Is there any good reason why feat (etc) prerequistes for stats are odd numbers?

[Aotrs Commander]

I find myself asking this question today.

There is no good reason to have odd stats on character generation - even with a points-buy that gives you odd stats as you are always mathmatically better to have two even stats instead of two odd ones. Feat pre-reqs are about the only reason to even consider that, and it struck me today that's pretty much creating a problem to give a solution.

(It especially applies to my group, whose characters get an even-number of points to distribute on a point-for-point basis.)

There's a good arguement to be made about maybe even taking odd stat bonuses out altogether, as basically the only thing that gives you them is level-advancement and inherent bonuses; you might as well just change it to a +2 every 8 levels (maybe maybe assume at 20th you get a +2 and then delete odd inherent bonus and price +2 as +3 and +4 as +5). Notably, Starfinder and 4E both indepentantly changed level gains to +2s (don't know about 5E and PF2)

Aside from the fact stat damage exists and its easier to track from the numbers, the system nearly functionally runs on even stats alone already.



I am then, pondering that, if you were to make all the feat (et al) pre-reqs even (so 12s instead of 13s) would it cosmically make a lot of difference, other than a) making it marginally easier to qualifiy for those feats and b) not encouraging people to pick a sub-optimial distribution for no other reason than "well, we need odd stats to do something," which to me is a poor reason to do it.



Thoughts?

[Zombimode]

I feel that the odd stats for prerequsites come from rolling for stats: without fine-grained controll over your ability score distribution having SOMETHING to differentiate even from odd scores is better then nothing.

If you roll a 13 for Str it is clearly worse then a 14. But it is better then 12 because at least it let you qualify for feats.


Yeah, in a point-buy world, if feels superflous.

[Psyren]

There is no good reason. I would personally be fine dropping those down a rung to an even modifier, e.g. Power Attack requiring 12 Str instead of 13. The edge case of "crappy odd stats feel better now" to me is worth less than the elegance of "all my stats are even so now I can focus exclusively on my key ability for stat increases and inherent bonuses."

[Kayblis]

Two reasons.
First, it's a feature from previous editions, because stat values are somewhat different and give different bonuses. Some features from 2e are "roll under stat" abilities(that is, if you have Dex 15, you need to roll 15 or lower to pass), which make odd numbers meaningful. The 3rd edition overhaul got rid of those altogether.

Second, it's a meaningful separation for rolled stats. Having a 13 is considerably better than a 12, because if you put it in Int you can get Combat Expertise, or if you put it in Str you can get Power Attack. If you don't have absolute control over your stats(and a considerable portion of people like rolling for them), it's not a net zero effect. Also, starting with an odd number on your best stat(say, you rolled a 17) is better than the equivalent even number because you'll get an increase(to an even 18) by level 4. If you normalize it, you will be forced to wait to level 8 to get your +4 stat bonus. This is also true in PB, if you expect the game to go from 4 to 7 for a small adventure, there's no reason to start with an 18.

All in all, the stats are not so simple as to just get rid of them without losing something relevant. Making a character easier to make inherently gets rid of options for players, and most of the time these options are meaningful in some way.

[torrasque666]

It also provides a modicum of protection against things like ability drain. Would really suck if your character with Power Attack could no longer use it because they took a single point of Ability Drain. Or hit middle-age.

[Psyren]

Two reasons.
First, it's a feature from previous editions, because stat values are somewhat different and give different bonuses.
...
Second, it's a meaningful separation for rolled stats. Having a 13 is considerably better than a 12, because if you put it in Int you can get Combat Expertise, or if you put it in Str you can get Power Attack.

"We've always done it that way" isn't a good reason, rather it's a fallacy.

And yes, this does make a 13 better than a 12 - but that doesn't answer the question of why a 13 should be better than a 12, when for the purposes of nearly every calculation they are the same.


It also provides a modicum of protection against things like ability drain. Would really suck if your character with Power Attack could no longer use it because they took a single point of Ability Drain. Or hit middle-age.

While this one is a valid point, it's quite easy to take 2 points of ability damage/drain too, so you're not protected against having to recalculate then either.

As for hitting middle age - by the time that happens your character should be well above the bare minimum stats for their feats. (Or alternatively, they've retired and so not being able to PA anymore doesn't matter.)

[Aotrs Commander]

Two reasons.
First, it's a feature from previous editions, because stat values are somewhat different and give different bonuses. Some features from 2e are "roll under stat" abilities(that is, if you have Dex 15, you need to roll 15 or lower to pass), which make odd numbers meaningful. The 3rd edition overhaul got rid of those altogether.

Second, it's a meaningful separation for rolled stats. Having a 13 is considerably better than a 12, because if you put it in Int you can get Combat Expertise, or if you put it in Str you can get Power Attack.

But it's not meaningful, because that limitation has been explicitly set up solely to give odd-number stats something to do. It is artifically creating a solution to a problem you created, in essense. Especially since there is, in 3.x not any mathmatical difference between 12 and 13 (like there would have been in AD&D with roll-under), except you have a slight bit more resistance to ability damage (but that's highly debatable whether that is worth losing a stat bonus you get all the times verses something that has, at best, a 50% chance of coming up IF you take damage to that particular stat).


If you don't have absolute control over your stats(and a considerable portion of people like rolling for them), it's not a net zero effect. Also, starting with an odd number on your best stat(say, you rolled a 17) is better than the equivalent even number because you'll get an increase(to an even 18) by level 4. If you normalize it, you will be forced to wait to level 8 to get your +4 stat bonus. This is also true in PB, if you expect the game to go from 4 to 7 for a small adventure, there's no reason to start with an 18.

I have STILL never got any understanding why both 3.x and PF thought it necesary to grade a linear scale on a graduated curve to begin with.

3.0 I can perhaps forgive because of the massive inertia of AD&D and the percieved ideas that things like free mutliclassing and Being Able To Have A Garenteed 18 (or even point-but at ALL) were apparently the worst forms of powergaming from some of their playtester's quarters.

But when we ditched rolling for stats - hell we don't even roll for hit points anymore, everyone just gets max - (because it ALWAYS meant the character were unbalanced and it ALWAYS favoured our resident dice god and so the DMs were forever having to let people reroll (even with 4D6 drop lowest and assign, which was all we ever used for even AD&D), I went straight to point-for-point, because I really, REALLY did not see why a 5% increase was evaluated as being non-linerarly better than the last 5% increase (other than "high stats are powergaming!") I shake my head at Pathfinder doing the same, even more so at Starfinder (which does give you point-for-point and THEN fundemetally gives you a useless stat point - from your trait - (because all level increases are in +2 unless you're above 18 and you can't start with higher than 18) apparently just the the sake of having an odd score).

I don't see odd stats as being a problem that the point at level 4 needs to solve, certainly not as opposed to a system where the character can just start out with an 18 at level 1 in the first place. It is a not useful player decision to make, in my opinion.





Making a character easier to make inherently gets rid of options for players, and most of the time these options are meaningful in some way.

Sorry, not sure what you mean by "making a character easier to make" and how it pertains to stats (arguably the least engaging bit of making a character).

If by "options" you mean "having stat randomisation place you in a position where you have to make the best of a bad job/spur your creativity (etc) like AD&D always tried to encourage in its examples," then that's an option I am honestly glad to see the back of, personally. I'd much rather decide EXACTLY what my character is and be able to have the fun of planning that than to sit around a table and have to deal what I'm given by RNG (especially as it invariably is pants1) - I just plain don't LIKE doing that. I mean, there's a reason I don't constitute that character I rolled up for Dungeon Crawl Classics as a proper character of mine, since my actual input was negliable. (I mean, in that game it's designed to be, but it doesn't exactly engender much in the way of attachement, is what I'm saying. I mean, frack, I named her after my favourite character's name backwards, because she's a forth-rate knock-off not even worth the ten seconds or so to come up with a unique name like literally ever other character I've ever had!)

(Also, speaking as someone who has basically written functionally an edition of hourseules at this point which has ramped up to 59 base classes (plus archtypes) and... (ball park estimate of) 2000+ feats and 3000+ spells (because it's non-trivial to count them all!), I think not having enough options is going to be very much the opposite of a problem for the players going foward and that the actual problem will be decisiion paralysis from option overload...!)





It also provides a modicum of protection against things like ability drain. Would really suck if your character with Power Attack could no longer use it because they took a single point of Ability Drain. Or hit middle-age.

That's the only arguement I can see for having odd stats at all (or, to be honest, stats at all, instead of just modifiers), but it doesn't have anything to do with prerequisites. If PA required Str 12 (or 14) instead of 13 and you had 12 (or 14), it'd be the same effect.

(Especially when compared to having another stat odd (and thus functionally giving you nothing) instead of one higher and one lower stat, which at least provides one extra bonus. One feels if you were that paranoid about ability damage to two particular ability scores, there are far better ways of handling it than suboptimal maths.)

I will note, I suppose, that age categories are apparently the only third thing (after inherent bonus and level-stat increases over 20th levels) that gives you +/1 1 to a stat... But as personally (as with basically ALL of the "Description" section of 3.x/PF), I completely ignore those rules (we simply don't use them), it was easy for me to miss that.




"We've always done it that way" isn't a good reason, rather it's a fallacy.

And yes, this does make a 13 better than a 12 - but that doesn't answer the question of why a 13 should be better than a 12, when for the purposes of nearly every calculation they are the same.



While this one is a valid point, it's quite easy to take 2 points of ability damage/drain too, so you're not protected against having to recalculate then either.

As for hitting middle age - by the time that happens your character should be well above the bare minimum stats for their feats. (Or alternatively, they've retired and so not being able to PA anymore doesn't matter.)

Basically what I was trying to say, though a lot more concise...!



1Naturally, the ONE and only character I rolled stats for that was actually well above average in thirty years of gaming was in a party that ended up being switched over to point-buy to even everything up. Figures it would be only time I might benefit from the system, unlike our resident dice-god.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kayblis
Also, starting with an odd number on your best stat(say, you rolled a 17) is better than the equivalent even number because you'll get an increase(to an even 18) by level 4.

This. Starting with odd-numbered stats gets you an earlier benefit from your +1 stat bonus at level 4. That’s a practical benefit that my fourth-level characters always appreciated, especially when it meant more bonus spells.

[MoiMagnus]

don't know about 5E
In 5e, whenever you get stat increase, you have a choice between a +2, a +1 and a small feat, or a big feat.

But to answer your questions, apart from rare cases (like ability drains), you could remove stats and only keep modifiers (which is equivalent to removing odd numbers) and most won't remark any difference outside of optimisation details.
[It makes character creation slightly more awkward if you're using dice rolls, but not absurd either]

The reason why prerequisite are odds are "so that odd numbers are useful". But this is a better reason than you might think.
A +1 to a stat every 4 levels is something new every 4 levels (either a bonus of modifier, either some feat unlocked).
A +1 to modifier (or +2 to stat) every 8 levels make those two bonuses synchronised, so you end up with more differences between "big levels" and "small levels". So this slightly contribute into the spacing of new features through levels.
[Not enough for them to be kept if I'd start to heavily homebrew the rules, though]

[Psyren]

This. Starting with odd-numbered stats gets you an earlier benefit from your +1 stat bonus at level 4. That’s a practical benefit that my fourth-level characters always appreciated, especially when it meant more bonus spells.

It's true that it feels more fun for the level 4 increase to do something meaningful - but it also means that a +5 stat tome later in your character's career has no benefit over a +4 one.

A character's most common stat increases while leveling are +5 base (from the levels themselves), +6 enhancement (from gear) and +5 again (from tomes/wishes) for a total of +16. As this is an even number, starting with an even number in your key stat is ultimately more satisfying, even if starting as the odd number feels better in the short run.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

On the one hand, clearly it doesn't add much to the game to have odd-numbered stats and a handful of effects and features dependent on them.

On the other hand, it doesn't really add much to be rid of it either. When house ruling in an older game like 3.5, inertia is a valid reason to keep things the way they are. There is a built-in cost to any change, and that's forcing people to re-learn the game for your table. But this is table-dependent; if a particular table really doesn't like the odd-stat stuff, then it shouldn't be too hard to say "anything with an odd-numbered ability prerequisite reduces that number by 1."

[Thurbane]

I feel that the odd stats for prerequsites come from rolling for stats: without fine-grained controll over your ability score distribution having SOMETHING to differentiate even from odd scores is better then nothing.

If you roll a 13 for Str it is clearly worse then a 14. But it is better then 12 because at least it let you qualify for feats.


Yeah, in a point-buy world, if feels superflous.

It would also apply if players were using the elite array.

Interesting point, I'd never thought of it before. It makes a certain deal of sense, that that is what the devs may have been thinking.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
…but it also means that a +5 stat tome later in your character's career has no benefit over a +4 one.

I’ve been playing 3.5 and PF for the past fifteen years and never once seen one of these, so this isn't relevant to my experience.

Meanwhile, that practical benefit from the fourth-level stat increase is something I’ve seen time and again. I’m happy to take that and not worry about the tomes.

[Kurald Galain]

A character's most common stat increases while leveling are +5 base (from the levels themselves), +6 enhancement (from gear) and +5 again (from tomes/wishes) for a total of +16. As this is an even number, starting with an even number in your key stat is ultimately more satisfying, even if starting as the odd number feels better in the short run.
No, a character's most common stat increases are +2 or +3 from levels and +2 or +4 from gear. Because, you know, far more characters play at level 4 than ever get to level 20.

I do note that, even with point buy, it is very very rare for any of my characters to have a 13 or 15 in any stat. I do often start with a 17 or 19 primary at level 1, though.

Let's face it, other than Power Attack there are really not all that many worthwhile feats requiring a 13 or 15.

[Segev]

I don't know... I find the argument that "it's just there to make odd stats feel useful" is a bit like saying "we only have equipment so gp feel useful." It's true, yes, but...it's not really saying anything unless you already are coming at it with the idea, "I don't like odd stats, so they shouldn't be useful."

Having prerequisites key off odd stats and numeric bonuses key off even stats is actually pretty nice design, and akin to having feats every odd level and class features every even level (as some PF classes do with Talents or Blade Skills or the like). The real argument I see here is that feats are not going far enough, and that more things keying off of ability score requirements would be useful design space to fill.

Now, if you're looking to eliminate odd ability scores, sure, you could say it's fine to change feat prerequisites by dropping them to match the ability modifier thresholds, then cut ability values in half (or something similar). But if you wanted to eliminate ability score modifiers and just use ability scores for prerequisites, you could also drop them by one and cut them in half.

In short, I think it's fine as-is, and if anything, you could open more design-space if you made more things that keyed off ability scores and they keyed off odd ones.

Even in point-buy land, if you really want that feat that keys off 15 Dex, 15 Dex is less expensive than 16, but more expensive than 14, so you're paying something to get it. Not everyone with +2 dex mod gets that feat, or even can.

[Psyren]

No, a character's most common stat increases are +2 or +3 from levels and +2 or +4 from gear. Because, you know, far more characters play at level 4 than ever get to level 20.

In which case you're still likely getting an odd number (+1) from a tome. I'd say the majority of characters still end up with an overall even increase from adding these categories together.



I do note that, even with point buy, it is very very rare for any of my characters to have a 13 or 15 in any stat. I do often start with a 17 or 19 primary at level 1, though.

I prefer to start with a 16 or 18 (or 20/22 depending on racial bonuses), because even if I'm not going to end up at level 20 I like to build with that possibility in mind. Most people do, even if they never get there, because 20 levels are intuitive.


Let's face it, other than Power Attack there are really not all that many worthwhile feats requiring a 13 or 15.

The question is, why are there any? For those that exist, 12 and 14 would make more sense. Power Attack could say something like "positive strength modifier" as its requirement for example, and that would be a lot more intuitive than "13 Str". Nobody would question a requirement like that for power attack, and threads like this one wouldn't exist.


I’ve been playing 3.5 and PF for the past fifteen years and never once seen one of these, so this isn't relevant to my experience.

In PF, even a fighter can craft them. That you chose not to is on you.

[Segev]

The question is, why are there any? For those that exist, 12 and 14 would make more sense.

I think this is presuming the conclusion.

Why would 12 and 14 make more sense? Because you've already decided that having odd stats is silly and even stats are the only meaningful breakpoints.

Why is that the case? Because even stats are where your stat bonus changes, and that's the only thing that matters.

What about the counterexample of feats having odd stat prereqs?

Well, they shouldn't, because even stat prereqs would make more sense.

Why would even stat prereqs make more sense? Because it's silly to have odd stat prereqs. Why is it silly to have odd stat prereqs? Because even stats are where your bonus changes, and that's the only thing that matters about stats. What about the counterexample of feats having odd stat prereqs? Well, they shouldn't, because even stat prereqs would make more sense. Why would even stat prereqs make more sense? Because it's silly to have odd stat prereqs. Why is it silly to have odd stat prereqs? Because even stats are where your bonus changes, and that's the only thing that matters about stats. What about the counterexample of feats having odd stat prereqs? Well, they shouldn't, because even stat prereqs would make more sense. Why would even stat prereqs make more sense? Because it's silly to have odd stat prereqs. Why is it silly to have odd stat prereqs? Because even stats are where your bonus changes, and that's the only thing that matters about stats. What about the counterexample of feats having odd stat prereqs? Well, they shouldn't, because even stat prereqs would make more sense. Why would even stat prereqs make more sense? Because it's silly to have odd stat prereqs. Why is it silly to have odd stat prereqs? Because even stats are where your bonus changes, and that's the only thing that matters about stats. What about the counterexample of feats having odd stat prereqs? Well, they shouldn't, because even stat prereqs would make more sense. Why would even stat prereqs make more sense? Because it's silly to have odd stat prereqs. Why is it silly to have odd stat prereqs? Because even stats are where your bonus changes, and that's the only thing that matters about stats.

[Aotrs Commander]

This. Starting with odd-numbered stats gets you an earlier benefit from your +1 stat bonus at level 4. That’s a practical benefit that my fourth-level characters always appreciated, especially when it meant more bonus spells.

That's more poor design on starting stat values, though.

(Yes, I am going to go record and say that I think both rolling for stats and non-linear points buys are both poor design choices; one adds too much standardisation and the other tries to cost a linear function on a curve whee 50% of the valaues are fundementally statisically insignificant to the other half.)




Let's face it, other than Power Attack there are really not all that many worthwhile feats requiring a 13 or 15.

My preliminary attempts at find/replace on my feat list (before I stopped, considered and made this thread) suggested that the number across all six stats numbers suggests that about 400 replacements using find/replace the 2300-ish feats on my list (which is of sufficient size as to warrent likely a fair proportional representation across either 3.5 or PF). Obviously, that's not 400 feats (some feats have more than one, some of that might be page numbers etc. etc), but I would confidently say that would be a good 8-10% of feats, which is statistically significant.




Because even stats are where your stat bonus changes, and that's the only thing that matters.

Yes, it is, because the odd numbers are mathmatically redundant in a feature (stat) which is SOLELY DEFINED on generating mathmatical significance (i.e your ability bonus) except in TWO specific circumstances mechanically: ability damage and in the explicit case of Strength, carrying capacity (which I note, no-one else mentioned as point in favour).

At no other point in gameplay does an odd stat make any difference to an even one, aside from the - as you point out - arbitatary decision to make all preqs odd stat requirements. Which one increasingly feels is just likely another legacy from AD&D that has just been so prevalent (and so insignificant) as to not really warrent much discussion.

Except those started by idiots who are several hundreds of pages into rules-smithing (even odds of breaking the 1000 barrier at this point...) and even when actually approaching finishing keep finding more things to look at, since it's geninuely habit-forming when you've been doing it for 5-6 nights a week for nine months.

Seriously, I might have actually given myself A Problem.




I should note that I probably won't, after consideration, be arsed to make the change (since it would mean making sure I checked and added EVERY feat that has one of those to the feats document - because if it's been changed, it has to go in the document, that's the rule and it's probably not worth the effort.)

Probably.

Maybe.

Ah, hell if I know at this point, if the lockdown carries on and I don't have the impetus to actually STOP because I actually have get ready to PRINT this stuff to take down to the club...

[Segev]

Yes, it is, because the odd numbers are mathmatically redundant in a feature (stat) which is SOLELY DEFINED on generating mathmatical significance (i.e your ability bonus) except in TWO specific circumstances mechanically: ability damage and in the explicit case of Strength, carrying capacity (which I note, no-one else mentioned as point in favour).

At no other point in gameplay does an odd stat make any difference to an even one, aside from the - as you point out - arbitatary decision to make all preqs odd stat requirements.

"The differences between elves and humans don't matter, except for the fact that elves have a bonus to dex and a penalty to con, and that elves get bonus weapon proficiencies and humans don't, and humas get a feat, and all those other differences. At no other point besides those differences does being an elf matter vs being a human, aside from the arbitrary decision to make elves not vulenrable to magical sleep."

I'm not trying to strawman you, here, but this seems to me to be the same logic. "Aside from all these ways that odd stats matter, only even stats matter, except for this one thing I'm arguing should be changed because only even stats matter."

I know it sounds reasonable to you to say that, but I think it's because you're biased by your conclusion. You decided odd stats didn't matter, then dismissed some exceptions, and decided they SHOULDN'T matter, and now are annoyed that they do in this case you hadn't (yet) dismissed, and are trying to insist that this case is stupid because it's an outlier after you dismiss all these other outliers.

Pick any debate topic, and I can construct an argument that makes whichever side you care to assign me "obviously" right by dismissing all the ways the opposing side can raise objections as "exceptions" that are not relevant.

[Knaight]

I'd suggest a deeper issue. If you're going to try and fit a +4 to -4 bonus system on a 3-18 attribute system you're going to end up with dead points, there's no way around it (though you can mess with what these are). The obvious solution there is to either drop the +4 to -4 bonus system in favor of a mechanic that makes every number matter, or - and this would be my recommendation - drop the 3-18 attributes in favor of a -4 to +4. Obviously that gets extended on its upper end and can drop to -5 in extreme cases PCs won't see, which also suggests the possibility of running a +1 to +9 system instead. These are starting values; later in the game much higher can be reached.

However it's important for the brand of D&D that it feel like D&D. That's a subtle thing with a lot of shifting factors that vary by person, but dropping 3d6 or 3d6 adjacent rolling systems and an attribute scale that fits them was not going to happen. So instead you get some vestigial mechanics as justification, all of which are minimal enough that they just kind of feel like easily removed excess. The 13 and 15 prereq feats are among those.

Especially given that the people who find those feats useful are overwhelmingly also the people who have a much higher number in the stat. There's some pretty decent archery feats that have 13 or 15 dex requirements, but if you're playing an archer you've probably got more than 15 dex.

[Kayblis]

If your argument is "The only difference is the difference between them", yeah, that's a logical truth. Doesn't mean anything though.

You also have odd stats mattering for spellcasting, you need to have at least 10+(spell lv) to cast. That also interacts with the ability damage system which already uses odd numbers. The more you look, the more edge cases appear that use odd stats.

This is honestly a fruitless exercise, because it stems from taste alone which is bound to change. If you want to change it, you'd be rewriting at least a couple systems either from scratch or from arbitrary values. Then if you get rid of odd stats, there's no reason to have only even stats, a dumb "10, 12, 14, 16..." progression that only exists because it stems from a previous system malfunction(which is the reason you're taking away odd numbers in the first place). Then you may start at an arbitrary 5 to represent the earlier arbitrary 10, Then having stats at all is meaningless and you could use only modifiers, and the problem compounds more and more because "this is dumb design" will crop up at every turn.

[Yogibear41]

Standard Array + Elite Array is probably why 13 is the magic number for many feats.

[Psyren]

I think this is presuming the conclusion.

Why would 12 and 14 make more sense? Because you've already decided that having odd stats is silly and even stats are the only meaningful breakpoints.

Why is that the case? Because even stats are where your stat bonus changes, and that's the only thing that matters.

What about the counterexample of feats having odd stat prereqs?

Well, they shouldn't, because even stat prereqs would make more sense.

(snipped spam)

What I'm arguing for is consistency. Even stats are the ones that matter everywhere else, feat qualifications being the only difference serves no purpose.

[Esprit15]

What I'm arguing for is consistency. Even stats are the ones that matter everywhere else, feat qualifications being the only difference serves no purpose.

And for spells.

Also, odd numbers come from the fact that stats at least normally were supposed to be generated by dice roll. In a point buy system, there is less logic to it, but in a dice roll system, it makes some level of sense. Some of us still actually do that, after all.

[Nifft]

And for spells.

Also, odd numbers come from the fact that stats at least normally were supposed to be generated by dice roll. In a point buy system, there is less logic to it, but in a dice roll system, it makes some level of sense. Some of us still actually do that, after all. Yeah.

3.0e and 3.5e PHBs didn't even include point buy as an option. You were told to roll.

Also, some non-DMG variants of point buy increased the point cost on the evens, rather than on the odds. (That's also how Pathfinder does it (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores).) In those systems, you might optimally buy a few odd starting stats.

[Bohandas]

I think the bigger question is why the fractiinal bonuses from Unearthed Arcana weren't the default system

[Psyren]

And for spells.

Also, odd numbers come from the fact that stats at least normally were supposed to be generated by dice roll. In a point buy system, there is less logic to it, but in a dice roll system, it makes some level of sense. Some of us still actually do that, after all.

I don't see how dice rolls matter for this. If the requirement on a feat is 12 and you rolled a 13, you still qualify.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I mean, odd stats should get something... If anything, more benefits would be nice, not less.

Like...why are ability checks made using the bonus? Why not just add the entire ability score to the roll (adjusting DCs accordingly; or even just do it only for opposed checks like initiative), so an odd score has a tangible benefit there?

[Segev]

What I'm arguing for is consistency. Even stats are the ones that matter everywhere else, feat qualifications being the only difference serves no purpose.

Except you’re only arguing for consistency if you ignore all the things that you label “exceptions” that odd stats work with, around, on, or for.

Consistency doesn’t mean “everything must adjust at the same breakpoints.” It means you use the same logic throughout.

Spell level requirements are consistent: you must have 10+ spell level to cast a spell; this uses odd numbers.

Feat requirements being odd stat values is consistent.

Bonuses changing on even values is consistent.

It doesn’t increase consistency to change things to use the same stat breakpoints when they’re different things. It may please you, aesthetically, but it isn’t necessarily a good thing, and certainly isn’t necessary for “consistency.”

[Kurald Galain]

I think this is presuming the conclusion.

Why would 12 and 14 make more sense? Because you've already decided that having odd stats is silly and even stats are the only meaningful breakpoints.

Why is that the case? Because even stats are where your stat bonus changes, and that's the only thing that matters.

That's a fair point, actually.

I've seen people argue that The Six Stats are wrong because int is meaningless except for skills; and the counterargument to that is that int is not meaningless because of skills.

I'm sure our hard-core forumites are used to thinking of stats in terms of +1 to +X modifier, but to the average player it is more intuitive to see 3-18 (or 1-20) as the spread of human ability. Changing this is viewed as a necessity in forums for every edition change and yet it never happens. So given that these values exist, why not make use of them?

[Endarire]

My understanding was odd stats as prereqs were to incentivize playing non-Humans for the stat bonuses, and as a point buy tax, especially in low point buys.

[Bohandas]

Like...why are ability checks made using the bonus? Why not just add the entire ability score to the roll (adjusting DCs accordingly; or even just do it only for opposed checks like initiative), so an odd score has a tangible benefit there?

That at least is explainable. Presumably it would vary too much if they used the full score. Without halving it it would have 15 points of variation vs only a 20 sided die. The more pressing question, again, is why the bonus is half the score rounded down and minus five, rather than simply half the score.

[Segev]

That at least is explainable. Presumably it would vary too much if they used the full score. Without halving it it would have 15 points of variation vs only a 20 sided die. The more pressing question, again, is why the bonus is half the score rounded down and minus five, rather than simply half the score.

This goes into how mechanics "feel."

There's no mathematical difference between stat modifiers running from -5 to +5 against DCs that range from 10 to 30, and stat modifiers that run from 0 to +10 against DCs that range from 15 to 35.

However, having a stat modifier of "+0" when you have a "human average" stat says that the modifiers reflect how much better or worse than "average" you are. Specifically human average. An elf is 5% better at archery, stealth, and dodging than a human. On average. He's also 5% worse at resisting poison and running long distances. By having the +0 be the "baseline" rather than having +10 be the "baseline," it feels more like you're above or below average than it would if it was just a question of how big your bonus was overall.

It's an emotional resonance thing, not a math thing.

[Psyren]

That's a fair point, actually.

I've seen people argue that The Six Stats are wrong because int is meaningless except for skills; and the counterargument to that is that int is not meaningless because of skills.

Except Int is meaningful for more than that. Intelligence is easily grokkable to newcomers to D&D, it's how smart their character is / how likely they are to know something in the game. Even if there were no skills in the game at all, there would still be int checks, both for defined purposes (like recognizing a scrying sensor) but also simply for players to ask "can I see what my character knows about {monster/organization/ability/device/other}?" and then roll it.

It's a bad analogy because odd numbers have no inherent or intuitive value over even numbers.



I'm sure our hard-core forumites are used to thinking of stats in terms of +1 to +X modifier, but to the average player it is more intuitive to see 3-18 (or 1-20) as the spread of human ability. Changing this is viewed as a necessity in forums for every edition change and yet it never happens. So given that these values exist, why not make use of them?

Because everything else in the game (that cares about stats at all) cares about the even ones - from checks to bonus spells to breakpoints in point buy calculations etc. So while you could contrive additional places besides feats for the odd numbers to matter, for my money it's a lot less work to simply take every odd feat requirement and apply a blanket -1 to all of them.

[Segev]

Except Int is meaningful for more than that. Intelligence is easily grokkable to newcomers to D&D, it's how smart their character is / how likely they are to know something in the game. Even if there were no skills in the game at all, there would still be int checks, both for defined purposes (like recognizing a scrying sensor) but also simply for players to ask "can I see what my character knows about {monster/organization/ability/device/other}?" and then roll it.

It's a bad analogy because odd numbers have no inherent or intuitive value over even numbers. But having both odd and even numbers is far more intuitive than having stats only be even numbers.

And if your response to that is, "I never said get rid of the odd numbered stats," all I can say is that I'm having trouble seeing a benefit to making odd numbered stats "dead" stats if you're not trying to remove them.

This whole thing predicates on an argument that I don't think I'm being unfair when I characterize as being akin to, "Nobody goes to [famous restaurant] anymore; it's always too crowded." Because it really seems to come down to, "Odd-numbered stats aren't used for anything (except the things they're used for), so they shouldn't be used for feat prerequisites."

Saying, "But Intelligence has meaning," is literally the same argument I can make about odd numbered stats. There's nothing "intuitive" about stats at all by the logic being used, and yet we see people grasp the concept very quickly: stats are numbers representing how good you are in certain ways. Odd-numbered ones representing something worthwhile IS intuitive, until you focus on stat bonuses and decide that those are the only thing that matters for stats. at which point you dismiss all the things odd-numbered stats are used for as exceptions, outliers, or "unintuitive." Or whatever word you choose to dismiss it with.


Because everything else in the game (that cares about stats at all) cares about the even ones - from checks to bonus spells to breakpoints in point buy calculations etc. So while you could contrive additional places besides feats for the odd numbers to matter, for my money it's a lot less work to simply take every odd feat requirement and apply a blanket -1 to all of them....except that that's not true, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread. The feats themselves are a counterexample. Spell levels are a counterexample. Everything that adds odd numbers of stat points is a counterexample.

Yes, the even-numbered stats are "stronger" breakpoints than the odd-numbered ones, by and large, but saying that means they obviously should be the only ones that matter at all is like saying we should remove fighters' bonus feats and reduce them to all poor saves and a 1/2 BAB progression, and add fighter bonus feats and 1:1 BAB progression to wizards.

Things are fine, regarding stats, as they are now. There's nothing to "fix." There's nothing broken about feats using odd-valued stat prereqs. There's nothing wrong with the odd numbered casting stats being important for the same reason even-numbered ones are wrt spellcasting. Unless you're planning to strip stats out of the game and replace them with the bonuses as "the new stats," there's no need to force everything to work off even stats. And there's no reason to do that massive change to stats, either. It's hardly the part of the game that's so complicated it drives off new players by itself.

[Psyren]

"Odd-numbered stats aren't used for anything (except the things they're used for), so they shouldn't be used for feat prerequisites."

My argument is "odd numbers are only used for one arbitrary thing, while even numbers are used for literally everything else - why not have consistency instead?"

It's irrelevant in any case, the odd numbered requirements are what they are and I can (and sometimes do) change that at my table. I'm bored with going in endless circles about it.

[Esprit15]

My argument is "odd numbers are only used for one arbitrary thing, while even numbers are used for literally everything else - why not have consistency instead?"

It's irrelevant in any case, the odd numbered requirements are what they are and I can (and sometimes do) change that at my table. I'm bored with going in endless circles about it.

They are used for spells. They are used for feat requirements. Some effects only add +1 to a stat instead of +2. Carrying capacity improves with every point of Strength.

Could all of these things be changed if the d20 stat system was abandoned? Sure. If you're not doing that though, why does Power Attack becoming available at 13 Strength instead of 12 or 14 matter?

[Zombimode]

Like...why are ability checks made using the bonus? Why not just add the entire ability score to the roll (adjusting DCs accordingly; or even just do it only for opposed checks like initiative), so an odd score has a tangible benefit there?

Because skill checks are ability checks? In fact all ability based checks (including initiative, bull rush, trip, etc.) work the same way. Why on earth would you rip "pure" ability checks out of this mold, create a new set of meaning of DCs (since a DC 20 "Str check" would not have the same meaning as a DC 20 anything else check), and make it very difficult to blend skill and ability checks?

[Psyren]

They are used for spells. They are used for feat requirements. Some effects only add +1 to a stat instead of +2. Carrying capacity improves with every point of Strength.

What spells? All the ones that adjust your stats do so in even increments - bull's strength, beast shape, divine power etc.
Strength is the only stat that cares about odd increments besides feat reqs, so that's one other use case for 1/6 of the stats we use.


Could all of these things be changed if the d20 stat system was abandoned? Sure. If you're not doing that though, why does Power Attack becoming available at 13 Strength instead of 12 or 14 matter?

I fail to see how "adjust odd feat requirements by -1" could possibly be equated to "abandoning the d20 stat system." Extreme much? :smallconfused:

[Kayblis]

What spells? All the ones that adjust your stats do so in even increments - bull's strength, beast shape, divine power etc.
Strength is the only stat that cares about odd increments besides feat reqs, so that's one other use case for 1/6 of the stats we use.

It's been noted again and again in this thread, at this point one can question if you're being honest. But, on the off-chance you've not been reading others' responses, here's a list of things that use odd stats so far, with an extra one:
-Feat prerequisites (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, the TWF line, Uncanny Forethought, and many many others)
-Carrying capacity for Strength
-Minimum stat required to cast a spell (10+[Spell lv])
-Holding your breath (you can hold your breath for a number of rounds equal to twice your Con score, the actual number. This is essential for fighting underwater or under some special effects)

Then there are the interactions, which are both important to the game and to the players. The already mentioned, and repeated again and again, being ability damage and stat increases. Both interact directly with the above mentioned features. Your Wizard can lose access to 5th level spells if your Int drops to 14. You can lose access to ITWF if your Dex drops to 16. Those are not edge cases. Those are common mechanics.

Odd ability score bonuses are NOT irrelevant. In fact, from your own admission, the most common and most important stat boosts in the game are Level bonuses, Enchantment bonuses, and Inherent bonuses. Of these three, two of them work in an odd increment basis. It's really dumb to assume people only care about the final max boost at 20. You're on a crusade led completely by personal distaste for smething that's an integral part of the system.

[calam]

You can also run based on your constitution score so there's another odd number use for constitution. Out of all stats I think the one that doesn't have a use for each point like that is dexterity (well I guess you only have use for mental stats of 11,13,15,17 and 19 most of the time and even then only if you're a caster).

[Psyren]

-Feat prerequisites (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, the TWF line, Uncanny Forethought, and many many others)

This is the actual topic we're discussing, so it doesn't count and is a tautology.


-Carrying capacity for Strength

I covered that in my post.


-Minimum stat required to cast a spell (10+[Spell lv])

You want an even number here anyway for both DCs and bonus spells, so this is irrelevant.


-Holding your breath (you can hold your breath for a number of rounds equal to twice your Con score, the actual number. This is essential for fighting underwater or under some special effects)

One extra round is hardly noticeable here, this could easily have been based on your modifier too.


In fact, from your own admission, the most common and most important stat boosts in the game are Level bonuses, Enchantment bonuses, and Inherent bonuses. Of these three, two of them work in an odd increment basis.

Yes, there are TWO of them. Hey, guess what happens when you add two odd numbers together?

Anyway, like I said - my "crusade" as you put it isn't going to change what's in your rulebooks, I was merely answering the OP's request for opinions on the matter. The use cases for odd numbers are largely needless and niche, that's my opinion, asked and answered.

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair, the notion that odd ability scores should be entirely irrelevant is picked up in 4E, and 5E, and P2. Basically, they're saying that ability modifiers are the only thing that matters, and the scores are merely paying lip service to a sacred cow. But that's not the approach in 3E/P1.

[Kayblis]

You want an even number here anyway for both DCs and bonus spells, so this is irrelevant.



One extra round is hardly noticeable here, this could easily have been based on your modifier too.



Yes, there are TWO of them. Hey, guess what happens when you add two odd numbers together?


I see now you're not open to discussion at all. You already picked your side, and no amount of truth can change that. "You could have a bigger stat" is honestly so bad it doesn't even deserve attention. The granularity of boosts is lost on you because it doesn't help your cause, so you dismiss it as "hurr durr I can add them". You'll probably never address the ability damage point as well, because it doesn't help your cause. By now you'd probably answer the 5th-level spells example with "just have a higher stat to not lose spells" or something on that line. I'll stop banging my head against that brick wall now.

[Segev]

This is the actual topic we're discussing, so it doesn't count and is a tautology.



I covered that in my post.



You want an even number here anyway for both DCs and bonus spells, so this is irrelevant.



One extra round is hardly noticeable here, this could easily have been based on your modifier too.



Yes, there are TWO of them. Hey, guess what happens when you add two odd numbers together?

Anyway, like I said - my "crusade" as you put it isn't going to change what's in your rulebooks, I was merely answering the OP's request for opinions on the matter. The use cases for odd numbers are largely needless and niche, that's my opinion, asked and answered.
And this, Psyren, is basically saying, "Except for all the ways they're used, they're never used aside from for feat prerequisites. Therefore, it's stupid that feat prerequisites use them." If you feel this is not true, please explain how what I've quoted you above as saying does not amount to "Except for all the ways they're used, and the one I am arguing needs to be changed...." Because I genuinely don't see any difference other than a simplification.

You have to dismiss... at least 4 things in this post in order to say the 5th is "the only thing." And you then dismiss that "only thing" as a tautology because it's what's being discussed. 5 things integrated into the system is not "never," and dismissing 4 of them to make one of them "the only case, therefore it should be changed" doesn't a sound, convincing argument make.

[Psyren]

I see now you're not open to discussion at all. You already picked your side, and no amount of truth can change that.

The thread is about what "should be", so pointing to the way things currently are and yelling "truth!" is missing the point. Obviously it's true that odd numbers have a smattering of use cases now, the question on the table is should they - particularly where feat requirements are concerned.


I'll stop banging my head against that brick wall now.

Irony. Very well.


To be fair, the notion that odd ability scores should be entirely irrelevant is picked up in 4E, and 5E, and P2. Basically, they're saying that ability modifiers are the only thing that matters, and the scores are merely paying lip service to a sacred cow. But that's not the approach in 3E/P1.

And even in the case of P1, we got things like Dirty Fighting that intentionally go around some of these odd feat requirements anyway.

[Segev]

The thread is about what "should be", so pointing to the way things currently are and yelling "truth!" is missing the point. Obviously it's true that odd numbers have a smattering of use cases now, the question on the table is should they - particularly where feat requirements are concerned.

The issue is that you're resting your case for, "They shouldn't," on the notion that it's the only thing that odd numbered stats are used for. Since that is factually false, your case for "they shouldn't" is dismissable without consideration.

My intuition is that you want to do away with odd numbered stats mattering at all. But you haven't made a case for that. Perhaps I'm wrong, and that's not what you want to do.

But there's no good reason why feats should not use odd-numbered stats for their prerequisites. You haven't laid out any case that I recall reading other than, "It's dumb that they're the only thing that uses odd-numbered stats."

Even were that a true assertion (and people have spent many pixels pointing out that "they're the only thing that uses odd-numbered stats" is not true), you've also not actually supported the notion that having odd-numbered stats matter only for feat prerequisites is, itself, a problem that needs solving.

You need to lay out a case for WHY it "should be" that feats use even-numbered stat prerequisites. Even if we accepted - which we don't - your assertion that feat prerequisites are an outlier, what is wrong with them being an outlier? What problem does it cause? Why should it be any different?

You've yet to make a case beyond aesthetics, and even that case is flawed because of how much you have to dismiss to even start to build it. And the aesthetics you argue for don't seem particularly persuasive; they're pretty subjective.

[Kurald Galain]

"Except for all the ways they're used, they're never used aside from for feat prerequisites. Therefore, it's stupid that feat prerequisites use them."

What have the Romans ever done for us? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo)

[Twurps]

I don't see how dice rolls matter for this. If the requirement on a feat is 12 and you rolled a 13, you still qualify.

Let me help you there: If the requirement was 13, and you rolled a 12: you don't qualify.

[Psyren]

I guess, Segev, that I view "four small use cases" instead of "one small use case" as being semantic. But fine, I'll own that.

Among those small use cases though, there is a benefit to this kind of granularity. 13 Str being able to carry a little more stuff than 12 is both intuitive, and is an inherent benefit that offsets the 13's higher point-buy cost. Feat requirements meanwhile are a cost, and totally arbitrary - there is no negative impact (balance or otherwise) to Power Attack needing a 12 instead of a 13, for example, except that we get more possible builds. It's also more intuitive - "oh, I need a 12 because I need to be stronger than average to be able to power attack, as represented by my +1 modifier breakpoint." Simple and clean.

The only reason I can think of for Power Attack needing a 13 is to... punish people who haven't invested more than the minimum in Strength to be considered "stronger than average?" I guess?


Let me help you there: If the requirement was 13, and you rolled a 12: you don't qualify.

You're right, how did i miss that. Close up shop people, thread over.

[Segev]

I guess, Segev, that I view "four small use cases" instead of "one small use case" as being semantic. But fine, I'll own that.

Among those small use cases though, there is a benefit to this kind of granularity. 13 Str being able to carry a little more stuff than 12 is both intuitive, and is an inherent benefit that offsets the 13's higher point-buy cost. Feat requirements meanwhile are a cost, and totally arbitrary - there is no negative impact (balance or otherwise) to Power Attack needing a 12 instead of a 13, for example, except that we get more possible builds. It's also more intuitive - "oh, I need a 12 because I need to be stronger than average to be able to power attack, as represented by my +1 modifier breakpoint." Simple and clean.Up to here, my response is primarily, "There's no benefit to knocking it down to 12, either, except that now there's less reason to have a 13. Granularity is nice when it makes things useful that are going to be there anyway."

However, following on with this:


The only reason I can think of for Power Attack needing a 13 is to... punish people who haven't invested more than the minimum in Strength to be considered "stronger than average?" I guess?
I think I see what your desire is based on this proposed directly for the "rounding." You want all people with +1 stat mod to power attack. (Probably other similar arguments for other feats, but let's focus on power attack for the moment.)

If somebody were to come along and say, "You know what, I agree: it's silly to have odd-numbered prerequisites. And who seriously takes Power Attack with a mere 13 Strength? It should be 14 as the prerequisite," would you find that a pleasing argument, or one you opposed? I suspect the latter, because the thing that I think is revealing is this statement: "there is no negative impact (balance or otherwise) to Power Attack needing a 12 instead of a 13, for example, except that we get more possible builds." Which admittedly is in the other quote block, but I think gives context to the latter block.

I think, though, the reason I just plain disagree with you here is that I don't see a problem with there being a difference between a 12-strength meleeist and a 13-strength meleeist that includes whether or not he can learn to power attack. You can phrase any prerequisite as "punishing" players or characters for not meeting them, so while the language is loaded, I don't find it persuasive.

Is, "I want to take Power Attack, but I only have a 12 Strength," really a use-case you see even come up that often? I ask not to dispute the surface argument about odd-numbered stats, but to turn it around and ask, "Why not make the prerequisite 14?"

[Psyren]

Up to here, my response is primarily, "There's no benefit to knocking it down to 12, either, except that now there's less reason to have a 13."

Yes - and I think (hope) I've made it abundantly clear that I don't find the other reasons for a 13 compelling anyway. If other people do, that's fine, we're talking opinions after all.


Is, "I want to take Power Attack, but I only have a 12 Strength," really a use-case you see even come up that often? I ask not to dispute the surface argument about odd-numbered stats, but to turn it around and ask, "Why not make the prerequisite 14?"

For Power Attack? No, because most folks who care about Power Attack to begin with are strength-based melee, so they end up being much higher than that. So it was just an example. (Of course, that means the 13 Str requirement usually doesn't matter either.)

But one that does matter, and comes up quite a lot more is Combat Expertise needing 13 Int. There are a lot of builds that can't spare more than a 12 to Int, because a +1 mod covers all the other inherent benefits (1 extra skill rank and language, not having to roleplay that they're dull or simple-minded) they could be going after. In fact, this case came up so often that Paizo literally created Dirty Fighting (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dirty-fighting-combat/) just to patch it out of the system entirely without simply errataing it to nothingness. Granted, you can use Dirty Fighting with a negative modifier as easily as you can with a 12 - but again, there are inherent reasons to want a positive modifier to your intelligence without needing it to be higher than a 12 too.

[Bohandas]

This goes into how mechanics "feel."

There's no mathematical difference between stat modifiers running from -5 to +5 against DCs that range from 10 to 30, and stat modifiers that run from 0 to +10 against DCs that range from 15 to 35.

However, having a stat modifier of "+0" when you have a "human average" stat says that the modifiers reflect how much better or worse than "average" you are. Specifically human average. An elf is 5% better at archery, stealth, and dodging than a human. On average. He's also 5% worse at resisting poison and running long distances. By having the +0 be the "baseline" rather than having +10 be the "baseline," it feels more like you're above or below average than it would if it was just a question of how big your bonus was overall.

It's an emotional resonance thing, not a math thing.

No, I'm pretty sure D&D just historically has a thing for unnecessarily complicated and unintuitive mechanics. Like how 2e had THAC0, to give another example

[Nifft]

No, I'm pretty sure D&D just historically has a thing for unnecessarily complicated and unintuitive mechanics. Like how 2e had THAC0, to give another example

IMHO every edition is a reaction to the previous metagame.

oD&D's absurd-looking tables were probably a reaction to tabletop wargames that preceded oD&D.

Much of 2e's silliness was a reaction to the complicated look-up tables that populated 1e and oD&D.

3e systematized and regularized a bunch of unrelated 2e mechanics (proficiency, attack, saving throw, thief skills) into a unified mechanic, and then had to deal with the unexpected consequences of those changes.


Every change makes some kind of sense in the context of the previous system -- it's just that by the time you make all the changes, you're not in the previous system any more, and the new emergent system has its own complexity which causes new frustrations, and demands new changes.

[Segev]

Yes - and I think (hope) I've made it abundantly clear that I don't find the other reasons for a 13 compelling anyway. If other people do, that's fine, we're talking opinions after all.That's fair. I do not share your opinion, but everyone is entitled to their own.


But one that does matter, and comes up quite a lot more is Combat Expertise needing 13 Int. There are a lot of builds that can't spare more than a 12 to Int, because a +1 mod covers all the other inherent benefits (1 extra skill rank and language, not having to roleplay that they're dull or simple-minded) they could be going after. In fact, this case came up so often that Paizo literally created Dirty Fighting (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dirty-fighting-combat/) just to patch it out of the system entirely without simply errataing it to nothingness. Granted, you can use Dirty Fighting with a negative modifier as easily as you can with a 12 - but again, there are inherent reasons to want a positive modifier to your intelligence without needing it to be higher than a 12 too.
Why can't you "spare" the extra point into Int, but need Combat Expertise so badly? Heck, why is Combat Expertise predicated on Int in the first place? Why not Dex, like every other "I get dodgier" feat? I'm not actually saying it should change; I'm legitimately asking questions. It seems to me that a lot of times, people come at a problem they perceive and attack the wrong thing. It may or may not even fix what they really care about.

Dirty Fighting may not be a patch so much as just a solid replacement.

[Psyren]

Why can't you "spare" the extra point into Int, but need Combat Expertise so badly?

Low point-buy games exist, as do races with penalties. I find it hard to believe that Orc Fighters are somehow worse at/less likely to trip someone or throw sand into their eyes, yet that's exactly what the 3.5 and PF math/mechanics are telling me.


Heck, why is Combat Expertise predicated on Int in the first place? Why not Dex, like every other "I get dodgier" feat? I'm not actually saying it should change; I'm legitimately asking questions.

In Pathfinder at least, the answer would have simply been "we're continuing 3.5 and don't want to invalidate anyone's existing 3.5 characters."

In 3.5 - I wasn't there, no idea.


Dirty Fighting may not be a patch so much as just a solid replacement.

Only errata could have replaced Combat Expertise, but again, they didn't want to mess up anyone's existing characters. So we got a patch.

[Aotrs Commander]

Heck, why is Combat Expertise predicated on Int in the first place?

That is a far better question, one feels; having gone through so much of PF, the amount of bending over backwards to give classes like Brawler and Swashbuckler class features specifically to let them qualify for Combat Expertise suggests that is a serious flaw in Combat Expertise's pre-reqs itself.

And I just checked through my list. Now, granted, this doesn't cover all of 3.5 (though most of the extended core (i.e. the non-setting splats)) and a fair chunk of PF.

I wasn't wrong; there was ONE, repeat ONE, feat that was a Combat Feat/Fighter Bonus Feat that had a requirement of Int 13 that was NOT also requiring Combat Expertise (Focussed Shot, and THAT had an Int requirement for the obvious reason that it applied your Int bonus to ranged damage on a Attack action.) All the other feats that had Int 13 as a requirement were not combat feats. So those class features? And Dirty Fighting? Exist SOLELY for the benefit of getting around Combat Expertise's prerequisites.

This suggests that, whether that Int number is 12, 13 or 14, Combat Expertise - a feat that is considered generally to be a feat tax ANYWAY - is the problem in this scenario.



Clearly, it needs to be changed, if the character classes that are the paradigm of this sort of fighting have to be given special extra permission to be able to circumnavigate it. I have a good mind to delete the pre-reqs entirely (as I have done with stuff like TWF, because plate-armoured sword-and-shield guys deserve to be able to do that as well); or, bare minimum, change it to Int 3 (as in "more than 2, it'd be 4 if I was going to functionally remove odd pre-reqs like I probably can't be arsed to do, since it would require adding stuff as well as just doing a find/replace") so that it isn't an option open to animals. The base feat itself really has nothing whatever so ever mechanically to do with Intelligence. Whether you use PF or 3.5, all it does it take from attack and add to dodge. I'd only stop animals from having it because some of the (rather many) feats that require it are hard to lens as being something an animal would do (but if anyone wants to make me a counter-argument of why an animal should be able to use, like, 3.5's Karmic Strike, I'm quite open.

...

Actually feats like PF's Gang Up suggest very much they'd be nice feat for animals...)

I definitely don't see changing it to Dex would help the situation (it would be better, but only by comparison and not, as a famous robotic dinosaur scholar once noted, more better enough).




(Whirlwind Attack, by the by, was disconnected from both Dodge (I already deleted the much reviled Mobility and gave it's benefits to Dodge) and Combat Expertise, which means it might actually be a feat worth taking now...!)

[Morty]

It's worth noting that many feat prerequisites are mostly there for decoration anyway - how many characters with strength below 13 are going to pick up Power Attack? And what would go wrong if they could?

[Kurald Galain]

It's worth noting that many feat prerequisites are mostly there for decoration anyway - how many characters with strength below 13 are going to pick up Power Attack? And what would go wrong if they could?

Dex-primary characters can easily get away dumping strength to 7, except if they want power attack. So that's a pretty significant build choice. Given that dex is much more useful than str, it's things like this that keep the balance somewhat.

[Willie the Duck]

A lot of good points have been made, particularly in the noting of assuming of one's conclusion in its own support, but I wanted to come at the situation from a different direction.

I am then, pondering that, if you were to make all the feat (et al) pre-reqs even (so 12s instead of 13s) would it cosmically make a lot of difference, other than a) making it marginally easier to qualifiy for those feats and b) not encouraging people to pick a sub-optimial distribution for no other reason than "well, we need odd stats to do something," which to me is a poor reason to do it.
Thoughts?
Beyond what I will call 'minor benefits inherent to granularity' (ability score damage being slightly better of a system when up against scores in the 3-18+ range than against a -5 - +5+ range, there being something nice about being 'halfway to' a milestone towards which you are working, etc.), there seems to be (IMO, of course) two major benefits that attributes can give you -- an additional plus that you can add to die rolls*, and gating new abilities.
*or target number of die rolls made against you, and similar derived effects, such as skill points per level, etc.

Now, if you were to go to someone unfamiliar with modern D&D and ask which they thought was more powerful -- getting a plus to a die roll, or being able to do something new altogether, I'd wager a fair number of them would say that the new ability allowance was more of a big deal than merely a +1 on a D20 roll (which, with all other modifiers, could be +6, +13, or +38 in total). With that in mind, why specifically are we considering the stuff tied to even numbered stats so primary that the stuff tied to odd numbered stats ought to jump to the even stats, and not the reverse?

As to the broader question of whether there really needs to be both even and odd stats and whether the prereq gates and numerical advances really need to be on different lines that could conceivably be squeezed together, I think the answer is probably, 'yes, you could.' Likewise, to the question of whether the gates and numerical advances were places on the opposing lines to help shore up a justification of the attributes (roughly) as they always have been, again I'd say that answer is 'probably yes.' 3rd edition in general seems to be that in a lot of ways -- preserving a lot of game continuity while consolidating a lot of mechanics into a (more) consistent core resolution mechanism and character/creature building mechanic. There seems to be a lot of 'find a reason for this thing to still exist.' But they did, and to my mind moving the prereqs to even (or mechanical bonuses to odd) would only be the simplest part of slaying such sacred cows. Changing stats to work on a -5-+5+ system means you have to fix ability damage and figure out what to do with the attribute points you gain as you level up or pick up Tomes of ____ (and if the answer is giving out 'half points' well then you've just reinvented what we have now with a different nomenclature) and all of a sudden you're building yourself a new game system.

[Aotrs Commander]

Changing stats to work on a -5-+5+ system means you have to fix ability damage and figure out what to do with the attribute points you gain as you level up or pick up Tomes of ____ (and if the answer is giving out 'half points' well then you've just reinvented what we have now with a different nomenclature) and all of a sudden you're building yourself a new game system.

Not really. It would not be difficult, just time consuming and mostly tedious.

If I were going to remove stats to just ability modifers, I would:

Halve all sources of ability damage (probably round up, because I'm mean).

Find/replace all +x stat bonuses and halve them (this would require a lot more feats/spells etc to copy up - in my position, where I have already cut down the number of sources to look for this sort of stuff, it would be a long, but manageable job).

Change level based ability gains to +2 at 8th, 16th and 20th. (Adding the one point at the pre-epic cap seems logical.)

Change inhernet bonus to be +2 (priced as +3) and +4 (priced as +5) - as you would be functionally getting +1 extra from stats.

(Actually, more likely, completely eliminate inherent bonus entirely from the game, and give you +2 to a stat every four levels, which takes away a lot of words.)

Find/Replace all stat pre-reqs to be the modifer (so 13 => +1 etc).

Carrying capacity doesn't matter, since it will just be less granular (and let's be fair, if we're talking about how people are dumping Str down to 7 and actually being able to carry equipment without being encumbered all the time, we're already talking about whre it's been obvivated by magic anyway.)

(Age categories I would continue to ignore, because I don't think they were worth having in the first place - I already give what most of you would consider an obscene amount of ability scores to start with, just arrange them differently, y'ain't using age as an excuse to pump your stats above the starting max in my games...)



A long job - which is why I probably not even going to fix the odd stat pre-reqs, but tedious, not hard.



(I mean, it was a harder job working out for the aforementioned campaign world that tosses out Vancian casting, the entire monster manual and cosmology how to implement a standardised progression of static magic item bonuses (representing enhancement/deflection/natural armour/resistance insight etc) and thus unlocking The Number from the item christmas tree so that it becomes "it's you, not your gear" and magic items to become Things What Do Stuff.

Would any of this stand up to TO? No, but if I was planning to actually publish it for general use, I'd be expecting to put in the same number of years as I did when I wrote my starship rules to do the job thoroughly in playtesting and making changes as needed.)

[Pex]

To be fair, the notion that odd ability scores should be entirely irrelevant is picked up in 4E, and 5E, and P2. Basically, they're saying that ability modifiers are the only thing that matters, and the scores are merely paying lip service to a sacred cow. But that's not the approach in 3E/P1.

Not entirely. In 5E, 13 is important for multiclassing. 15 is important for wearing heavy armor. You can choose +1 to two stats in ability score increases which makes a big difference going from odd to even. Same thing with feats that give +1 to an ability score and stuff. Racial modifiers give +1 to something.

[Psyren]

Not entirely. In 5E, 13 is important for multiclassing. 15 is important for wearing heavy armor. You can choose +1 to two stats in ability score increases which makes a big difference going from odd to even. Same thing with feats that give +1 to an ability score and stuff. Racial modifiers give +1 to something.

I personally care a lot less about odd ability scores in 5e since it's so much easier to get to the next even "rung." Bounded accuracy means you only really care about the cap anyway.

[Pex]

Arbitrary or not, I like that odd ability scores are given meaning. I want D&D to stay 3-18, and I don't care if it's nostalgic or grandfathered. It's aesthetically pleasing for 13 to mean something more than 12 in some game mechanics even though they have the same modifier for dice rolls. I would not disagree Combat Expertise is a problem if it is a problem, but the problem lies in it being Int not the 13.

[Twurps]

You're right, how did i miss that. Close up shop people, thread over.

I'm glad you found it amusing. And I'll admit that the amusement factor may have been higher that the validity of the argument.
I would then just note though: It was your own argument, just in reverse.