Without derailing the Confessions thread, I want to respond to this assertion:
I never understood why suddenly odd modifiers gained a stigma, and every modifier suddenly became a flat +2 or +4...
...Sorry the sarcasm wasn't so obvious in the first place, but I do know why it was changed: because of complaints from people who got the short stick from a freaking dice roll and weren't able to deal with it.
Everyone deserves something, you can't rely on bad/good luck in a game, and then we get races with no negative stat adjustements, because everyone is special. So, suddenly, no-one is. Aaarrgh.
Clearly you've been playing the game since before 2000, but for the benefit of those who haven't, I'm going to outline some salient points from 2e:
In 2e, abilities contributed to your success/failure in two ways. Each ability had a different and haphazard table of scores and their associated modifiers, percentile chances, and traits. (Remember spell immunity for high Int and Wis?) If your score was between about 7 and 14, you had no modifiers to basic stuff like attacks, AC, or damage. If your score was exceptionally low or high though, it might matter. (Or it might not; remember percentile Strength?)
So for the purpose of this kind of stuff, your racial +/-1s often didn't make a lick of difference.
On the other hand, the 2e version of skill checks were the roll-under ability checks. (Roll under your ability score, and succeed!) In the case of the roll-under ability checks, those racial +/-1s had exactly the same effect as the +/-2s that d20 races get, because the end result of both is a +/-5% chance of success.
In summation: No, the mods didn't change because due to whiny players. They changed because the rules changed.
PS: Believing that randomness is best saved for ya know, actual game play, doesn't equate to believing that negative stat adjustments are badwrongfun. Despite being a 4e fanboy, for example, the complete lack of racial penalties was not one of the appeals for me.
PPS: Your final comments about being special imply that you want some players to be special while others are mired in mediocrity. Which makes me rather glad we don't game together.
I changed it to a flat 3 in my campaign setting.
|
Also, there's really no point in odd bonuses to ability scores, I think. What a bonus to an ability score from your race conveys, is that members of your race are better than the average human at doing X. So for example, an Elf is defined by being quicker and more intelligent than a human, while also more fragile. If the bonuses would have been +1, you would never actually feel the difference in play, only theoretically know it's there. A +2 bonus conveys a +1 on rolls made with the appropriate ability, and that's the entire point.
Same goes to magic items that enhance ability scores. A mechanical change SHOULD reflect something in-game, and a +1 bonus is rarely enough to do so.
This is an interesting topic, I have to admit.
|
|
Also, regarding this:
PPS: Your final comments about being special imply that you want some players to be special while others are mired in mediocrity. Which makes me rather glad we don't game together.
I think you might have misinterpreted him. I'm pretty sure what he meant was that he's annoyed that everybody want their character to be good at everything, while he feel that every character should be good at some things and bad at other things.
Of course everybody wants THEIR character to have 18 in all stats, be the strongest, smartest, quickest, most attractive, character... but he claims that this shouldn't be this way.
It's not that he thinks some player characters should be stronger than others. It's that he feel all player characters should be a bit weaker.
|
In summation: No, the mods didn't change because due to whiny players. They changed because the rules changed.
...
PPS: Your final comments about being special imply that you want some players to be special while others are mired in mediocrity. Which makes me rather glad we don't game together.
The mods changed from the occasional odd (+1, which still stays for the Bless spell IIRC) and dice roll (1d4+1) to a flat +2/+4 because there were complaints about "weird math" (sic) and "ineffective" mods. And there were complaints indeed. More to follow.
Weirdly the 1d4+1 roll from a few spells went from a +2 (+1 mod) onward, but the complaints were only for those two poor odd +3 and +5 and the times in which they didn't came across as full fledged ability mod changes. More to follow again.PPS: a whole ocean will keep the risks at a minimum. Hopefully. :-D
Also, there's really no point in odd bonuses to ability scores, I think. What a bonus to an ability score from your race conveys, is that members of your race are better than the average human at doing X. So for example, an Elf is defined by being quicker and more intelligent than a human, while also more fragile. If the bonuses would have been +1, you would never actually feel the difference in play, only theoretically know it's there. A +2 bonus conveys a +1 on rolls made with the appropriate ability, and that's the entire point.
Same goes to magic items that enhance ability scores. A mechanical change SHOULD reflect something in-game, and a +1 bonus is rarely enough to do so.
No.
As ability values can be odd or even, a odd modifier means a bonus half of the time. While an even modifiers means a bonus always. But half of the time is not "rarely". It's half of the time.I won't go into examples of characters with all odd vs all even values for abilities, or human commoners vs elf ones and ther 10/11 which statistically become 9/10/12 (sic, again), but I'd rather tell where this comes from: from the WotC boards of the time past.
Which deeply scarred me with multi-page threads where this kind of (IMO) poisonous line of thought was loudly exposed. "I want my character to have a bonus all of the time, not just half of it". I swore an oath to myself to never step back again in face of such... unpleasantness. Sometimes it works better than expected, sometimes it doesn't, it's magic, it's weird, it keeps the thrill going rather than the calculations for averages and surefire results.
I think you might have misinterpreted him. I'm pretty sure what he meant was that he's annoyed that everybody want their character to be good at everything, while he feel that every character should be good at some things and bad at other things.
Of course everybody wants THEIR character to have 18 in all stats, be the strongest, smartest, quickest, most attractive, character... but he claims that this shouldn't be this way.
It's not that he thinks some player characters should be stronger than others. It's that he feel all player characters should be a bit weaker.
Yes. Obviously my poor attempts at humour and quoting the Invincibles don't translate quite as expected. Sorry.
I'm fine with the existing mechanic because I think somone can be just slightly stronger than someone else that luck make more a difference than this, except in rare cases. I think it makes sense for a game where your base ability scores rarely change.
Outside of Pathfinder (for non-fantasy settings) the homebrewed rules I use dispense with scores/modifiers. There's the the stat added to rolls, but that's because you get the oppurtunity to increase them every other level (and non-stat bonuses to rolls like base saves and skill points are decreased to compensate).
Yeah, I have to say I'm pretty much universally in favor of the less-random approach.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Golem 101 - to each his own, I suppose. To me it seems that a +2 bonus, which will always translate into an in-game bonus, accomplishes the original intent of the mechanic of enhancing stats - that is, if Bob is stronger than Jay, I want there to be a roll the Jay would have failed, while Bob would have succeeded - that's a +1 on the roll right there :)
And as to your claim that a +1 works half of the time, which is more than "rarely" - if the intention is to get something done, I want it done 100% of the time if that's possible. Unless a human is unusually dexterous (that is, unless the human put a +2 in dexterity), I want the elf to be a better archer. I want the elf to be better at sneaking.
This is really not about power grabbing as I am a dedicated GM who is often annoyed at how powerful my player's characters are. I'm just saying that it makes a ton of sense, from a design perspective, to use a bonus that's always relevant. It's a good integration of game mechanics and flavor.
I will say again though, to each his own. If it seems like bad design to you, just change your game ;)
I changed it to a flat 3 in my campaign setting.
Why, God, why?! / overreaction
But seriously, why +3s? It's so fundamentally...odd.
This is really not about power grabbing as I am a dedicated GM who is often annoyed at how powerful my player's characters are. I'm just saying that it makes a ton of sense, from a design perspective, to use a bonus that's always relevant. It's a good integration of game mechanics and flavor.
Same here.
And honestly, I think that even +/-2 to this or that ability does a poor job of conveying elven grace and dwarven hardiness, and everything else. 'Cause in the end, all the difference it makes is 1 roll out of 20, and that's not even noticeable without the metagame act of looking at a character sheet.
The mods changed from the occasional odd (+1, which still stays for the Bless spell IIRC) and dice roll (1d4+1) to a flat +2/+4 because there were complaints about "weird math" (sic) and "ineffective" mods. And there were complaints indeed. More to follow.
Weirdly the 1d4+1 roll from a few spells went from a +2 (+1 mod) onward, but the complaints were only for those two poor odd +3 and +5 and the times in which they didn't came across as full fledged ability mod changes. More to follow again.
You seem to be lumping ability mods into the same pile with mods that directly apply to d20 rolls, and it's important to separate the two.
Even to those of us who favor even ability mods, odd mods that apply directly to d20 rolls (such as bless) are okay because it's always an actual modifier.
Yes. Obviously my poor attempts at humour and quoting the Invincibles don't translate quite as expected. Sorry.
Oh. Yes, I see. I never saw that one; heard it was great fun though.
|
|
Golem 101 - to each his own, I suppose. To me it seems that a +2 bonus, which will always translate into an in-game bonus, accomplishes the original intent of the mechanic of enhancing stats - that is, if Bob is stronger than Jay, I want there to be a roll the Jay would have failed, while Bob would have succeeded - that's a +1 on the roll right there :)
And as to your claim that a +1 works half of the time, which is more than "rarely" - if the intention is to get something done, I want it done 100% of the time if that's possible. Unless a human is unusually dexterous (that is, unless the human put a +2 in dexterity), I want the elf to be a better archer. I want the elf to be better at sneaking.
This is really not about power grabbing as I am a dedicated GM who is often annoyed at how powerful my player's characters are. I'm just saying that it makes a ton of sense, from a design perspective, to use a bonus that's always relevant. It's a good integration of game mechanics and flavor.
I will say again though, to each his own. If it seems like bad design to you, just change your game ;)
Ah, that requires a more granular mechanic - degrees of success. Many RPGs have it (right off the bat: WHFRPG 3e, A Song of Ice and Fire RPG, Thousand Suns, even DragonAGE in a small measure).
Let's say elves have an automatic degree of success in agility (Dexterity) tests to better portray their preternatural grace. Irrelevant of actual ability modifiers, with the same dice roll result an elf will perform better than a human; even with a failed roll he may be able to negate the worse consequences.
The ability mod influences the overall dice roll result (which in turn may or may not determine how many degrees of success there are), but it ends there.
As in the d20 system such a submechanic is missing, the concept of a "always on" better archer/sneak/crafter/poet/whatever is left to the DM/player interaction and visual description of the action, and not quite reflected in rules-based gameplay.
My complaint against the flat modifier instead of the dice roll, or the +2 to ability (+1 mod) instead of the occasional odd value stems straight from the fact that such a change in the system skewers it - or shifts it - into a different league*: one where the player relies more on a sure average determined by modifiers and marginally (OK, it's an exaggeration) influenced by the dice roll, instead of the other way round - to make a reference to the original quote that started it all.
Having an odd bonus that changes a odd ability value into a real +X mod is just that: when luck is on your part, that small advantage that sort of remained dormant turns out to be critical.
But it doesn't affect the quality of the performance (degrees of success) that in-game may reflect a racial perk or else. Such as an elf archer that hits the bullseye effortlessly while his human counterpart is sweating from the concentration needed to pull it out.
Removing this small element makes the game poorer, even if it allows for a more reliable mechanical effect to represent advantages (or disantavantages).
*: I'm perfectly fine with any league or play style (gritty, heroic, etc.): I'm biased against changing the basic, average framework of the game - not really designed for a specific goal - and thusly making other kinds of play more difficult or not possible without a personal custom job and large scale overhaul.
tl;dr: I don't want you to play my way, I simply don't like to be shifted into a more... constrictive (?) type of game.
You seem to be lumping ability mods into the same pile with mods that directly apply to d20 rolls, and it's important to separate the two.
Correct. A mistake on my part.
One benefit/advantage of a system like this though has more to do with how ability scores increase over levelling: it makes change more gradual.
Rather than having an ability score automatically go up by 1 when the player reaches 4th, 8th, etc., if they're putting it into their highest score (which would probably be a flat 18), there wouldn't be a change until they've invested two "points" into it. If they wanted instant gratification they could spread them out to scores that are odd numbered, but that would create a more well-rounded character instead of a laser-focused one.
I changed it to a flat 3 in my campaign setting.Why, God, why?! / overreaction
But seriously, why +3s? It's so fundamentally...odd.
that's part of the reason. I also just like 3s for aesthetic purposes. Also, it's just a bit more of a boost than a +2. It adds a bit more of a feel for what I'm trying to go for in a race without being overpowering.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Switching the ability score adjustments from +/-1 to +/-2 was part of the changeover from 2E to 3E. I specify "+/-" rather than "+" for a reason -- in D&D 3E, humans had no ability score adjustments (in contrast to the +2 to any single stat that they get now in both Pathfinder and D&D 4E), but most other races had both bonuses and penalties. If we were dealing only with bonuses, a +1 would have been fine -- it is up to you to select your ability scores so that you benefit from the bonuses.
However, when a typical non-human race gets +1 to one stat and -1 to another stat and every 2 points of an ability score changes your modifier by 1, it is an easy matter to select your ability score values so that the penalized score keeps the same modifier and the ability score with the bonus gets a higher modifier, which gives a member of such a race a noticeable advantage over humans. This problem is eliminated when the adjustments are -2 and +2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't having "Ability Scores" and "Ability Modifiers" in direct opposition to Ocham's Razor?
Yes, the actual ability score is in most cases largely superfluous. It's referenced in a couple places, but even in those it could be replaced by a reference to the ability mod. The hardest would be how long you could hold your breath.
Carrying Capacity: as far as I can tell, it's not related to actual math of the Strength score, so just replace the ability score with the mod.
Negative HP = Death: just change the calculation to -(Con Mod * 2 + 10) or maybe something a little more elegant.
But yeah, the ability scores are largely vestigial.
Isn't having "Ability Scores" and "Ability Modifiers" in direct opposition to Ocham's Razor?
True20 actually took that step. The only (minor) issue that doing this creates is that there is now no explanation as to why -5 is the lowest possible ability modifier.
|
|
Golem 101 - to each his own, I suppose. To me it seems that a +2 bonus, which will always translate into an in-game bonus, accomplishes the original intent of the mechanic of enhancing stats - that is, if Bob is stronger than Jay, I want there to be a roll the Jay would have failed, while Bob would have succeeded - that's a +1 on the roll right there :)
And as to your claim that a +1 works half of the time, which is more than "rarely" - if the intention is to get something done, I want it done 100% of the time if that's possible. Unless a human is unusually dexterous (that is, unless the human put a +2 in dexterity), I want the elf to be a better archer. I want the elf to be better at sneaking.
This is really not about power grabbing as I am a dedicated GM who is often annoyed at how powerful my player's characters are. I'm just saying that it makes a ton of sense, from a design perspective, to use a bonus that's always relevant. It's a good integration of game mechanics and flavor.
I will say again though, to each his own. If it seems like bad design to you, just change your game ;)
Ah, that requires a more granular mechanic - degrees of success. Many RPGs have it (right off the bat: WHFRPG 3e, A Song of Ice and Fire RPG, Thousand Suns, even DragonAGE in a small measure).
Let's say elves have an automatic degree of success in agility (Dexterity) tests to better portray their preternatural grace. Irrelevant of actual ability modifiers, with the same dice roll result an elf will perform better than a human; even with a failed roll he may be able to negate the worse consequences.
The ability mod influences the overall dice roll result (which in turn may or may not determine how many degrees of success there are), but it ends there.As in the d20 system such a submechanic is missing, the concept of a "always on" better archer/sneak/crafter/poet/whatever is left to the DM/player interaction and visual description of the action, and not quite reflected in rules-based...
To me, feeling that something is reflected by the rules is about more than just seeing it be relevant in play.
If I understand your argument correctly, you claim that since a +1 on any roll is only noticeable 5% of the time (there's a single extra number you get to roll which would differentiate failure from success). Therefore, says you, since that +1 bonus is not all that reliable in the first place, it's better to demonstrate that it's more about sometimes being lucky and gaining an edge, than about being flat out better.
I disagree. Giving a +1 is a rather universal way that the game reflects a serious advantage.
Take the "weapon focus" feat, for example - from a story perspective, taking weapon focus: dagger comes to reflect that the character greatly prefers the dagger, and is very experienced with using a dagger. The character would have an edge during a fight, because she became really good at using her favorite weapon. That's obvious to anyone taking the feat. And what does that do? it gives you a +1 bonus. Somehow, "I trained with my bow a great deal - I have 5% greater chance of hitting the target than someone who's barely ever used a bow" just doesn't sound right. However, that +1 bonus IS the way in which the game reflects it.
+1 bonuses are everywhere - they are the bonus given to you by magical weaponry, by feats, by racial modifiers, by class abilities, by spells and supernatural powers... Some things give you a greater bonus that is still rather negligible, even a +2 or a +3. The most powerful magical weapons, ever, will grant their user a +5 to attacks - that's a bonus 25% chance to hit, which sounds underwhelming when described in these terms. "I wield mega-exculiber, a sword forged by the most powerful wizard who ever lived, created to strike fear in the hearts of monsters! out of every four attacks I make a hit an extra time! that's... not very intimidating, is it?".
I'm rambling, but the bottom line is that the game has a feel to it, and according to Pathfinder's game feel, a +1 bonus to something reflects a pretty serious advantage there. On a rational level I know that a +1 doesn't actually do a *ton*, but man, a fighter with 18 strength feels so much more impressive than a fighter with 16 strength. To me, and most players I know, that's the way it is. It sounds like that's not the case for you, but as far as I'm concerned, a +1 to an ability score is a pretty big deal.
Except that you are using % wrong. If you have 8+, or 65% to hit something, and you get a +5 bonus, you now have 3+, or 90% to hit it, meaning that the sword bonus actually increases your chance to hit by 25/65 = roughly 40%. Further, since the amount you hit by doesn't matter unless it's a critical hit (which isn't affected by the bonus), it actually varies quite a bit how much your chance to hit changes. If you already hit on 2+, it does nothing, if you can't hit even with an 18 plus the bonus, it still doesn't help you.
Isn't having "Ability Scores" and "Ability Modifiers" in direct opposition to Ocham's Razor?Yes, the actual ability score is in most cases largely superfluous. It's referenced in a couple places, but even in those it could be replaced by a reference to the ability mod. The hardest would be how long you could hold your breath.
Carrying Capacity: as far as I can tell, it's not related to actual math of the Strength score, so just replace the ability score with the mod.
Negative HP = Death: just change the calculation to -(Con Mod * 2 + 10) or maybe something a little more elegant.
But yeah, the ability scores are largely vestigial.
While I actually largely agree, and have done away with them in my StarWars d20 heavily house-ruled variant, there are other places ability scores are relevant (I'm mentioning not to undermine to the point, but to show other places I've had to seriously reconsider rules):
* Afflictions become harder to balance, especially involving Ability Damage (or drain) [most notably poisons and diseases]
* Increases to ability scores at every fourth level (scrapped, altered progression - it still alters the balance of the game)
* Alteration to ability scores by spells or effects that change ability scores (not such a big deal in 3.5 or PF, but more difficult using 3.0 or SWd20 systems)
* the very occasional template (I think there might be two, total, that give an odd increase, though I don't recall them right now)
As an example of the difficulty with adjusting ability damage, a shadow actually becomes substantially scarier OR less frightening, because, regardless of what you do to reduce the dice roll, it effectively deals strength damage in increments of 2 or potentially none at all (a d3 = effectively a 2/4/6 on the damage roll, while a d4-1 can let a shadow with poor rolls hit you all day long without damaging you). This makes for more "swingy" encounters, either way.
Over all, it's a valid way of doing things, and one I'm a bit partial to, myself, but it's got hidden pits you can stumble into if you're not careful.
|
|
Except that you are using % wrong. If you have 8+, or 65% to hit something, and you get a +5 bonus, you now have 3+, or 90% to hit it, meaning that the sword bonus actually increases your chance to hit by 25/65 = roughly 40%. Further, since the amount you hit by doesn't matter unless it's a critical hit (which isn't affected by the bonus), it actually varies quite a bit how much your chance to hit changes. If you already hit on 2+, it does nothing, if you can't hit even with an 18 plus the bonus, it still doesn't help you.
I was talking about more absolute terms than those, actually - less about how exactly your chance to hit is improved by having a +1 and more about "how many of the possible results when rolling a d20 are you covering when you make an attack". I chose to use this analysis because that's the one golem used. Obviously if you need to roll a 20 to hit, and you get a +1, you DOUBLE your chances, but he obviously wasn't talking about such cases. So I took the most direct approach I could think of: if, in every roll, you had to roll a random number or higher to succeed, a +1 would be a 5% bonus, and a +5 would be a 25% bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't having "Ability Scores" and "Ability Modifiers" in direct opposition to Ocham's Razor?Yes, the actual ability score is in most cases largely superfluous. It's referenced in a couple places, but even in those it could be replaced by a reference to the ability mod. The hardest would be how long you could hold your breath.
Carrying Capacity: as far as I can tell, it's not related to actual math of the Strength score, so just replace the ability score with the mod.
Negative HP = Death: just change the calculation to -(Con Mod * 2 + 10) or maybe something a little more elegant.
But yeah, the ability scores are largely vestigial.
While I actually largely agree, and have done away with them in my StarWars d20 heavily house-ruled variant, there are other places ability scores are relevant (I'm mentioning not to undermine to the point, but to show other places I've had to seriously reconsider rules):
* Afflictions become harder to balance, especially involving Ability Damage (or drain) [most notably poisons and diseases]
* Increases to ability scores at every fourth level (scrapped, altered progression - it still alters the balance of the game)
* Alteration to ability scores by spells or effects that change ability scores (not such a big deal in 3.5 or PF, but more difficult using 3.0 or SWd20 systems)
* the very occasional template (I think there might be two, total, that give an odd increase, though I don't recall them right now)
As an example of the difficulty with adjusting ability damage, a shadow actually becomes substantially scarier OR less frightening, because, regardless of what you do to reduce the dice roll, it effectively deals strength damage in increments of 2 or potentially none at all (a d3 = effectively a 2/4/6 on the damage roll, while a d4-1 can let a shadow with poor...
I'm not saying you can just switch wholesale RIGHT NOW. I'm saying that the scores are largely useless and a new edition of the game should just discard them (or make them more useful). Yes, somethings wouldn't work quite the same, but that's okay, not everything needs to remain exactly the same forever.
Except that you are using % wrong. If you have 8+, or 65% to hit something, and you get a +5 bonus, you now have 3+, or 90% to hit it, meaning that the sword bonus actually increases your chance to hit by 25/65 = roughly 40%. Further, since the amount you hit by doesn't matter unless it's a critical hit (which isn't affected by the bonus), it actually varies quite a bit how much your chance to hit changes. If you already hit on 2+, it does nothing, if you can't hit even with an 18 plus the bonus, it still doesn't help you.
Yes and no Sissyl.
If I need a 20 to hit (exactly, not just for the automatic) I hit 5% of the time.
If I get a +1 and can now hit on 19, I've doubled my chances to hit, but I only hit 10% of the time. The flat analysis is that the chance of success is 5% higher, it just happens to be double also.
Both measurements are correct.
No. The chance of success is 100% higher. I believe what you are talking about is percentile units. It's what is used when discussing political support in elections and such.
Part of the problem is that we are measuring % changes.
Look at it like you're measuring something else, say, the price of gas.
It was $3 a gallon, now it's $6 a gallon.
The rate of change is 100%.
The absolute change is $3.
20 = 5% chance to hit.
19-20 = 10% chance to hit.
The rate of change is 100%.
The absolute change is 5%.
Both are correct. The confusing part is that we are measuring % chances, so both the rate of change and absolute change are expressed in %'s.
I understand exactly what you're explaining, Irontooth. :)
Me too. It's just that there is a different unit for that.
So you're quibbling over terminology. What does this have to do with...well, all of these walls o' text?
EDIT: Nevermind, I lost interest somewhere after 'requires more granular mechanics.' Quibble on!
I lost interest in something else.