Random 3.5 modification ideas.

[False God]

Having put none of these to the test, I thought I'd run them by ya'll and see what you think. The idea here is to "loosen up" some of the restrictions in ways similar to 5E and other systems I enjoy and try to allow more room for creative character stat distribution without impacting effectiveness. Keep in mind that for the context of my games, I give out very few magic items (most of which are custom), do not run magic item shops, and do not run WBL. I tend to run heroic mid/low generic fantasy.

Removing the stat-limitation on casting spells.
-You get spell levels from your class and your particular modifier doesn't stop you from casting them, it still impacts your saves/bonus spells/class features/etc though.

Removing the "divide by 2" part of stats. Each point above 10 is a +1, each point below is a -1.
-The immediate impacts are saves/AC/checks/attack and damage. I feel the first part would average out, but the damage might make things swingy.
-Also odd numbers matter now.
-I feel like I'm missing something huge though(probably point-buy shenanigans, but I have players roll for stats or use an array).
-I think this would require implementing max HP every level. Which I already do.

Giving martial and hybrid-types their BAB to damage.
-It abstracts damage a bit into "did you deal damage from a skilled hit, physical strength, blah blah" but considering how abstract much of D&D is already (IMO) and how much martials suck, I don't think that matters.
-That's what, +20 per attack at 20th level? No, they're not going to shake reality, but it's something.

Using skill points as a multiplier instead of a static modifier. IE: Fighters get 2*Int/lvl, instead of 2+Int.
-This may be unnecessary when combined with removing the "divide by 2" aspect of stats, since that would give an immediate buff to all skills and skill point gain.
-But on the other hand, this might be a less dramatic change.

Anyway there'll be more in later posts.

Anyone made any similar changes? Been in games with similar changes? General thoughts and considerations?

[Troacctid]

Respectively: Fine, screws up math, screws up math, what?

What are you trying to accomplish with these changes, exactly?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Respectively: Fine, screws up math, screws up math, what?

What are you trying to accomplish with these changes, exactly?
Yeah, this.

I think you need to think of what exactly you mean by "loosening up restrictions like 5e", because 5e is in many ways much more restricted than 3.5.

[False God]

Respectively: Fine, screws up math, screws up math, what?

What are you trying to accomplish with these changes, exactly?

Mostly: less math, better skills and less demand to max out one score at the expense of others.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Mostly: less math, better skills and less demand to max out one score at the expense of others.
I don't think multiplying skill points by Intelligence modifier really makes skills better. If you have 12 Intelligence or less, you actually get fewer skill points than under vanilla rules, because the multiplier is 1. I assume the multiplier can't go below 1, because otherwise 10 Intelligence sets your skill points to zero. On the other hand, high-skill builds explode.

So:
If you have low Intelligence (<12), you see a decrease in skill points, or no change.
If you have a lot of Intelligence (16+), but low skill points (2) you would see a small increase, from 5 to 6 or from 6 to 8. Likewise for medium intelligence (14) and skill points (4-6), for which you would see increases from 6 to 8 and 8 to 12.
If you have a lot of Intelligence (16+) and skill points (6+), your skill points explode. A factotum or beguiler might have 24 skill points per level.


Ability score trade-offs make the game more interesting. I don't suggest trying to reduce their relevance. If you want people to have high(ish) stats not related to their main abilities (like high Intelligence on a Champion of Gwynharwyf), you should probably just change your stat generation method.

[Troacctid]

It's the same amount of math, just with different numbers, so I would say that goal is a miss. Actually, since you have to do conversions for all the monsters and add an extra number to every damage roll, it's probably more math.

I would guess a high chance of breaking things somehow with these rules. A safer route would be to simply change the stat generation method to flatten it out more. Also, consider using the background skills (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/background-skills/) variant from Pathfinder.

[Biggus]

Removing the "divide by 2" part of stats. Each point above 10 is a +1, each point below is a -1.
-The immediate impacts are saves/AC/checks/attack and damage. I feel the first part would average out, but the damage might make things swingy.
-Also odd numbers matter now.
-I feel like I'm missing something huge though(probably point-buy shenanigans, but I have players roll for stats or use an array).
-I think this would require implementing max HP every level. Which I already do.

I really feel where you're coming from with this, it's always annoyed me that odd-numbered stats are useless other than for a qualifying for feats and a few rare abilities. The amount of extra work it would make would be huge though, every single monster would have to be converted for a start. Also, it'd lead to things like a spell with a high save DC being almost impossible to save against if you have a low score in the relevant stat, especially at higher levels. You'd have to introduce all sorts of extra modifiers to account for things like that: in effect, you'd be pretty much rewriting the whole system from scratch.



Using skill points as a multiplier instead of a static modifier. IE: Fighters get 2*Int/lvl, instead of 2+Int.
-This may be unnecessary when combined with removing the "divide by 2" aspect of stats, since that would give an immediate buff to all skills and skill point gain.
-But on the other hand, this might be a less dramatic change.


As Mortis points out, this would lead to an immense gap between high and low skill point characters. It'd probably work better to just increase the number of base skill points each class gets by 2 or 4, or maybe double them.

[False God]

I don't think multiplying skill points by Intelligence modifier really makes skills better. If you have 12 Intelligence or less, you actually get fewer skill points than under vanilla rules, because the multiplier is 1. I assume the multiplier can't go below 1, because otherwise 10 Intelligence sets your skill points to zero. On the other hand, high-skill builds explode.
Yeah, some of these are just really me spitballing here. I think removing the "divide by 2" would be enough to accomplish my skill-point desires.


Ability score trade-offs make the game more interesting.
To a degree. I don't feel that a lot of people actually make them though. "What stat does my class need? Oh, I'll just max that." seems to be my experience in most editions.


I don't suggest trying to reduce their relevance. If you want people to have high(ish) stats not related to their main abilities (like high Intelligence on a Champion of Gwynharwyf), you should probably just change your stat generation method.
I'm not sure how changing my stat generation method would actually benefit, is there some sort of point-by variant that reduces the cost to improve non-class skills? Or what method are you suggesting? (I usually use 4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1's or my own array: 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8).


It's the same amount of math, just with different numbers, so I would say that goal is a miss.
Strictly speaking, removing divide by two would be less math. Multiplying skill points in addition to that would even out.

Again, these rules aren't encessarily meant to all be employed at once. Just kinda seeing what sticks.


Actually, since you have to do conversions for all the monsters and add an extra number to every damage roll, it's probably more math.
I custom build 75% of the monsters for my games, so this means nothing to me.


I would guess a high chance of breaking things somehow with these rules. A safer route would be to simply change the stat generation method to flatten it out more.
So, this is the second suggestion for "change stat generation" but neither suggestion includes how to go about doing that?


Also, consider using the background skills (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/background-skills/) variant from Pathfinder.
So 5E's backgrounds? We already do that. Having more skills to choose from really isn't the issue. It's having the skill points to actually be any good in those skills. 5E resolves this with fewer skills and no skill points. 4E also reduced the number of skills and removed skill points. Pathfinder also reduces the number of skills and provides a "trained" buff instead of just the "option" to add more skills.

I mean, maybe I'm just better off getting rid of skill points entirely, since that seems to be the same direction the game went, and I do like that.

[King of Nowhere]

Having put none of these to the test, I thought I'd run them by ya'll and see what you think. The idea here is to "loosen up" some of the restrictions in ways similar to 5E and other systems I enjoy and try to allow more room for creative character stat distribution without impacting effectiveness. Keep in mind that for the context of my games, I give out very few magic items (most of which are custom), do not run magic item shops, and do not run WBL. I tend to run heroic mid/low generic fantasy.

Removing the stat-limitation on casting spells.
-You get spell levels from your class and your particular modifier doesn't stop you from casting them, it still impacts your saves/bonus spells/class features/etc though.

won't matter in the slightest. i've never seen a caster that had problem to meet the stat prerequisite. perhaps it would allow a ranger to dump wisdom, that's all.


Removing the "divide by 2" part of stats. Each point above 10 is a +1, each point below is a -1.
-The immediate impacts are saves/AC/checks/attack and damage. I feel the first part would average out, but the damage might make things swingy.
-Also odd numbers matter now.
-I feel like I'm missing something huge though(probably point-buy shenanigans, but I have players roll for stats or use an array).
-I think this would require implementing max HP every level. Which I already do.

saving throw dc would skyrocket and become essentially unbeatable. damage would also increase a lot, but so would hit points. in short, you're giving a huge boost to casters.
max hp per level isn't going to make any real difference. when you have +15 to CON, the amount you roll is secondary.




Giving martial and hybrid-types their BAB to damage.
-It abstracts damage a bit into "did you deal damage from a skilled hit, physical strength, blah blah" but considering how abstract much of D&D is already (IMO) and how much martials suck, I don't think that matters.
-That's what, +20 per attack at 20th level? No, they're not going to shake reality, but it's something.

martials would deal more damage. which they don't really need. the martial/caster divide was never about damage, but about flexibility. in fact, the game is already enough of a rocket tag as it is, except perhaps at crazy high optimization where you have so many protections and contingencies at all time that just figuring out what happens in the first action would require a degree.
an optimized fighter can already one-shot a monster of his own challenge rating in the first round of combat.
it may help monks, since they have problems dealing damage.


Using skill points as a multiplier instead of a static modifier. IE: Fighters get 2*Int/lvl, instead of 2+Int.
-This may be unnecessary when combined with removing the "divide by 2" aspect of stats, since that would give an immediate buff to all skills and skill point gain.
-But on the other hand, this might be a less dramatic change.
the fighter, who has no int or few int, isn't going to see a real difference. the wizard is suddenly getting 20 skill points per level. the rogue, if it invested in int, may have more skill points than there are skills.
so, it would help the wizards more than anything else, and it would break the game.

Mostly: less math, better skills and less demand to max out one score at the expense of others.
it fails horribly at the task. if increasing a stat gives greater return for the investment, then it makes even more sense to max it out.
and I don't see how it would ever result in less math. in fact, i don't see what would ever result in less math, except removing a lot of content (buff spells with a dozen different stacking effects, circumstance modifiers...).

If you want better skills, there are several ways. you could flat out increase skill points to anyone. or you could say that anyone gets a flat (mild) boost to all his class skills.
if you want to remove the demand for maxing out a score, you need to give diminishing returns. I can't think of any other way.

otherwise, you can agree with your group to all play at low optimization.

EDIT: I mean, if you want less math and a simpler game, you could go to 5e. those of us who are still using the 3.5 are mostly doing it because we like the extra math and complexity.

[Buufreak]

Strictly speaking, removing divide by two would be less math. Multiplying skill points in addition to that would even out.


Your assumption is short sighted. By doing what you propose, you aren't evening out, at any point past char gen. The very first encounter, combat or otherwise, immediately needs mathematical modification, for skill checks, for dcs, and especially for any enemy stat block. Thusly, more math, as Troacctid stated.

[Aotrs Commander]

I mean, if the existance of odd stats bothers you, it'd make FAR more sense to just remove stats completely and simply only work directly on modifiers. Aside from stat points at level-up and inherent ability score modifiers, everything else is always in multiples of 2 anyway (which you can just half and apply to the modifier directly), so you could give out a +1 to an ability modifier at 8th and 16th level, and halve inherent bonuses (so the old +1 and +3 disappear, +2 becomes +1 and +4 becomes plus +2 and round the numbers out with +5 becoming +3).

The big issue would be how to handle ability score damage/penalties, but that might be as simple as halving it across the board (either by just half round down or going through and converting all the dice type down to half), with the whole 0 ability score = dead/comatose etc being set to -6 instead (since -5 is your minimum modifier).

It has the advantage of Even Less Maths and actually doesn't screw with the existing numbers; it's still work, but it's way less work and far less disruptive to the maths, since you aren't really CHANGING the modifiers.





The rest of it is still massively problematic, though (apart from number 1).

[False God]

I mean, if the existance of odd stats bothers you, it'd make FAR more sense to just remove stats completely and simply only work directly on modifiers. Aside from stat points at level-up and inherent ability score modifiers, everything else is always in multiples of 2 anyway (which you can just half and apply to the modifier directly), so you could give out a +1 to an ability modifier at 8th and 16th level, and halve inherent bonuses (so the old +1 and +3 disappear, +2 becomes +1 and +4 becomes plus +2 and round the numbers out with +5 becoming +3).
Mmm yeah that's true, be interesting to roll for stats using 1d6. lol


The big issue would be how to handle ability score damage/penalties, but that might be as simple as halving it across the board (either by just half round down or going through and converting all the dice type down to half), with the whole 0 ability score = dead/comatose etc being set to -6 instead (since -5 is your minimum modifier).
Halving it would probably be easiest, since there's often no rhyme or reason to stat-damaging spell dice.


The rest of it is still massively problematic, though (apart from number 1).
And that's what I came here to find out!

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm not sure how changing my stat generation method would actually benefit, is there some sort of point-by variant that reduces the cost to improve non-class skills? Or what method are you suggesting? (I usually use 4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1's or my own array: 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8).
In a point-buy system, you're almost never going to run out of stats that help your concept. A straight wizard benefits from Intelligence primarily, and doesn't need a lot of points to function, but that doesn't mean they'll invest in Charisma if they have points to spare: Constitution and Dexterity get filled up first, and Wisdom is arguably more useful, too. Playing with a point-buy high enough that investing in Charisma becomes an option kind of defeats the point of having a point-buy system altogether.

Arrays have the same problem. In your array, you sacrifice a lot if you put the 16 into Charisma (nevermind the 18), since your hit points, AC, Fortitude, initiative, and ranged touch attacks are all lower, whereas only your (non-class) Diplomacy and UMD are higher.


So, in order to have high dump stats, you need to identify what stats are dump stats, and give them a special treatment. For example, you might use a 20-point-buy for three primary stats, and a separate 20-point-buy for the remaining three secondary stats. (The total is higher than 32 because the secondary stat pool is worth less.) A wizard would trade off between Intelligence, Constitution, and Dexterity in one pool, and Strength, Wisdom, and Charisma in the other pool. It's important here that the pools are preset, not chosen by the player. If you're allowed to optimize pool assignments, you'd end up with mental stats in one pool, and physical stats in the other, and all wizards are running around with 8/16/16/18/10/10, which isn't any better than a straight 32-point-buy.

A two-pool stat system like that could improve certain MAD classes and builds, as well, depending on how you assign the pools. A paladin forced to choose between Strength, Constitution, and Charisma in one pool and Dexterity, Intelligence, and Wisdom in the other pool doesn't feel especially buffed, but other assignments might allow a paladin to use more of the 40-point total towards their most desired stats.

[Troacctid]

So, this is the second suggestion for "change stat generation" but neither suggestion includes how to go about doing that?
You could try a rolling method that results in fewer dump stats. For example, rather than 4d6 drop lowest, you could use 6d4 drop lowest. Or after rolling your six stats, replace your lowest two rolls with a 16 and a 14.


So 5E's backgrounds? We already do that. Having more skills to choose from really isn't the issue. It's having the skill points to actually be any good in those skills. 5E resolves this with fewer skills and no skill points. 4E also reduced the number of skills and removed skill points. Pathfinder also reduces the number of skills and provides a "trained" buff instead of just the "option" to add more skills.

I mean, maybe I'm just better off getting rid of skill points entirely, since that seems to be the same direction the game went, and I do like that.
No, the PF background skills variant gives everyone 2 extra skill points per level, which can only be spent on skills that aren't traditionally important to adventuring: Appraise, Artistry (new skill), Craft, Handle Animal, Knowledge (architecture and engineering), Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Lore (new skill), Perform, Profession, Sleight of Hand, and Speak Language. This gives your players more skill points, but forces them to branch out into different aspects of their character's personality rather than going for mechanical advantage.

[False God]

You could try a rolling method that results in fewer dump stats. For example, rather than 4d6 drop lowest, you could use 6d4 drop lowest. Or after rolling your six stats, replace your lowest two rolls with a 16 and a 14.
So then just a much more generous stat distribution.

I don't typically like point buy, but I liked ExLibrisMortis' idea of bonus points for dump stats. Though I think identifying the dump stats for every class may be a little more work than I'm willing to do.

Ultimately, is it really necessary (as a game function) for characters to have non-bonus-giving stats(or negative ones)? Would the fact that their high-score may be a 20 or a 22 and their low score a 14 or 16 still provide the same effect that they're "not as good" in that thing, even if they're still markedly better than average?


No, the PF background skills variant gives everyone 2 extra skill points per level, which can only be spent on skills that aren't traditionally important to adventuring: Appraise, Artistry (new skill), Craft, Handle Animal, Knowledge (architecture and engineering), Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Lore (new skill), Perform, Profession, Sleight of Hand, and Speak Language. This gives your players more skill points, but forces them to branch out into different aspects of their character's personality rather than going for mechanical advantage.
Oh, I misread that then. hmmmmm..... So it creates like a Background/Profession track that runs parallel to leveling.

[Biggus]

So then just a much more generous stat distribution.

I don't typically like point buy, but I liked ExLibrisMortis' idea of bonus points for dump stats. Though I think identifying the dump stats for every class may be a little more work than I'm willing to do.

Ultimately, is it really necessary (as a game function) for characters to have non-bonus-giving stats(or negative ones)? Would the fact that their high-score may be a 20 or a 22 and their low score a 14 or 16 still provide the same effect that they're "not as good" in that thing, even if they're still markedly better than average?


Perhaps rolling something like 2d6+8 or 2d4+10 for stats might work?

[Troacctid]

Oh, I misread that then. hmmmmm..... So it creates like a Background/Profession track that runs parallel to leveling.
Kind of, but it does still care whether the skill is a class skill or not, so it is linked to your class.

[martixy]

Having put none of these to the test, I thought I'd run them by ya'll and see what you think. The idea here is to "loosen up" some of the restrictions in ways similar to 5E and other systems I enjoy and try to allow more room for creative character stat distribution without impacting effectiveness. Keep in mind that for the context of my games, I give out very few magic items (most of which are custom), do not run magic item shops, and do not run WBL. I tend to run heroic mid/low generic fantasy.

Removing the stat-limitation on casting spells.
-You get spell levels from your class and your particular modifier doesn't stop you from casting them, it still impacts your saves/bonus spells/class features/etc though.

Removing the "divide by 2" part of stats. Each point above 10 is a +1, each point below is a -1.
-The immediate impacts are saves/AC/checks/attack and damage. I feel the first part would average out, but the damage might make things swingy.
-Also odd numbers matter now.
-I feel like I'm missing something huge though(probably point-buy shenanigans, but I have players roll for stats or use an array).
-I think this would require implementing max HP every level. Which I already do.

Giving martial and hybrid-types their BAB to damage.
-It abstracts damage a bit into "did you deal damage from a skilled hit, physical strength, blah blah" but considering how abstract much of D&D is already (IMO) and how much martials suck, I don't think that matters.
-That's what, +20 per attack at 20th level? No, they're not going to shake reality, but it's something.

Using skill points as a multiplier instead of a static modifier. IE: Fighters get 2*Int/lvl, instead of 2+Int.
-This may be unnecessary when combined with removing the "divide by 2" aspect of stats, since that would give an immediate buff to all skills and skill point gain.
-But on the other hand, this might be a less dramatic change.

Anyway there'll be more in later posts.

Anyone made any similar changes? Been in games with similar changes? General thoughts and considerations?

1. Fine. Up to preference. I've never seen that play a part in the game. I go the other way in my game. I require you to have a stat modifier of X before you can cast spells of level X. Wanted to give that aspect of the game a bit more relevance.

2. Screws up the math horribly. I do not advise.

3. Screws up the math a little bit. You will break certain damage thresholds like object hardness, DR values, fall damage. Granted, you can already optimize to break those, but now the effect will be more pronounced.

4. Interesting idea. ExLibrisMortis analyzed it numerically. You still need a flat value however because of the low INTs. I would suggest another idea: Switch to the PF skill system and give everyone +2 points (e.g. fighters at 4+int, rogues at 10+int). Or: Make certain skills cost lest (like 0.5 pts/rank) - e.g. Profession, Appraise, the obscure crafts, anything that doesn't see much play. Or all of those.

[Vaern]

Removing the ability score requirement from spellcasting seems fine. Most casters are still likely to max out their casting stat for the saving throws and bonus spells anyway, but it would open up more build options to support and utility caster builds. I think the main reason the rule exists to begin with is to make ability score damage a bit more damaging to casters moreso than to restrict character growth, so from that perspective it's kind of just a matter of how punishing or how lenient you want to be as a DM.
I've played around with a healbot cleric build that works by burning turn undead uses to grant AoE fast healing to my party (with both the duration of the ability and turn undead uses power day scaling directly with charisma), and being able to pump up my charisma for that shenanigan without also having to worry about keeping my wisdom high for spellcasting as well would be nice.

Changing the way modifiers work to a 1:1 ratio would mess with the math of the game too much and would make bonuses from other sources less valuable. It might be fine for certain aspects of the game, like effectively doubling HP from having a high constitution score, but for others it can easily become difficult to balance. In particular, while martial characters fall off at higher levels compared to casters, they tend to be very easy to build for outstanding early game damage. Giving them effectively twice the benefit of strength to attack and damage rolls will make lower levels in particular a nightmare. For example, say a player wants to roll up an orc barbarian with point buy to max out strength. When he rages he's got 26 strength, for +24 damage with a two-handed weapon using this variant. With +1 BAB, he's also got a +17 to hit at level 1. They can expect to hit just about anything they're likely to encounter on any roll other than a natural 1 and reliably one-shot anything they hit up to probably level 3 or 4. Overall, it just messes with the math and the balance of the game a bit too much for my liking.
Odd numbers do have a bit of value as is, though, as odd values are typically used to set prerequisites for feats and such. Granted, this doesn't grant a lot of value to odd ability score values as there aren't terribly many feats that are barred by ability score prerequisites, but it is something at least.

Bonus damage from BAB seems reasonable enough. The attack bonus from strength, as far as I'm concerned, comes from swinging harder and thus being able to more easily crush, slash, or pierce the target's armor, so it makes just as much sense that a mechanic that lets you more easily bypass armor should also increase damage.
The only problem I could have about this is that you're basically giving everyone the damage benefit of power attack without having to take the penalty to attack bonus. Martial characters do tend to fall off late game, but I could see someone using power attack to double (or triple down) on that damage bonus and getting a bit out of hand at lower mid levels, but even then I don't see it being terribly game breaking.

If you're going to be multiplying by int for skill points instead of adding, the base value should be reduced (probably halved) to compensate. Otherwise it'll be relatively easy for a character to start with high enough int to max out all of their class skills, which removes the whole element of deciding how to allocate your skill points from character development.
It might be a reasonable tweak if you have a small party with no designated skill monkey character, but overall for normal game play it gives too much versatility to everyone. Things like specific skill prerequisites for prestige classes lose value when you have significantly more skill points to spend.