Community

I have said many times that I think the solution is to get away from the approach used by 3.x and 4E of 'one modifier fits all'.



This forces the same progression onto several different uses - and that is not a good thing.
This also creates 'dead ability score levels' - there is no benefit to increasing an ability score to an odd value and this feels like wasted effort (you can often go eight levels without seeing a change to your ability scores).



I'd rather see something change with each score change.

And this works better with bounded accuracy as well.


Proposal:

Attack bonuses increase every third point (+1 at 13, +2 at 16, +3 at 19).

Damage bonuses increase every point (+1 at 11, +2 at 12, +3 at 13, etc).


This is a better fit with bounded accuracy (which uses damage bonuses rather than accuracy bonuses to reflect improvement).
Although this looks like a damage boost, it is actually not really a boost overall (and is actually a reduction using the current MDD approach) as the increase in damage (3 points at 16, 4 points at 18) is offset by the decrease in accuracy (1 point - or roughly 10% at 16, 2 points or roughly 20% at 18 and 20).  


That leaves the checks  and saves - which can remain at the +2/ ability score improvement they are currently.


The result of this is an approach which is still easy to remember (an advantage over AD&D which, although easily memorized was not systematic), adheres to the bounded accuracy approach of rapidly scaling damage bonuses and slowly scaling accuracy bonuses  - and gives each ability score increase at least a damage improvement so that no increase ever feels wasted.


Carl      

Mar 18, 2013 -- 1:06PM, kezzek wrote:

My first move would be to make all skill checks and saves to be d10 + full ability score instead of d20 + modifier.

There should be a much better chance for the 21 str Hill Giant to succeed at a strength check than a 10 strength human commoner.

d10 + 21 (22-31) would be alot different than d10 + 10 (11-20).

d20 + 5 (6-25) vs d20 (1-20) succeeds much less frequently.

Other effects of odd ability scores:
HP at 1st level (class would only add +1 for cleric, monk, +2 for fighter, +3 for barbarian)
Movement (perhaps a chart)
Encumbrance and carrying capacities - double every 4 strength points.

My only objection to changing the die roll for ability checks is that the game uses ability checks and ability saves in very similar ways (including both to avoid the effects of spells) and although there is a distinction to when you use them (checks on your turn, saves on other people's turns) - I think that using a different die for ability checks and ability saves is bad design.


The problem you are trying to fix is real, I just don't like this particular solution.  The only counter solution I've come up with so far (which has different problems) is to double the ability score modifier for ability checks in which you are trained (your training makes you more able to benefit from your natural talent/ advantages).  And perhaps in a prime requisite for your class (fighters, strength checks; wizards, intelligence checks, etc).


This means that a character trying to do something in their classes area of expertise (fighters using strength) or in which they are trained gain a greater benefit from their strength.


I was also considering an approach which (instead) allowed characters to use their ability score as the 'floor' on an ability check for which they are trained (no skill die used).   I.e. a rogue with a Dexterity of 17 and training in stealth can either 'take 17' or roll and add their skill die - but not both.  This isn't quite as abusive as the reviled skill mastery approach - but it also gives a real advantage to the higher ability score in the abilities in which you are trained.



In both of the above approaches, it is likely that the DCs would have to be tweaked a bit.


Carl