ROFL I GET IT BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER ROFL

>>3105535

Wow, I actually like this. Hell, I might make this adjustment to my 3.5 game.

For starting stats, you could start with -2 or -1 and just add 1d4 to each of them.

sage

Aren't starting hitpoints dependent on your con score now as opposed to your bonus?

>>3105535
The only problem I can see is how you would get your initial modifiers. Would you just use the old system of stat generation, get the modifier the regular way, and then forget the stat from that point on?

>>3105556
Yes. Starting HP + Con SCORE

>>3105566Yes. Starting HP + Con SCORE

WHAT?

THATS LIKE 3x THE HP'S MANN

Actually, I'm working on a homebrew system with a similar concept. Instead of having quantified stats, the players pick, from a list of ten, three "good" stats and three "bad" stats. The stats themselves aren't used that often, but they apply bonuses to derived skills when leveling.

>>3105556
>>3105566
>>3105574

Yes, but thats not how it was planned in the early playtests. Back then it was 3x hit die max + con bonus and con bonus still applied to each level.

If one were to get rid of score and only have bonuses hit points would have to go back to soemthing like that.

>>3105566

Soo... starting HP is now class bonus + 10 + 2x con bonus.

>>3105562

You could. Or you could do point buy, simply modified. Or I'm sure someone can come up with a system that gives you a result of -1 through +4 with the same statistical spread.

>>3105601

Start with -2 to all stats, add 1d6 to each stat.

>>3105610
Reroll if the total modifiers are less than +3, or your highest modifier is +1 or less. There we go!

>>3105612

Feats still require odd stat scores as prerequisites.

And this system interferes with the common practice of qualifying for paragon tier feats using the paragon tier stat bump. For example, eladrin orbizards often get 14 dex so they can qualify for Arcane Reach with the stat bump

Aaaaand now on suptg. Good work, /tg/. Shit got done in a very timely, effective fashion.

>>3105610
>>3105612

That's an option, but keep in mind it will result in more powerful characters on average. It makes the chance of a +4 (equivalent of the old 18) one in 6. The advantage of the old 3d6 system was it resulted in a nice statistical bell curve, offset in the players' favor by rolling 4 dice and dropping the lowest.

Say no to inter racial marriage!

>>3105651

Use a d4 and start with -1 then, you can get +3 at the best that way.

>>3105535

The only problem I can see with this is the lack of incremental improvement (2:1, as opposed to 1:1).

I have thought about this topic for a couple of years, and I really like getting away with stat scores, but the difference seems more style than substance.

Overall, a nice discussion for /tg/.

>>3105637

Is there any reason feats should have odd prerequisites, when there is no discernible difference between 12 dex and 13 dex?

As for the paragon tier thing, it's not a big deal. Either lower the requirement, or start with +1 dex and add +1 at level 8.

The measure of the proposal isn't whether nothing will have to be changed. The measure is whether there is any benefit to the old system which justifies its complexity, as compared to the proposal's simplicity.

Next on the agenda, a modest proposal for solving the problems of food shortages and overpopulation in a single stroke.

>>3105661

Yeah, the +1 every four levels will mean a lot more now. Unless we changed it to, say, +1 every five or six levels.

>>3105670
Oh, I agree with the change in general. I just thought those details needed to be pointed out.

Rounding down the requirements fixes it, though it does inflate character power somewhat.

>>3105661

The difference is in ease of explaining the system to new players.

"Roll the big die and add your strength," versus, "roll the big die, then take your strength, subtract 10, divide the remainder by 2, round down, and add your result to the die roll."

The fact that it has no impact on the game mechanics is actually an argument in it's favor, and raises the question of why the fuck anyone uses the old, unnecessarily complex system.

>>3105677

See

>At 8th level, you get a +1 to two stats. At 21st, you get a +1 to all.

Of course, this proposal is for 4th edition. Adapting it for 3.5 is a bit more complicated.

>>3105700

I'm definitely adapting it to my 3.5 game. My new players (and I tend to get a lot of them, I'm very open about my roleplaying hobby) will have a much easier time with this. I can't tell you how many times they get the ability score and ability modifier mixed up. It'd be so much simpler if they were both the same thing.

I really haven't thought this through, but wouldn't getting rid of scores severely compromise ability drain and the gradient point-buy works on?

>>3105690
Whiny ass playtesters who loved the power system of 4E but hated how "using only bonuses made it not D&D! T_T".

Aside from paragons and feats, it should be fine.

>>3105713

Ability drain is a 3e thing. It doesn't seem to be in 4e.

And adjusting point-buy for this system is astonishingly easy. You have the same number of points. Buying a point of ability bonus costs the same as buying the equivalent ability score in the old system.

-1 to 0 cost 2
0 to 1 cost 2
1 to 2 cost 3
2 to 3 cost 4
3 to 4 cost 7

The end result is EXACTLY THE SAME.

Aside from paragons and feats, it should be fine.

>>3105651

Keep the -2, roll 4d6 like old times and then take the average. Higher power campaigns can use more dice to average.

>>3106458
No, to keep the real nostalgic feel of "rolling" stats, you need to roll 3d6 take the average of each roll.