True, it is arbitrary and inaccurate to use a d20, but that's what we've got.
In another thread on this topic (there have been a few) Someone suggested making attributes out of a 100, and really the higher you go the better. You could also do away with any score modification and only have maxium ability scores, with magic being the only way to exceed them.
Chimpanzee's are lanky too and yet their Strength score is going to be much higher than a human, using the Githyanki can be as much a point in favor as against.
Yeah! And if attributes are made out of 100, it makes sense that rolling 1d100 and getting *lower* than your stat is a success. The higher your stat -> the greater your chance. And if you roll really well, it can be a crit. Maybe under 1/2 and 1/5 of your stat score for thresholds of increasing success :P
Being serious: isn't making stats of out 100 with mundane caps basically the same as how D&D currently works? E.g., Orcs effectively have starting Point Buy Str cap of 17 (20 if you roll), while other races have a cap of 16 or 15 (+3 if you roll for stats).
Edit: or are you suggesting that stats are out of 100, then we add 1d20, with the goal of decreasing the effect of variance that 1d20+[small value] has?
