Follow the role of True 20 here and just go with the bonus.
Eliminate the reduntant math.
The actual score itself is used in so few situations and the benefit of getting the game done quicker and elimminating the math, especially when adding bonuses from things like rage, spells, size modifiers etc... is well worth the toss of the old 10-stat/2.
Joe, although right in principle, this would throw out all concepts of "backwards compatability" for Pathfinder RPG. So, in essence, I'd say that it is a lost cause and for a good reason.
Indeed it would be a pointless change that would cause more changes than its worth.
How would it effect backward compatibilty?
The numbers would be the same? Instead of writing 18 and seeing the +4 in areas where it's effected, you'd see +4 and see... yes, +4 in those same areas no?
It would throw off ability damage and ability prereqs for feats, for starters?
But I better keep out of this discussion. I still would prefer D&D to actually USE the bell curve you get from 3D6 to distribute the bonuses, instead of making them a flat (stat-10)/2. Was the original reason to use 3D6 after all. But that's water under the bridge, and long gone.
No 3-18 needs to stay its to much of a change thats a true 20 thing and needs to stay with that system.
Wouldn't it actually make tracking ability damage far easier than having to do the recaluation every time you took damage?
"My con's down to 15. Is that +2 or +3... let me see..."
"My con's down to +2."
Easier no?
How would it effect backward compatibilty?
The numbers would be the same? Instead of writing 18 and seeing the +4 in areas where it's effected, you'd see +4 and see... yes, +4 in those same areas no?
What happens if you take a point of, say, Constitution damage? You drop from +4 to +3. Okay. Then you take another one ... and nothing happens?!
Follow the role of True 20 here and just go with the bonus.
Eliminate the reduntant math.
The actual score itself is used in so few situations and the benefit of getting the game done quicker and elimminating the math, especially when adding bonuses from things like rage, spells, size modifiers etc... is well worth the toss of the old 10-stat/2.
Your idea to adapt True 20 is a good one, but as others have said compatibility with 3.5E needs to be maintained.
To do what your saying would require "conversion rules" to be created and added, and need to be known by those who are actually staying with 3.5E.
Plus PAIZO is hoping for growth within the market they are supporting. So people new to RPGing will need to easily "see" how Pathfinder the RPG matches up with the 3.5E material.
So even though I like the idea I do see too many reasons why we need to stay with the straight 3 to 18 convention.
Wouldn't it actually make tracking ability damage far easier than having to do the recaluation every time you took damage?
"My con's down to 15. Is that +2 or +3... let me see..."
"My con's down to +2."
Easier no?
Honestly? Not really. Maybe I'm an exception (thought I don't think so), but I could cite you the bonus distribution from Basic D&D from memory on a whim if I wanted. And the last time I really used that was in 2000. After 8 years of continual play with the "+1 every even stat starting at 12", I'd say everybody is able to answer that question within seconds without checking. :)
|
The numbers would be the same? Instead of writing 18 and seeing the +4 in areas where it's effected, you'd see +4 and see... yes, +4 in those same areas no?
Mechanically, yes it would be about the same, maybe even a little easier. But remember, we're not trying to invent a whole new game here. That's what so many folk hate about what they've seen with 4E, it's not D&D anymore. 3-18 ability score are not the most efficient way to do things, but it is a way most of use are comfortable with and it just "feels" like D&D.
|
I don't see any reason to get rid of the 3-18 stats. They are meant as a guideline to determine your character's abilities in those areas. A Human fighter with 15 strength is above average in his strength while most humans full under 9-11 for average. The pluses are meant as a means for math purposes on the rest of your sheet instead of a long chart to tell you what you have.
Elimanate the math?????
It is like grade one math.
Uneeded and meaningless change.Could say more, but no point in being an ass.
It's not so much the basic math as it's when you get a lot of modifiers to your abilities (ie Cleric w/ Righteous Might and Divine Favor plus any other strength boosts).
Not so much a big deal for experienced players but a problem for some of the newbies (who tend to, in my experience, equate +4 Strength to +4 to hit and damage).
I'm neutral either way. I'd prefer just a straight +/- modifier but can see how that would be an issue for backwards compatibility.
Honestly? Not really. Maybe I'm an exception (thought I don't think so), but I could cite you the bonus distribution from Basic D&D from memory on a whim if I wanted. And the last time I really used that was in 2000. After 8 years of continual play with the "+1 every even stat starting at 12", I'd say everybody is able to answer that question within seconds without checking. :)Wouldn't it actually make tracking ability damage far easier than having to do the recaluation every time you took damage?
"My con's down to 15. Is that +2 or +3... let me see..."
"My con's down to +2."
Easier no?
Ummm...yeah. I've had a number of new players of recent that's one of the things they're quick to pick up on. After awhile it becomes second nature.
What happens if you take a point of, say, Constitution damage? You drop from +4 to +3. Okay. Then you take another one ... and nothing happens?!How would it effect backward compatibilty?
The numbers would be the same? Instead of writing 18 and seeing the +4 in areas where it's effected, you'd see +4 and see... yes, +4 in those same areas no?
Uh... what happens if you take a point of Constitution damage now if you've got an odd score like 17 going to 16? Nothing right?
Yes but at least you can keep track of that non-changing ability damage. In the non 3-18 you can't keep track of this, and effectivily makes ability damage twice as dangerous, since in the proposed change you automatically lose out on a modifier. This would require changes in monsters, abilities, and a variety things that are built into the system.
The change is too extreme and not conductive to backwards compatibility.
~Anry
If the idea is to create an entirely new RPG based on D&D, then I could support the approach.
That is not the idea. I don't think we can eliminate attribute scores and have a backward compatible game.
I was about to say. If the point is compatibility, and all stats look different.
I agree it would be an improvement, but not enough of an improvement that it makes up for loss of compatibility if that's your goal.
Eliminating the numbers would be an unnecessary change that will make stat blocks Paizo wants useable with older 3.5 products to not read as clearly and could cause compatability issues. I don't think this is wise.
-DM Jeff
My thoughts exactly. I believe that Pathfinder RPG focuses on two main goals. 1- Make it backward compatible, 2- Make it backward compatible while streamlining the rules.
A few things can change here and there and you can still use your old products for the most part, the elimination of the 3-18 is a heavy shift.
I am with Kamelion on this. Three to eighteen is where it is at.
If the idea is to create an entirely new RPG based on D&D, then I could support the approach.
That is not the idea. I don't think we can eliminate attribute scores and have a backward compatible game.
Thanks, Erik. I liken Paizo's approach to evolving 3.5 to Pathfinder to the entertaining and gratifying manner in which comics' scribe Geoff Johns is able to restore (and refresh) the continuity of DC's Comics oldest superheroes--without radical and divisive reboots.
(Does that make 4e the equivalent of One More Day?)
Well, I can see I'm in the minority here.
But I have to say, this change is much smaller in terms of actual game play effect than many of those I'm reading in the alpha rules.
I'm afraid I can't see how simpliying the math makes the math of the game less compatible than extra abilities, feats, greater hit dice, etc...
man its not just the math to most pathfinder will be d&d and we want that feel and 3-18 is a big part of that feel I think .death of to many cows is a big turn off I find.
man its not just the math to most pathfinder will be d&d and we want that feel and 3-18 is a big part of that feel I think .death of to many cows is a big turn off I find.
But the modern 3-18 has nothing to do with the old 3-18 from previous editions. Older editions had things like % Strength, Con bonus for fighters only, bonuses came in much higher , etc...
Just having 3-18 isn't really a sacred cow is it? I mean if that's completely true, then Palladium and Runequest have those Sacred Cows too and well, those stats don't mean anything alike in those systems.
Now I am a firm believe it is better to have too much info, then not enough. That is why I did not like it when WotC went to the stat block where they said the number of hit dice, but didn't actually give you what those hit dice were and how many bonus hp were added.
e.g. 30 hp (5 HD) versus 30 hp (5d8+10)
So, in respect to this, why not have both the actual stat listed and the bonus (or penalty). That way people who just use the bonuses will have them right there and those that use the stat will also have them.
e.g. STR 15 versus STR +2 versus STR 15(+2)
press man we have been writing states out like that scene 3e came out . im with you should be common
I appreciate your desire for parsimony but it is easier for you to take the ability scores out than it is for those of us who like them to put them back in once removed.
But going by the logic of several posters, if the "math" isn't that hard to do in the bonus situation, surely the opposite must be true?
Joe, a question...what math are you trying to simplify? Just asking, because there isn't that much math associated with abilities once you are beyond the character creation stage.
And yes, I do think 3-18 IS an iconic D&D thing that should not be cut out for the sake of some kind of simplicity...whichever it would be, because I honestly can't see what it would simplify. :)
Edit: Are you talking about point buying your attributes? That the math you mean? Or am I wrong there?
How would it effect backward compatibilty?
The numbers would be the same? Instead of writing 18 and seeing the +4 in areas where it's effected, you'd see +4 and see... yes, +4 in those same areas no?
The numbers would not be the same. With +1 and +3 and so on for scores, you could not just roll 3d6 for strength, unless you want strength scores to go from +3 to +18. And different systems? What's the equivalent of 3d6 in order? What's 4d6 drop lowest? What's 5d6 drop lowest, 9 rolls, drop three worst?
But going by the logic of several posters, if the "math" isn't that hard to do in the bonus situation, surely the opposite must be true?
Wisdom +1 goes to ... Wisdom 12 or Wisdom 13.
You have a non-function relationship here (more than one possible outcome for a given value). The other direction
Wisdom 13 goes to Wisdom +1
Wisdom 12 goes to Wisdom +1
is a function relationship (one possible outcome for any given value).
You are dealing with a non-one-to-one system here so one direction is going to be different than the other.
Wisdom +1 goes to ... Wisdom 12 or Wisdom 13.You have a non-function relationship here
And those make mathematicians cry gory blood. So be nice to those poor people and don't go there.
If the idea is to create an entirely new RPG based on D&D, then I could support the approach.
That is not the idea. I don't think we can eliminate attribute scores and have a backward compatible game.
Responses like this need to be posted regularly, so people don't let their enthusiasm get the better of them. Honestly, it's deeply frustrating to me to read thread after thread of suggested "fixes" that are in fact complete changes to the way that v.3.5 works on either a fundamental level or that work against backward compatibility. As Erik says, these are not the design goals of Pathfinder. Why does everyone keep making suggestions like this?
Agreed. Please keep the 3-18. If you want to include a short section on various methods of rolling ability scores, that would be fine. Rolling for scores is a big piece of DnD to me.
|
If I wanted to play an entirely different "fixed" game then I would try 4E. I like the idea of an "enhanced" 3.5. Most of these fixes appear to be well thought out, and the year long playtest process should show any problems. I just don't want things to go too far afield, which some people seem to be advocating when they are making their suggestions for "fixes." D&D is a strange game, but I've played Warhammer with the family, Traveller...but the only one that gets tails to wagging and butts into seats is D&D 3.0/3.5...even classic doesn't do it for them...I've tried. They are taking to this new game like ducks to water and right now they're filling in character sheets and reading up on stuff in the Player's Handbook after school. That's a great and impressive thing! Thanks for this new-ish game!
|
Honestly? Not really. Maybe I'm an exception (thought I don't think so), but I could cite you the bonus distribution from Basic D&D from memory on a whim if I wanted.
Its been over a decade since I last thought about it, but was it something like :-
3 -3
4-5 -2
6-8 -1
9-12 +0
13-15 +1
16-17 +2
18 +3
The maths in 3rd edition is very easy.
The way I remember it is to deduct one if an odd number, then deduct 10 (I know I could just deduct 11 but this way works better for me!) then divide by 2.
Hence a score of 67 is +28.
I've just started playing in a True20 campaign. My character's stats of 0,1,1,0,5,-1 still look weird even after 3 weeks. D&D needs to stick to 3-18.