Community

The problem isn't with ability scores, but with the Universal Ability Modifier which constrains design around a single number that they hope to keep between -1 and +5.  If they dissolved the UAM, and let different scores contribute appropriately to +hit and +damage and +skills, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

Replace them with a -5 to +5 range.

I've also toyed with the idea of having two modifiers.

For example, one as it is now: +1 for 12, +2 for 14, and so on--which could be used for TH, AC and such.
And a second 1 for 1: +1 for 11, +5 for 15 and so on--to be used with skills and other non-combat checks.

That second modifier could just as well be changed to simply using the Ability Score itself and adding +10 to the DC of related checks.

However... this system has a problem.
One modifier is twice the other, but the d20 roll does not scale the same way.

All works well, apparently, between two player characters or monsters with the same range of Ability Scores (~10 to 18).
However, when you put creatures with high scores into play, it causes an issue.
Because the d20 always ranges from 1 to 20 no matter how high or low the modifiers.

Suppose a player has an Ability Score of 16 (mods +3 and +6 respectivelly), and a monster one of 30 (+10 and +20).

That would be a difference of +7 on one modifier and +14 on the other.
If the player were to engage in combat with the monster, that represents a 35% difference on d20 checks considering the 16-30 gap of their Abilities.
However, if the player were to depend on a skill check that would represent a 70% increase in difficulty.

If those scores were, as an example, Str for the player and Dex for the monster, it would be 35% harder on the d20 roll to hit that monster.
If those scores were, however, say, Dex for the player and Wis for the monster, it would be 70% harder to try and hide from that monster, making the task nearly impossible.



So there's that... the problem with having two modifiers scaling differently, even though they look to be scaling harmoniously, one being the double of the other.

If there's a difference between the Scores of two characters (or monsters)--16 to 30 in the example--, then that difference should be reflected equally on any d20 Check, and not make things harder/easier for some rolls than for others.


If the difference broadens even more (imagine the Ability Scores of a 3ed dragons, with 40+ on some of them) than that problem is aggravated even more. 

You didn't see that "flaw" in AD&D 2nd edition where you had such system because AD&D Proficiencies were of less use than skills are today, monsters never used them... and Ability Scores only went up to 25 even for the toughest monsters, and the Scores followed no logical progression (raising one from 20 to 21 was a much bigger step than from 15 to 16).
So you never actually had so high Ability Scores.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 4:53PM, Jenks wrote:

Jan 2, 2013 -- 1:30PM, Lawolf wrote:

Or just remove ability score bonuses altogether as they serve very little purpose and cause more harm than good.

Explain this to me. I, personally, see ability scores as describing the fundamental differences between people, and it does that pretty well. In fact, every RPG I've ever played uses ability scores, if for nothing else, for this fact alone. 

I'm not downing your idea, I'm more curious. If we take ability scores out, how do we know who is strong? who is smart? who is tough? etc. 

He might mean just the bonuses.  Some RPGs use the ability score itself as the modifier.  This is less practical with D&D's 3-18 range, but I have seen it with RPGs like BtVS where the range is 1-6 for humans.