>Deriving separate "modifiers" for each ability

File: argument.png (115KB, 636x440px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 636x440px

>That's a pretty stupid id-
>Wait... huh...

D-did you just fix D20?

>>50417039
>>50416932
You mean what AD&D2e did?

>>50416932
3.0 dnd, don't know about other editions had feat requirements all be odd numbers.

>>50416932
well duh

girls just want to have fun

>>50416932
English isn't my first language, care to elaborate?

So The Black Hack?

>>50416932
>>rolling UNDER instead of rolling up and add modifiers
Why do you want something deliberatelly counter-intuitive?

>>50416932
Leads to needing far more modifiers than the current system, as well as a total retooling of the math, for an option that has dubious benefit.

>>50418030

> so odd scores matter too

He's talking about rolls using ability score modifiers, numbnuts. Why roll 1d20+ bonus+(STR-10)/2 when you could just roll a 1d20 with success <= STR+bonus? Modifiers only rising on even scores means everybody minmaxes to get even values.

>>50418078
>when you could just roll a 1d20 with success <= STR+bonus
AD&D.

I prefer the idea of just scrapping the ability scores and only using the modifiers, like M&M 3e did.

File: 2.png (186KB, 298x423px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 298x423px

>>50418042
That "doubius benefit" is still the main reason why AD&D is better than any further editions when it comes to playability and not makign fuckload of pointless calculations.

But hey, what do I know, I didn't start playing D&D in times of 3.X, so obviously I don't know the true meaning of cancer.

>>50416932

>playing a non-percentile die system.

Absolute cancer.

The modifiers ARE the ability scores.

The set of numbers DnD claims are the ability scores is just a shrivelled appendix of a scared cow that should´have been put out of its misery a long time ago, but as we all know how well DnD players take to change of basically any kind...

>>50417039
It's OK to admit you were unaware of something, but that is how most skill checks, etc work in AD&D.

>>50417039
Roll-under also has an inherent bounded accuracy thing, in that you can't easily go under zero. It can help avert modifier-creep.

>>50416932
Why is this hotter than the egyptian chick or the elf?

>>50416932

What's it like to have a system that can't model "better than I was, but not good enough to matter yet?"

>>50419576
She's cute but she's not fronting it all

Very girl-next-door who you didn't even know liked anime.

>>50416932
I agree OP, roll under systems are better than d20 shit.

>>50418334
>>That "doubius benefit" is still the main reason why AD&D is better than any further editions when it comes to playability and not makign fuckload of pointless calculations.

No, see this show that you don't have any idea what you're actually talking about. There's nothing about any edition that is inherent in the design that requires lost of modifiers.

That's a deliberate choice the designers made to add numerical bonuses, because doing good non-numerical bonuses is in fact hard to do.

File: 1e-stat-mods.png (70KB, 452x497px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 452x497px

>>50418314
>>50418334
Wait, did 3.5 invent the score modifier? I thought that was around in a larval form way back in 1e.

>>50421549
It was. But for using your skills, it was just rolling under your stats.

>>50418328
This. The 3-18 abilities are a relic from a time where you rolled for stats. D&D should ditch altogether for modifiers like it did when Fort/Ref/Will became passive defenses like AC. Shame 5e returned with this.

>>50421756

5e rolled back any and all mechanical progress in favour of a bland system entirely designed to 'feel like' D&D. Which is apparently what people wanted given how it's selling, so you can't exactly blame them. They took risks and made a really awesome, innovative system with 4e, and god they suffered for it.

I still want to see a system iterate on 4e though. Maybe some day. (And before anyone mentions it, no, Strike! does not fucking count.)

>>50421899
I'm sure Paizo will make a 4e derivative and fill it with cancer just like all their other derivatives so you too can hate your favorite system

>>50418774
>playing a percentile die system without bell curve

Absolute cancer

>>50417039

Do you not play roll-under d20 systems?

>>50421756
The 4th edition defences worked well, I agree.

>>50416932
>not under 9+the stat divided by five(rounded in the characters favor) plus modifiers on 3d6

Pleb.

>>50417039
No, they just turned it into GURPS.

>>50416932
damn she fine

>>50421756
>>50421899
5e is supposed to to be all things to all players, and that includes people who roll for stats. If 5e is bland, it's because it tried to please too many people at once.

>>50418774
But d20 IS a percentile system, with steps of 5%.

>>50422183
>percentile dice
>that also has a bell curve

This has to be the stupidest fucking shit I've read all day.

>>50422626
Agreed. It should had focus instead of trying to please everyone. Sure, it now really looks like a step over 3.x, but didn't improve over 4e, but side stepped into a different philosophy design.

>>50421899
>a really awesome, innovative system with 4e, >and god they suffered for it.
Can't have been anywhere nearly as awesome as you make it sound, if it was so widely hated.

>>50422833

Well, it depends what you were looking for.

If you were looking for a great high fantasy tactics RPG, 4e is the best system on the market.

If you were looking for a 3.5 followup... Well, I'd ask why the fuck you wanted a 3.5 followup, but the success of PF shows that there's a huge number of people who wanted exactly that, so what do I know?

File: 1456453824673.jpg (97KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x800px

>>50422402
Right, like >>50417039 said

>>50422833
>ebin le free market decides quality meme
kys

>>50422833
>It was so widely hated
... by 3.X fandom.

Literally nobody else cared. But since millenials made the playerbase for 3.X anyway, they've blew it out of any proportions

>>50416932
3-18 never made sense to me either, when I worked on a new system the first thing I did is just make stats 1d6, and your stat = your modifier (3 is considered 'average')
and most rolls are done with 2d6 rather than 1d20 (1/36 chance to crit fail or succeed, higher chance they'll fall along the middle of the curve)

8DC is something the average person could usually do with a 15% failure rate, 10DC is a 40% failure rate, etc.

makes it work a lot better, but sadly we'll just stick to base 5e anyway because there's a lot more homebrew/content/familiarity with the system

>>50422630
Yeah, and d6 is a percentile system with steps of ~16.66666666666666666666%.

>>50422787
One thing to keep in mind is that 5e was competing against Pathfinder more than it was competing against 4e. I think Wizards could make a wargamey D&D spinoff (possibly taking some inspiration from the old Chainmail stuff!) to follow in the footsteps of 4e, but I think 5e is great at what it does do.

>>50423885
>Yeah, and d6 is a percentile system with steps of ~16.66666666666666666666%.

And where's the curve?

>>50424316
1d6 has no curve you baka.

>>50424316
Percentile systems have a linear curve, you double retard.

>>50424506
A popular house rule for Anima seems to be converting everything to d20 because the game works in 5% increments anyway.

>>50423885
> 5e was competing against Pathfinder more than it was competing against 4e.
Obviously. Great job from WotC to gather lost sheep while trying to keep the 4e folk. That's why I said it was a different design philosohpy: 3.x and 5e feel extremely different from 4e both campaign-wise and character-wise.

If Hasbro released a D&D Tactics as a side product, with improved 4e rules and miniature support as did the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook and Chainmail, while keeping the 5e, it would be quite nice and maybe quite profitable since the minis could be used in 5e as well.