Odd Stats

Odd stats don't do anything for you, other than get you one step closer to the next even number.  With that in mind, would it be better if to allow Players to give +2 to a single stat rather than +1 to two stats (at levels 4, 8, etc)? 

It is very dull to have to say, "I can't wait until level 8 when these two points I used at level 4 will finally pay off!"  More important is the fact that many campaigns don't last that long (at least in my experience).  Bonuses from leveling should be meaningful no matter how long the campaign will be.
My blogs: Spell Flavor Reflavoring Uses of Spells
Or, if Ability Modifiers were score -10.
Or, if Ability Modifiers were score -10.



this.

abilities and modifiers should go one for one.

Either put starting abilities at 3 to 18 with modifiers from -7 to +8 or put starting abilities from 6 to 14 with modifiers from -4 to +4.


This has been talked about a few times on the boards. I think, while the math might be simpler with 1 for 1, there is a case for larger numbers as well. Namely, with higher numbers you can more easily grant bonuses to these numbers without shifting the math as much. +1 to a stat in unisystem (which has average stats of 1-6) has a MUCH greater effect  on the game than a +1 in D&D. Sometimes this grants the devs a lot of freedom for granting bonuses.
My two copper.
+1 to a stat is a really uncommon bonus though.  It pretty much only happens when you level up.  You'd have to redo a some amount of the basic math, and you'd have to change the ogre strength/giant strength items (that would be pretty easy though), but I agree with the OP that this would be more fun as a stat system.

At any rate, the way it's set up right now doesn't really make +1 stat a lesser bonus if it's a bonus at all.  There's just a 50% chance that it will be a *completely useless* bonus depending on where your character is in that stat at the moment.  If you're worried about +1 stat being too good of a bonus, that's still not a very good solution because half the time it's providing too much power anyway.

As far as the basic math goes, there are four major things that you'd have to worry about:

- Character attack and save bonuses woud go up faster, but you can just reduce the class scaling to compensate for that
- Light armor AC would go up faster, so you'd have to slightly change the expectation for higher level monsters' to hit, and you'd have to change the progression for heavy armor AC a bit
- Skill bonuses would go up faster, but since skill checks already have a pretty wide range of things, you might be able to get away with not scaling them differently (or maybe you'd make the different categories 6 different rather than 5).
- All of the "floors" would change.  A normal AC at level 1 would be 18 or 19 instead of 15; a normal attack bonus at level 1 would be +7 or +8 instead of +4.  You'd have to either adjust all the enemy AC and attack numbers upwards by three or four, or use Level-13 (or something) rather than Level-10.

So, that would be a lot of stuff that would suck to actually go through and change if you're the intern or whatever that WotC puts in charge of that stuff, but in terms of how it affects the system, most of the math wouldn't break too hard.  As an added bonus, now you've got your extra +5 AC that some people really want to see on high level monsters, without having to arbitrarily give them Plot Armor. 

At any rate, the way it's set up right now doesn't really make +1 stat a lesser bonus if it's a bonus at all.  There's just a 50% chance that it will be a *completely useless* bonus depending on where your character is in that stat at the moment.  If you're worried about +1 stat being too good of a bonus, that's still not a very good solution because half the time it's providing too much power anyway.


You are confusing no bonus with useless bonus At odd stats you get no bonus, not a useless bonus. Also, the same could be said for the 1/2 level bonus in 4e. Every other level you got no bonus, does that make it inferior by design?
My two copper.
That's semantics; my point remains the same.  Odd stats higher than 11 actually do nothing, but we still have to keep track of them and they still count as something we're "supposed" to be excited about getting.
Or, if Ability Modifiers were score -10.

This. Adjusting system math accordingly of course. It would create a harsh contrast between the 18 dude and the -8 dude, but oh well. With more emphasis placed on ability scores, I wouldn't mind more shove behind them.
Yeah I've long agreed with changing around the ability score scale, the problem is that some people consider the 3-18 for ability scores to be sacrosanct, and that creates a big issue because you can't fix the problem without redefining or getting rid of the 3-18 scale.

The only other thing you can do is go back to 2E style and split the bonuses on odd/even. Like for strength, attack bonuses come from even numbers and damage modifiers come from odd numbers. Though that adds so much complexity that it may not be worth it.

The other option is simply going in increments of +2 for ability scores, so the modifier always matters. Of course this means the guy who rolled a 15 never sees a benefit over the guy who rolled a 14, so you might as well just eliminate ability score entirely and just go to bonus, but people are reluctant to dump the 3-18 scale, despite being outdated and mostly pointless.

Yeah I've long agreed with changing around the ability score scale, the problem is that some people consider the 3-18 for ability scores to be sacrosanct, and that creates a big issue because you can't fix the problem without redefining or getting rid of the 3-18 scale.



Well, you could still use the 3-18 scale and have the modifier scale with ability score rather than with half-of-ability-score.  The difference between someone with a 10 and a 17 would be larger than in previous editions, but with a cap of 20 on stats this wouldn't be a huge problem.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Well, you could still use the 3-18 scale and have the modifier scale with ability score rather than with half-of-ability-score.  The difference between someone with a 10 and a 17 would be larger than in previous editions, but with a cap of 20 on stats this wouldn't be a huge problem.



The problem there is simply that the bonuses get too big. a +7 versus a +0 bonus is huge for a combat bonus. Arguably you could use that for skills and ability checks, but for a combat bonus, it's far too much getting to add +7 to your AC for instance, not to mention the HP/damage scale gets almost totally redefined by effectively doubling the con bonus.

You end up having to abandon the 3-18 scale for something like 7-14 or something similar, and that point, you might as well just redesign the ability score system from scratch anyway, because you end up with a system that's almost as convoluted and also doesn't please nostalgia-based people.

The problem is that people are stuck on having 18 as the human maximum, and if you can't start with an 18, people are going to be upset becasue it destroys the nostalgia effect.

I personally don't agree with any of the nostalgia-based arguments, and would rather just see the ability score become the ability modifier, like 3E Mutants and Masterminds works. Though you've got a lot of D&D purists who would flip tables if the significant of "18 strength" wasn't carried into the next edition.




The problem there is simply that the bonuses get too big. a +7 versus a +0 bonus is huge for a combat bonus. 



17 vs. 10 is a comparison that means the second person shouldn't even be trying to use that particular attribute in combat though unless there's no other options, even with a half-modifier.  If you plan on actually attacking with an ability score, you probably shoot for at least a 14 in it anyway.

The same thing mostly applies to AC; wizards and laser clerics would be squishier than they are now, but they should be trying to avoid getting hit regardless.  You would need to adjust the bonus from heavy armor to account for the higher dex bonus, but that's pretty easy to do and it would make rogues, monks and fighters and melee clerics all more or less have AC parity to the same degree they do now (maybe a 1 or 2 point larger gap, but in a system with bounded accuracy that shouldn't be too big a deal).

I didn't think about the con bonus, to be honest, but you could easily just say that you gain 1/2 your con mod to HP rather than your full con mod.  There might be a more elegant way to do it, but that would give identical results to how things are now as far as HP scaling.  As far as I'm concerned, having to divide by two isn't too big a deal if you're only doing it once a level.
The problem there is simply that the bonuses get too big. a +7 versus a +0 bonus is huge for a combat bonus. 



17 vs. 10 is a comparison that means the second person shouldn't even be trying to use that particular attribute in combat though unless there's no other options, even with a half-modifier.  If you plan on actually attacking with an ability score, you probably shoot for at least a 14 in it anyway.

The same thing mostly applies to AC; wizards and laser clerics would be squishier than they are now, but they should be trying to avoid getting hit regardless.  You would need to adjust the bonus from heavy armor to account for the higher dex bonus, but that's pretty easy to do and it would make rogues, monks and fighters and melee clerics all more or less have AC parity to the same degree they do now (maybe a 1 or 2 point larger gap, but in a system with bounded accuracy that shouldn't be too big a deal).



Well the problem is that it forces a great deal of specialization. The 12 dex fighter using a bow for long range just went from being mediocre to being crap, because the high end is balanced for a +8 bonus instead of a +4, so him having only a +2 puts him 6 points removed on a D20 compared to the 3 he would be in the old system. It would be like a 6 dex fighter using a bow in the old system, where you're going to just plain suck.

To keep the math anywhere close to what it was, you'd have to basically switch the 3-18 scale to something like a 10-18 scale, with 10 being crap and 18 being human maximum.

Well the problem is that it forces a great deal of specialization. The 12 dex fighter using a bow for long range just went from being mediocre to being crap, because the high end is balanced for a +8 bonus instead of a +4, so him having only a +2 puts him 6 points removed on a D20 compared to the 3 he would be in the old system. It would be like a 6 dex fighter using a bow in the old system, where you're going to just plain suck.



Well, right now if we take a fighter with 17 str and 12 dex at level 1, they'll have a +4 and +2 bonus, respectively, to hit with an axe and a bow.  Against a 15 AC opponent (moderate armor), that's a 50% chance to hit and a 40% chance to hit.  If we assume the math works out so that the 17 str fighter has a 50% chance to hit still with a 1 for 1 stat-to-modifier conversion, the fighter now hits 25% of the time with his bow.  The fighter ends up hitting half as often with his bow as with his axe.  For a character that is heavily specialized in melee, that doesn't seem like too unreasonable of a situation; it wouldn't be great if it were something that came up all the time, but hopefully most fights involve melee of some sort.

(Note that I chose 17 instead of 18, because the human racial bonus is probably too strong as it stands right now if modifiers go up by 1 instead of 1/2).
Bring back ability damage. It brings more value to the ability score rather then the modifier.

Well, right now if we take a fighter with 17 str and 12 dex at level 1, they'll have a +4 and +2 bonus, respectively, to hit with an axe and a bow.  Against a 15 AC opponent (moderate armor), that's a 50% chance to hit and a 40% chance to hit.  If we assume the math works out so that the 17 str fighter has a 50% chance to hit still with a 1 for 1 stat-to-modifier conversion, the fighter now hits 25% of the time with his bow.  The fighter ends up hitting half as often with his bow as with his axe.  For a character that is heavily specialized in melee, that doesn't seem like too unreasonable of a situation; it wouldn't be great if it were something that came up all the time, but hopefully most fights involve melee of some sort.

(Note that I chose 17 instead of 18, because the human racial bonus is probably too strong as it stands right now if modifiers go up by 1 instead of 1/2).



What you're talking about is basically taking a -5 penalty to attack, which is a massive modifier. That's the modifier for superior cover in 4E, or roughly the penalty inflicted by having disadvantage in 5E. A -5 penalty makes 25% of the d20 that now becomes a failure. That's a very large difference and is so large, it's basically exclusionary. Even in the 17 vs 12 scenario, that's equivalent to a 16 versus a 6 in the old system. Still way too big a difference for attack rolls.

Basically under your system, a mediocre archer would now need a 14 or 15 instead of a 12. Pretty much the human "average" has to shift to around a 13-14, and 9-10 becomes the low end of the scale.

Not to mention saving throws. God. Having a 10 wisdom means you are utterly hosed when 17-18 int wizard tosses a spell at you.

The math just does not work when you double the modifier like that... not unless you toss the 3-18 scale.

One thing I've noticed after picking up 2e again is how little the attributes do for you at all until it hits 15 or so. When I go back to 3e and the playtest, suddenly my incremental attribute bonuses of +1 at 12 seems really significant by comparison.


I never noticed this moving from 2e to 3e ten years ago but the current attribute bonus model is actually a lot more rewarding, generally with less to look forward to at the high end. 2e's attribute bonuses ramp up quickly once you cross the 15 threshold and get even more crazy once you progress past 18.


The check system is what make the attributes feel strong in spite of no bonuses: roll the d20, get less than your attribute = success. Really, what that means is your bonus with attribute checks are 1 for 1 and each increase is a +1 to the roll in its own, convoluted way. In the 2e system, the difference between a 10 and a 15 is basically a +5.


What makes 2e work is that attributes don't have a universal effect on everything the way they do in 3e. The attribute modifier is a nice simplification but the blanket application of that modifier to everything is the big problem with the design: the +1 becomes so significant that it makes the steps where you don't get a bonus feel lame.


I'm not suggesting we go back to what 2e did (even though I absolutely love how attributes work in 2e) because there are a number of issues with it that the attribute modifier solves such as uneven scaling in various number ranges, a lack of transparency, and book keeping. However, I do think that we could afford to split the attribute bonus up into two or three different modifiers (say skill checks, attack rolls, damage rolls as an example) and allow them to scale in a way that suits the system math. If you did that, you could allow each attribute level to grant a +1 to some of the things the attribute controls without letting things spiral out of control.

What you're talking about is basically taking a -5 penalty to attack, which is a massive modifier. That's the modifier for superior cover in 4E, or roughly the penalty inflicted by having disadvantage in 5E. A -5 penalty makes 25% of the d20 that now becomes a failure. That's a very large difference and is so large, it's basically exclusionary. Even in the 17 vs 12 scenario, that's equivalent to a 16 versus a 6 in the old system. Still way too big a difference for attack rolls.



Well, it's a -3 compared to what they are doing right now with a half modifier.  But yes, I recognize that it's significant.  It's also something that they probably shouldn't be doing that often, so I don't see it as a very big deal.


Basically under your system, a mediocre archer would now need a 14 or 15 instead of a 12. Pretty much the human "average" has to shift to around a 13-14, and 9-10 becomes the low end of the scale.



A mediocre archer ought to have a higher dexterity score than a normal person though.  I have about average dexterity as far as I can tell, and I expect I would actually make a fairly POOR archer.  If it's 14 instead of 12, I don't see that as being a huge problem.  Of course, I don't really see the average shifting to 12 or 13 as being a problem either.  You could even just modify the point buy system a bit if you want that to be a baseline assumption for character creation.

Not to mention saving throws. God. Having a 10 wisdom means you are utterly hosed when 17-18 int wizard tosses a spell at you.



Well, if we're talking about level 1, you go from have a 30 or 35% chance to save to having a 10 or 15% chance to save.  The wizard has about a 25% better chance of his spell hitting than he did before.  Significant, but probably not breaking anything. 
Pass on Ability mods = Ability Score-10.

Creates to much of an incentive to powergame and forces number inflation of other things. If 18 Dex meant +8 to AC then who'd ever use heavy armor?

Instead many Ability Score matter more. Like you Carrying Capicity is Str Score X 10.

Class and Spell DCs should be Score based.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The only other thing you can do is go back to 2E style and split the bonuses on odd/even. Like for strength, attack bonuses come from even numbers and damage modifiers come from odd numbers. Though that adds so much complexity that it may not be worth it.

The problem there is simply that the bonuses get too big. a +7 versus a +0 bonus is huge for a combat bonus. Arguably you could use that for skills and ability checks, but for a combat bonus, it's far too much getting to add +7 to your AC for instance, not to mention the HP/damage scale gets almost totally redefined by effectively doubling the con bonus.

Combining these two, you could both split the bonus across odd/even and return ability checks to using the full score value rather than a modifier.

You would end up with something like STR 15: +2 to hit, +3 damage, +5 to strength-based skill checks.

That would give you both a combat and non-combat bonus for every single +1 bonus.  It would require tweaking the martial damage bonus to somehow make +1 damage meaningful, though.

The metagame is not the game.
Pass on Ability mods = Ability Score-10.

Creates to much of an incentive to powergame and forces number inflation of other things. If 18 Dex meant +8 to AC then who'd ever use heavy armor?



Well heavy armor would have to have its AC modified to match.  But that's fine; it's not like 18 AC is a concrete thing in the real world and we can say "18 AC makes sense for plate but 22 AC would be silly".  What matters is the comparison; cloth should generally be lower than hide which should generally be lower than plate, etc.

Class and Spell DCs should be Score based.



Spell DCs are just a superficially different way of doing an attack roll/AC comparison.  They don't scale differently; if you're OK with the math for score-based spell DCs then you should be OK with the math for score-based attack modifiers.
I don't think making the modifier increase with each stat point is the answer, because it skews things too much.  For example, lets say the game is balanced around a 16 in your primary stat.  Right now that is a +3.  The highest possible stat (without magic) only gives an extra +2.  And even having something as low as a 12 is only 2 less.  This works well because of how it relates in size to the d20.  A +2 is good but not game changing.

With the proposed system, that 20 will now give a +4.  And those low stats are now twice as low in terms of game impact.  The aim of the system is to make people more inclined to try things even without high stats, and this would have the opposite effect.

I think my solution is far simpler, as it doesn't involve changing a fundamental aspect of the game.  In fact, it results in the same potential outcome over time, but without pointless stat increases.  For example, say you wanted to raise Str and Con (and both were even).  Currently, you would put a point in each at level 4, and then at level 8 they would both give an extra +1.  With my proposed system, you would pick one to boost at 4, and then boost the other at 8, thus ending up at the same point.  The difference is that it doesn't take you until level 8 to see an effect.

Regarding the half-level increase from 4E: imagine if instead of saying that you get a +1 every even level, the game said that you got a +0.5 every level.  You then asked the DM, "Ok, so what does the +0.5 do for me?"  To which he says, "Nothing."  Wouldn't you wonder what was the point?  From this perspective, stat boosts should be: "every 8 levels increase two stats by 2 points."
Then the solution is simple:

put ability range from 6(-4) to 14(+4), with maximum non magic ability at 15(+5)

ability rolling would be;

8d2-2(6-14,average 10) for common NPC's

5d2+4(9-14, average 11,5) for PC's(you can reduce d2 die and grant a +2 bonus to total to get +0,5 to average score)

point by would be:

all start with score 9(-1) and ability price is:

  9->10, 1pt
10->11, 1pt
11->12, 1pt
12->13, 2pts
13->14, 4pts,

common NPC's would get 6 pts
PC's would get 15 pts
ofcourse number of points can vary from DM and players preferences.

default array would be:

13(+3)
12(+2)
12(+2)
11(+1)
10(+0)
10(+0)


Combining these two, you could both split the bonus across odd/even and return ability checks to using the full score value rather than a modifier.

You would end up with something like STR 15: +2 to hit, +3 damage, +5 to strength-based skill checks.


Mathematically this would work.

The only real problem here is that it makes the system much more complex, because you've went from two quantities: The ability score and ability modifier, to four.

You have the actual ability score (strength 15)
The primary modifier (+2)
The secondary modifier (+3)
And the ability check modifier (+5)

I guess ultimately the question is if it's worth all that extra complexity.
Then the solution is simple:

put ability range from 6(-4) to 14(+4), with maximum non magic ability at 15(+5)

ability rolling would be;

8d2-2(6-14,average 10) for common NPC's

5d2+4(9-14, average 11,5) for PC's(you can reduce d2 die and grant a +2 bonus to total to get +0,5 to average score)

point by would be:

all start with score 9(-1) and ability price is:

  9->10, 1pt
10->11, 1pt
11->12, 1pt
12->13, 2pts
13->14, 4pts,

common NPC's would get 6 pts
PC's would get 15 pts
ofcourse number of points can vary from DM and players preferences.

default array would be:

13(+3)
12(+2)
12(+2)
11(+1)
10(+0)
10(+0)





Doesn't work.
Some people roll for stats and thus have abilities over 16.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Then the solution is simple:

put ability range from 6(-4) to 14(+4), with maximum non magic ability at 15(+5)

ability rolling would be;

8d2-2(6-14,average 10) for common NPC's

5d2+4(9-14, average 11,5) for PC's(you can reduce d2 die and grant a +2 bonus to total to get +0,5 to average score)

point by would be:

all start with score 9(-1) and ability price is:

  9->10, 1pt
10->11, 1pt
11->12, 1pt
12->13, 2pts
13->14, 4pts,

common NPC's would get 6 pts
PC's would get 15 pts
ofcourse number of points can vary from DM and players preferences.

default array would be:

13(+3)
12(+2)
12(+2)
11(+1)
10(+0)
10(+0)





Doesn't work.
Some people roll for stats and thus have abilities over 16.



But I did write the rolling variant and maximum roll is 14(+4).




Then the solution is simple:

put ability range from 6(-4) to 14(+4), with maximum non magic ability at 15(+5)

ability rolling would be;

8d2-2(6-14,average 10) for common NPC's

5d2+4(9-14, average 11,5) for PC's(you can reduce d2 die and grant a +2 bonus to total to get +0,5 to average score)

point by would be:

all start with score 9(-1) and ability price is:

  9->10, 1pt
10->11, 1pt
11->12, 1pt
12->13, 2pts
13->14, 4pts,

common NPC's would get 6 pts
PC's would get 15 pts
ofcourse number of points can vary from DM and players preferences.

default array would be:

13(+3)
12(+2)
12(+2)
11(+1)
10(+0)
10(+0)





Doesn't work.
Some people roll for stats and thus have abilities over 16.



But I did write the rolling variant and maximum roll is 14(+4).







We roll d6s for stats in this game, good sir!

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!



We roll d6s for stats in this game, good sir!




I know that Tongue Out

But the point of the thread was to give every ability score it's own modifier without "dead" values in between, and as 3-18 wouldn't work because big gap in mods from average to max, second solution is to keep mods in +4 value for max mod, therefore max ability should be 14(at start).

I tried any d6 variation for 6 to 14 ability range, but simply math works against me Laughing

so rolling ×d2+y gives the best bell curve to average scores and minimizes extremes.

and you can easily move average by adding or reducing number of d2's

I've long advocated reducing the effects of stats on attack rolls but I hadn't thought about splitting atack and damage in that way.  I think a 25/75% split would work better though in a bounded system:

11 +0/ +1
12 +0/ +2
13 +0/ +3
14 +1/ +3
15 +1/ +4
16 +1/ +5
17 +2/ +5
18 +2/ +6
19 +2/ +7
20 +3/ +7

Whether this spread would cause a problem with monster maths would be a whole other issue.

This also still leaves a problem about the best way to split non-attack stats, how higher bonuses would affect the bounded system for DCs, whether AC bonuses should adopt the higher or lower stat etc.  I think it monkeys with the system a bit too much.
No, the point was to make Odd Scores matter.

The simplest way is to make Scores matter.
Use Scores for DCs and in Formulas instead of Modifiers

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

No, the point was to make Odd Scores matter.

The simplest way is to make Scores matter.
Use Scores for DCs and in Formulas instead of Modifiers



but that will give too much difference between average and max scores in comparison to d20 roll.

at 1st level difference in bonuses to roll from +10 to +18 IS HUGE.

and what of AC?

a guy with 18 dex would have 18 AC + some light armor(19 with basic leather)
and other one in full plate would have only 18?


Scores wouldn't be for every DCs.

Mostly racial and class DCs. A wizard's spell saving DC would be her Intelligence score. A dragonborn's breath weapon DC would be his Constitution score. A sorcerer's spell points would be her Charisma Score plus her class bonus. A barbarian can rage a number of rounds equal to his Constitution Score.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Scores wouldn't be for every DCs. Mostly racial and class DCs. A wizard's spell saving DC would be her Intelligence score. A dragonborn's breath weapon DC would be his Constitution score. A sorcerer's spell points would be her Charisma Score plus her class bonus. A barbarian can rage a number of rounds equal to his Constitution Score.



why split hairs?

isn't easier to kill the "sacred 18 cow" if we want every ability point to have it's on modifier?


Killing the "sacred 18" requires rewriting 90% of the game.

There are severe ramifications to changing something that fundamental. Constantly I see suggestions to the fundamental core on these D&DN boards that seem to not factor in the ripple effects on the mechanics and gamer psychology.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Killing the "sacred 18" requires rewriting 90% of the game. There are severe ramifications to changing something that fundamental. Constantly I see suggestions to the fundamental core on these D&DN boards that seem to not factor in the ripple effects on the mechanics and gamer psychology.



what 90%, it's more like 0,90%. Only change it would be how to roll or point buy ability scores.

this game revolves around ability modifiers not ability scores. OP was implying that odd scores do nothing and I agree.

And if you improve something on your character, like you improve strength form 16 to 17 you want that to matter and it simply does nothing but giving you information: wait 4 more levels then it will do something.

Other solution is to somehow prevent odd scores from generating and all ability boosts/penalties must be even numbers.

This is a makeshift solution as you simply still have odd scores with no mathematical function in a character but you are willingly ignoring them and turning a blind eye.

I meant DDN is based around abilities. Changing the why abilities work alters accuracy, damage, saving throws, and anything else related to abilities.

Change how Dex mod is found and then you have to alter light and medium armor. You could easily make light warriors worthless by a change. Or make light warriors even more favored as high Str grants nothing of value. Humans would be broken if each bump in score meant a bump in mod.

It's not a simple switch. That is why I am often critical of DM house rules as many don't realize the other things they change.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Modifiers would stay the same -4 to +4 value.

as for racial and class ability bonuses:

all races would choose to improve ability by +4 either their race or class choice.

humans would get +1 to 3 abilities and +1 from their class choice.

relative power boost would remain the same it is now.

you would get +1 ability every 4 levels and as max would be 15(+5) so piling up one ability would be out of the question.

Nice idea.

Too bad it'll never happen as we roll d6s as an option in this game.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Nice idea. Too bad it'll never happen as we roll d6s as an option in this game.



thats the point,

DDN should not cater to grognards. They have 4 prevoius editions to enjoy ther 3-18 range with invalid odd scores Tongue Out


Nice idea. Too bad it'll never happen as we roll d6s as an option in this game.



thats the point,

DDN should not cater to grognards. They have 4 prevoius editions to enjoy ther 3-18 range with invalid odd scores




Yeah pretty much the easiest solution is simply to get rid of the 3-18 scale and make it so that ability modifier = ability score. Then you can keep the rest of the math the same.

For people that want to roll d6 for stats, you can even have a conversion table for the roll. So an 18 converts to a +4, a 16-17 converts to a +3 etc. It's just that you wouldn't even bother remembering what your roll was, only the bonus is important.

The only problem is that it gets people flipping tables because you're dumping the 3-18 scale. Personally I don't see the big deal, but like anything grognards like to flip tables.
The only problem is that it gets people flipping tables because you're dumping the 3-18 scale. Personally I don't see the big deal, but like anything grognards like to flip tables.


It's not the grognards.  It's the brand.  D&D has one advantage over other RPGs -- it's brand has seeped beyond the hobby and beyod geekdom, and into the mainstream.  Outside the RPG hobby people have not heard of Dogs in the Vineyard.  They haven't heard of Mage: the Awakening.  They haven't heard of Pathfinder.  They have heard of D&D.

And one of the few things people know about D&D are the 3-18 array of Ability scores.  It's why the Onion can make this joke.  That sort of brand penetration is priceless.  Because when people come into the hobby, they have a set of expectations base don what they have heard about the game.  They expect magic, they expect swords, they expect elves and dwarves.  And they expect "18" to be the pinnacle of mortal ability.  And if the game does not present these expectation, then you get brand dissonance. People assume the game has changed and is not the iconic game they had heard about.  And they get turned away.

You don't mess with brand recognition.

You certainly don't mess with brand recognition because you feel put upon for having to convert your ability score into a modifier. 

It is literally 12 characters on your character sheet that you can blithely ignore.  Converting the game to modifiers only is quite possibly one of the most suicidal things this game could do, second only to getting rid of elves, dwarves, and wizards.  Not because of the grognards but because of the brand.  Maybe it would make a fine game and you can go ahead and design a game under the d20 license that works precisely that way.  But as long as anybody with any business sense is employed by Wizards they will never ever get rid of the 3-18 Ability score array.