
I have always been vocal about increasing the concept of bounded accuracy to 40 instead of the 30ish at which it currently stands.
To be clear, this isn't some drastic house-rule I am considering, I've just been rolling the idea around a couple days now and wonder what others might think? So, please share your thoughts if you wish and thanks for reading.
That is the idea.I would only be interested if score of 15 is +5 mod, score of 14 is +4 etc...Going one-for-one.
I would certainly be more intuitive for new players.
How did it work out?I experimented with Exceptional Abilities where if you had Exceptional Strength or Dexterity, your ability mod was Ability Score minus 10.
So you 18 STR fighter had +8 STR mod. But a giant could have +15 to Str.
The idea would be for the next edition. IMO it would be too invasive to try to implement as a house-rule to 5E because of such reasons.Well, you'd have to rebuild the point-buy tables, and you'd probably have to recalculate most monster statistics, because having a -2 to all your rolls due to having an 8 would be...rather bad. Having a -8 to Intelligence stuff due to being an animal would be very bad (they'd essentially always fail Int-related rolls.)
Huh. Making 0 below average makes sense.or more "modern" rpgs;
0 - below average
1 - average
2 - above average
....
5 - peak of (demi)human potential
Yeah, that's more or less how Storyteller (White Wolf) games work. If you have 0 dots in something, you're garbage at it, perhaps even taking a penalty (e.g. rolling one less than your Strength if you have 0 Athletics or whatever). If you have 5 dots, you are the peak of human performance; anything beyond 5 dots is necessarily supernatural in one way or another.Huh. Making 0 below average makes sense.
Happy to avoid negative numbers as much as possible.