Bonus for Odd Ability Scores

[Guy Lombard-O]

Question: Which of these two houserules would you prefer in a game (or neither, I suppose), and most importantly why? How balanced or disruptive would either rule be?

1. For any Ability Score which is an odd number, you may add one to the character's ability score modifier for all skills which are associated with that ability for ability checks. For example, a character with an ability score of 15 in Wisdom may add +3, rather than +2, to Wisdom ability checks using Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival.

2. For any Ability Score which is an odd number, you may add one to the character's ability score modifier for one skill which is associated with that ability for ability checks. For example, a character with an ability score of 15 in Wisdom may add +3, rather than +2, to Wisdom ability checks using one of: Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival. The one skill to be thus improved must be chosen when that character first obtains the odd number in that ability score.

Please excuse any inelegant phrasing, assuming that you can even understand my meaning. I'll hammer out the exact wording later if I decide to use the rule.

[Woggle]

I would prefer the first. I actually came across a similar suggestion recently, and have been contemplating adding it to my house rules when I start running my next game.

The one thing that I'd change or suggest is having the bonus for an odd ability score apply to ALL ability checks (not just checks involving skill proficiency checks), just for the sack of keeping things simple. YMMV.

As for why, I guess I just like there being some benefit to an odd score, and limiting it to ability checks keeps the stronger (imo) benefits of attack/damage rolls and saving throws to even scores.

[Stabbey]

I'm a little confused how that would work. If you're increasing the modifier on odd scores, then you can't also be increasing it on even scores, because that leads to super-high inflation of scores. That just transfers the "bad feels" from odd scores to even scores.

Am I missing something obvious?



Score - Standard
Modifier - Standard

Score - HouseRule
Modifier - HouseRule


10
0

10
0


11
0

11
+1


12
+1

12
+1


13
+1

13
+2


14
+2

14
+2


15
+2

15
+3


16
+3

16
+3


17
+3

17
+4


18
+4

18
+4


19
+4

19
+5


20
+5

20
+5

[MaxWilson]

I'm a little confused how that would work. If you're increasing the modifier on odd scores, then you can't also be increasing it on even scores, because that leads to super-high inflation of scores. That just transfers the "bad feels" from odd scores to even scores.

Am I missing something obvious?

Attack rolls and saving throws and DC modifiers aren't ability checks. Even levels don't feel bad because you get to improve everything except ability checks. Odd levels still feel sort of bad but at least you get to improve ability checks, so Str 19 and Str 18 are meaningfully different when it comes to arm wrestling.

[Lavaeolus]

I'm a little confused how that would work. If you're increasing the modifier on odd scores, then you can't also be increasing it on even scores, because that leads to super-high inflation of scores. That just transfers the "bad feels" from odd scores to even scores.

If I have the right of it: this house-rule only affects ability checks. So you still generally want to go up one and reach an even score, for things like AC, saves and attack rolls. But it does mean that if you have an odd score, for whatever reason, that point isn't effectively 'wasted'.

Incidentally:

you may add one to the character's ability score modifier for all skills which are associated with that ability for ability checks

I know this wording's WIP, but on the record: this is a bit long-winded, and note that there are ability checks that might not use a specific skill. For example, the PHB gives two examples of potential Constitution checks: 'Hold your breath' and 'Quaff an entire stein of ale in one go'.

Admittedly you should in turn be aware that a blanket 'any ability check' technically includes things like initiative rolls, Counterspelling, etc.

[Cheesegear]

Question: Which of these two houserules would you prefer in a game (or neither, I suppose)

Depends whether you are using an Array, 27 Point Buy, or random rolls for Ability Scores.

The more choice you have over your ability scores, the more you can break it.

In a Standard Array; 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Use your +2 for 15 on the 13, and use the +1 on the 14, to make a 15.

This gives you 15 (16), 15 (16) 15 (16), 12, 10, 8. Before species modifiers. And a Human has three actual 16s, and all their numbers turn odd, which is a benefit. Are Humans meant to have no weaknesses, and all strengths? ...Maybe? :smallconfused:

If you want your players to power-game, then sure.
If you want playing a non-Variant Human to actually matter, sure. That works, too. But also you can still play a Variant Human and get that Feat, and all your odd numbers still count.

If you're using 27 Point Buy, and you want people to just have higher skills; ...Just give every player Skilled at Character creation. Or give everyone Prodigy (Xanathar's) and ignore the race species restriction... Or just increase the Point Buy Limit - but that would have a different effect than you probably want.

The only way that giving benefits to odd scores makes sense, is if you're random rolling your ability scores. Random rolling ability scores can be plenty punishing at is it, and this doesn't necessarily punish a player for randomly rolling odd numbers which isn't their fault.

[bid]

Question: Which of these two houserules would you prefer in a game (or neither, I suppose), and most importantly why? How balanced or disruptive would either rule be?
Round up whenever proficiency bonus doesn't apply.

[Lunali]

If you're going to do this, you should probably give a separate bonus for con. I would probably break up the hp gains so odd scores give hp on odd levels, even scores give hp on even levels. So if you're level 11 with a con of 11 you'll get a total of +6hp from con bonus on leveling, if your con goes up to 12, you get a total of +11 as per normal.

[MoiMagnus]

(2) Is pretty ugly IMO
(1) Is better, except for Con. And if you include initiative (which is also an ability check), it's probably too good for Dex.

So I'd suggest to buff saving throws instead of skill checks.

[fbelanger]

You can use old Advanced DnD style table,

15, +1
16, +2
17, +3
18, +4
19, +5
20, +6

[DwarfFighter]

Question: Which of these two houserules would you prefer in a game (or neither, I suppose), and most importantly why? How balanced or disruptive would either rule be?

1. For any Ability Score which is an odd number, you may add one to the character's ability score modifier for all skills which are associated with that ability for ability checks. For example, a character with an ability score of 15 in Wisdom may add +3, rather than +2, to Wisdom ability checks using Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival.


I would prefer this. It still leaves odd-numbered Constitution out of it since there are no skills for it, but that doesn't mean there is never going to be a straight Con ability check or tools proficiency check based on Con.


My suggestion:

3. If you are making an attack roll, a save or an ability check with an odd-numbered ability score, roll 1d10. If the roll is 5 or more add +1 to the result of the attack roll, save or ability check.

Why 5+ Instead of 6+? Well, I don't want to start calling for a "round-up" roll for various static values derived from ability scores, like spell save DCs and Dex modifiers to AC, so a "better than 50% chance" this is to compensate for that.

-DF

[JNAProductions]

I would prefer this. It still leaves odd-numbered Constitution out of it since there are no skills for it, but that doesn't mean there is never going to be a straight Con ability check or tools proficiency check based on Con.


My suggestion:

3. If you are making an attack roll, a save or an ability check with an odd-numbered ability score, roll 1d10. If the roll is 5 or more add +1 to the result of the attack roll, save or ability check.

Why 5+ Instead of 6+? Well, I don't want to start calling for a "round-up" roll for various static values derived from ability scores, like spell save DCs and Dex modifiers to AC, so a "better than 50% chance" this is to compensate for that.

-DF

That's a lot of extra rolling for a very minor impact. Not a fan.

[Amnestic]

I would prefer this. It still leaves odd-numbered Constitution out of it since there are no skills for it, but that doesn't mean there is never going to be a straight Con ability check or tools proficiency check based on Con.



Con could give the +1 HP/level HP at odd levels, save boost on even.

That does put it out of line with the others, so perhaps the previous suggestion about moving saves to odd, everything else on even, is the better one.

[Segev]

The approach that 3e and 5e seem to have taken is making requirements that depend on stats be dependant on odd numbers. Multiclassing requires 13s. Plate mail requires a 15 in Strength. In 3e, if a feat had a minimum ability score requirement, that ability score was an odd number.

If I were trying to make this work more extensively, I would make other things with thresholds, or make things with bonus features that take odd numbered stats to activate or access.

[Eric Diaz]

I like solution number one.

For constitution, just give anyone with an odd ability score extra HP: one point for every two levels. So, at msot 10 extra HP at level 20.

[Bohandas]

This was actually covered as a variant rule back in 3.5

The solution suggested in Unearthed Arcana 3.5e was to track fractional bonuses and penalties, so for example

10 = 0.0
11 = 0.5
12 = 1.0
13 = 1.5
14 = 2.0
15 = 2.5

Et cetera.
Those fractions don't seem at first glance like they'd affect rolls, but they start affecting things once all the monsters and NPCs start having fractional modifiers too.

[Theodoxus]

That's a lot of extra rolling for a very minor impact. Not a fan.

Right? I read that and was all 'I like rolling dice as much as the next guy, but that's a lot of dice... and math.'


This was actually covered as a variant rule back in 3.5

The solution suggested in Unearthed Arcana 3.5e was to track fractional bonuses and penalties, so for example

10 = 0.0
11 = 0.5
12 = 1.0
13 = 1.5
14 = 2.0
15 = 2.5

Et cetera.
Those fractions don't seem at first glance like they'd affect rolls, but they start affecting things once all the monsters and NPCs start having fractional modifiers too.

I tend to do that with a lot of monster stats behind the screen. Resistance, I actually track the half hit point instead of rounding down. For attacks, if I'm doing static damage, I'll use the actual value of the die, not the printed damage (say 1d8+2 becomes 6.5) so round 1, they deal 6 damage. Round 2, they deal 7.

I miss the math of 3.x for calculating BAB across disparate classes. Coming up with viable builds based around when their base attack bonus increased or not... But proficiency bonus works well enough.

[DwarfFighter]

That's a lot of extra rolling for a very minor impact. Not a fan.

Technically it's rolling a d10 at the same time as your d20, and only when you need to. It is practically speaking a single roll.

[DwarfFighter]

Right? I read that and was all 'I like rolling dice as much as the next guy, but that's a lot of dice... and math.'

Now I am curious about what you actually read that made you think 1d10 makes for "lots of dice".

Also, this thread addresses the slight rounding error of odd numbered ability scores not having an appreciable effect on the game, and suddenly "math" is thing we consider "bad"? Is this a joke?

-DF

[JNAProductions]

Now I am curious about what you actually read that made you think 1d10 makes for "lots of dice".

Also, this thread addresses the slight rounding error of odd numbered ability scores not having an appreciable effect on the game, and suddenly "math" is thing we consider "bad"? Is this a joke?

-DF

It's double the number of dice (+50% if rolling with [dis]advantage) for something that will not matter in 95% of circumstances.

Plus, let's say I'm an eleventh level Fighter with a Belt Of Giant Strength and 23 Strength. I now have to roll each attack individually, since I can't just roll 3d20 and 3d10-each d10 is associated with a specific d20. You can solve that with colored dice combinations, but that's its own hassle.

It's a very minor addition for a lot of extra hassle. Not worth it.

[DwarfFighter]

It's double the number of dice (+50% if rolling with [dis]advantage) for something that will not matter in 95% of circumstances.

Plus, let's say I'm an eleventh level Fighter with a Belt Of Giant Strength and 23 Strength. I now have to roll each attack individually, since I can't just roll 3d20 and 3d10-each d10 is associated with a specific d20. You can solve that with colored dice combinations, but that's its own hassle.

It's a very minor addition for a lot of extra hassle. Not worth it.

I see I did not specify how this was to interact with advantage/disadvantage: It doesn't. It's just the one 1d10 regardless, since that is intended to play off of the static modifiers. This is a way to enable you to add +1.5 to the result for having an ability score of 13, not to change your 1d20 to a 1d20.5

-DF

[JNAProductions]

I see I did not specify how this was to interact with advantage/disadvantage: It doesn't. It's just the one 1d10 regardless, since that is intended to play off of the static modifiers. This is a way to enable you to add +1.5 to the result for having an ability score of 13, not to change your 1d20 to a 1d20.5

-DF

It’s two dice instead of one die normally. (Double)
It’s three dice instead of two with [dis]advantage. (+50%)

And it’s a lot of hassle for very little change.

[DwarfFighter]

It’s two dice instead of one die normally. (Double)
It’s three dice instead of two with [dis]advantage. (+50%)

And it’s a lot of hassle for very little change.

Heh! Your signature literally reads:


I have a LOT of Homebrew!

-DF

[MoiMagnus]

Heh! Your signature literally reads:



-DF

It's not contradictory.
In my experience, the more you created homebrew, the more you care about "simplicity", or more precisely "minimum hassle for maximum change/interest/depth".
You are constantly adding new stuff, and cutting down previously added stuff that were "not worth it" to prevent complexity overload, and you become more and more picky on what brings enough to be worth the hassle or not.

[JNAProductions]

It's not contradictory.
In my experience, the more you created homebrew, the more you care about "simplicity", or more precisely "minimum hassle for maximum change/interest/depth".
You are constantly adding new stuff, and cutting down previously added stuff that were "not worth it" to prevent complexity overload, and you become more and more picky on what brings enough to be worth the hassle or not.

Exactly. I haven’t made many sweeping changes to 5E in my brew-limited to stuff like Fighting Spirit, or removing Constitution. Simple changes that don’t require any extra die rolling-the complexity is limited to character creation and leveling up.

This would add extra work every single time you make a d20 roll with an odd stat. Which can be three times a round, every combat round, for a Strength Fighter with a desirable magic item. Or many other circumstances.

[Theodoxus]

It's not contradictory.
In my experience, the more you created homebrew, the more you care about "simplicity", or more precisely "minimum hassle for maximum change/interest/depth".
You are constantly adding new stuff, and cutting down previously added stuff that were "not worth it" to prevent complexity overload, and you become more and more picky on what brings enough to be worth the hassle or not.

So much this.

I love looking over 'new to me' systems to see if there were things I'd want to incorporate or swap for other features. I've recently been looking for a relatively simple 'free form' spell system. And there just isn't. Thanks to Segev in another post about spell points, I found the http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/spheres-of-power, which lead me down a rabbit hole of reading - but I really like the system as a whole (there are definitely individual issues, but that's true with WotC's stuff too). It's fluid enough for what I'm looking for without getting bogged down in minutia that makes my eyes swim.

For my campaign, I'm definitely looking to add options but streamline systems. It's a fun balancing act.

@DF: I used to use a 2d10 method for skill checks. I liked the smoother curve and slightly more predictability of outcomes it provided. But rolling more dice was not conducive to the streamlined level of play I wanted. I can't speak for JNA, but for me at least, it wouldn't be a good fit at my table. That said, if it works for you and yours, have a nut :)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Exactly. I haven’t made many sweeping changes to 5E in my brew-limited to stuff like Fighting Spirit, or removing Constitution. Simple changes that don’t require any extra die rolling-the complexity is limited to character creation and leveling up.

This would add extra work every single time you make a d20 roll with an odd stat. Which can be three times a round, every combat round, for a Strength Fighter with a desirable magic item. Or many other circumstances.

Yeah. Hot path optimization (ie reducing the dice needed to be rolled for each common action resolution) is way more valuable than it seems. Especially reducing dice rolling that isn't just a variable modifier. If I have to look at the roll and make decisions based on the values to resolve something (worst would be a table lookup), that thing better either be really simple or really rare.

Edit: and conditional rolling (roll X normally, but if Y, also roll Z) is painful.

[Jon talks a lot]

Question: Which of these two houserules would you prefer in a game (or neither, I suppose), and most importantly why? How balanced or disruptive would either rule be?

1. For any Ability Score which is an odd number, you may add one to the character's ability score modifier for all skills which are associated with that ability for ability checks. For example, a character with an ability score of 15 in Wisdom may add +3, rather than +2, to Wisdom ability checks using Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival.

2. For any Ability Score which is an odd number, you may add one to the character's ability score modifier for one skill which is associated with that ability for ability checks. For example, a character with an ability score of 15 in Wisdom may add +3, rather than +2, to Wisdom ability checks using one of: Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival. The one skill to be thus improved must be chosen when that character first obtains the odd number in that ability score.

Please excuse any inelegant phrasing, assuming that you can even understand my meaning. I'll hammer out the exact wording later if I decide to use the rule.

None, odd ability scores are a thing for a reason, and making ability scores which are not that good better undermines the point of having a balance pc.

[JNAProductions]

None, odd ability scores are a thing for a reason, and making ability scores which are not that good better undermines the point of having a balance pc.

I disagree. I think odd scores being mostly useless is an artifact of history, and not something to be desired.

[Guy Lombard-O]

(2) Is pretty ugly IMO
(1) Is better, except for Con. And if you include initiative (which is also an ability check), it's probably too good for Dex.

So I'd suggest to buff saving throws instead of skill checks.

There's been a lot of good comments on this thread, so thank you all for your thoughts and insights.

I originally picked buffing skills/ability checks on odd scores because I thought it'd be the least impactful, least powerful option for a houserule buff. But after thinking more about it, I can see that, especially taking into account alternate ability score check rules and things like what MoiMagnus and others pointed out, it ends up being far clunkier and less elegant a solution than I'd thought. While it's probably a bit more impactful of a buff than I was intending, it seems like buffing saving throws is actually a far cleaner, easier adjustment to implement.


The approach that 3e and 5e seem to have taken is making requirements that depend on stats be dependant on odd numbers. Multiclassing requires 13s. Plate mail requires a 15 in Strength. In 3e, if a feat had a minimum ability score requirement, that ability score was an odd number.

If I were trying to make this work more extensively, I would make other things with thresholds, or make things with bonus features that take odd numbered stats to activate or access.

That's a good point too. But coming up with some other good things with thresholds sounds like a lot more effort than I was thinking of.

[Kvess]

Instead of adding a mechanic that interacts with every odd numbered ability score, increasing complexity during play or character creation / levelling for a minor benefit… why not get rid of odd ability scores?

Because ability scores themselves currently do so little mechanically, the ability score modifiers could outright replace them. Instead of an 18 Strength, your fighter’s strength score could just be +4. No memorization of tables or constant dice rolls required. The game’s already confusing enough for new players with Actions, Bonus Actions, Weapon Attacks, and Attack Actions, so why not simplify it?

[Theodoxus]

+1 Kvess.

Was coming back to say exactly that. More "modern" d20 games are starting to do exactly that. Of course, then it comes back down to "but D&D started it, so it should stay, for tradition!" Which is about where I go into my rant regarding tradition for tradition sake blah blah blah.

So yeah, I'd be fully behind D&D sacrificing the sacred cow of Ability Scores and going right to Ability Modifiers. I hope WotC agrees with 6E...

[OvisCaedo]

While theoretically odd ability scores probably aren't necessary for a game design, you'd have to rework a lot of things about ability scores to try to cut them out of 5e. Rebalance point buy, racial mods, figure out what to even do about half feats. Especially for concerns of confusing new players, I feel like "replace all of this stuff in the book with these houserules" is probably even messier.

Though setting aside mess and the point buy and racial rebalancing, half feats seem like the biggest thing that's actually got something of a *potential* purpose for odd scores in 5e as is.

[Segev]

Instead of adding a mechanic that interacts with every odd numbered ability score, increasing complexity during play or character creation / levelling for a minor benefit… why not get rid of odd ability scores?

Because ability scores themselves currently do so little mechanically, the ability score modifiers could outright replace them. Instead of an 18 Strength, your fighter’s strength score could just be +4. No memorization of tables or constant dice rolls required. The game’s already confusing enough for new players with Actions, Bonus Actions, Weapon Attacks, and Attack Actions, so why not simplify it?

You would have to decide what to do with half feats.

[animewatcha]

Why not just let Odd ability score break ties in favor of the Odd-ity? 17 strength +whatever mod beats 16 strength+whatever mod for whatever skill or check.
If a tie is had for resulting roll, just re-roll the d20s (assuming stat same modifier thinger).

[MoiMagnus]

Why not just let Odd ability score break ties in favor of the Odd-ity? 17 strength +whatever mod beats 16 strength+whatever mod for whatever skill or check.
If a tie is had for resulting roll, just re-roll the d20s (assuming stat same modifier thinger).

Mathematically, it's the same has having half-points (16 -> +3, 17 -> +3.5, etc), as suggest by a poster earlier.
Some peoples might prefer your wording "odd beats even when tied", other will prefer using half-points, but both give exactly the same result.

[Kane0]

Question: Which of these two houserules would you prefer in a game (or neither, I suppose), and most importantly why? How balanced or disruptive would either rule be?

1. For any Ability Score which is an odd number, you may add one to the character's ability score modifier for all skills which are associated with that ability for ability checks. For example, a character with an ability score of 15 in Wisdom may add +3, rather than +2, to Wisdom ability checks using Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival.

2. For any Ability Score which is an odd number, you may add one to the character's ability score modifier for one skill which is associated with that ability for ability checks. For example, a character with an ability score of 15 in Wisdom may add +3, rather than +2, to Wisdom ability checks using one of: Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival. The one skill to be thus improved must be chosen when that character first obtains the odd number in that ability score.

Please excuse any inelegant phrasing, assuming that you can even understand my meaning. I'll hammer out the exact wording later if I decide to use the rule.

Personally neither. I know you’re specifically trying to add value to odd scores but having a difference in the + between ability checks, attack/damage rolls and saving throws is basically a PITA for anyone learning the game as well as veterans already familiar with D&Ds attribute score system.

For me and my table its too much trouble to remember and factor into rolls for the value it offers.

In the interest of being positive however may I suggest an alternative:
At specific stats you grant specific ribbon features. For example Int 13 and/or 15 grants you a bonus tool prof or language.
Now this is obviously a tiny bit of power creep but hopefully it can be directed at primarily social and exploration stuff and downplay combat, helps alleviate two problems at the same time and also doesnt cause any cognitive dissonance between numbermath which 5e deliberately tries to keep simple.
I remember DMguild having a big selection of ribbons collected into a single PDF which might be helpful in picking out some useful ones.

[Theodoxus]

You would have to decide what to do with half feats.

Break full feats in half and toss the half ASI? Granted, you'd need to give a few more feats more often, or grant feats AND ASI at current levels. Either works.

[da newt]

In order to make the rule as KISS as possible and still meet your desire to add a little value to odd ability scores, I'd suggest:

Odd ability scores for Saves
Even ability scores for ability checks, attacks, damage, etc (everything BUT saves)

Assuming you use a character sheet with the saves written out, this is SUPER simple and you don't have to remember anything except at character gen and when an ability score is changed (ASIs and magic stuff). No math, no half points, no extra rolls, no tie breakers, ...

[bid]

None, odd ability scores are a thing for a reason, and making ability scores which are not that good better undermines the point of having a balance pc.
And the nose was created for glasses, as Professor Pangloss taught us.

Ability scores are mostly fluff, they're only there to hold the ability modifiers.

[MaxWilson]

In order to make the rule as KISS as possible and still meet your desire to add a little value to odd ability scores, I'd suggest:

Odd ability scores for Saves
Even ability scores for ability checks, attacks, damage, etc (everything BUT saves)

Assuming you use a character sheet with the saves written out, this is SUPER simple and you don't have to remember anything except at character gen and when an ability score is changed (ASIs and magic stuff). No math, no half points, no extra rolls, no tie breakers, ...

It's more work than the alternative (odd scores give a extra +1 on ability checks, instead of saves) because it will affect more situations with more monsters with more potential for takes, e.g. a beholder's saving throws say "Int +8, Wis +7, Cha +8" but you have to look elsewhere in the start block to determine that they're all odd and should now be Int +9, Wis +8, Cha +9.

It's probably also more powerful than boosting ability checks--you'll wind up with more Wis 13 PCs than Wis 14 PCs for example. But you may consider that more of a feature than a bug.

For me it's a bit too much. I want odd scores to be interestingly distinct from even scores, but a smaller change that works is better than a big change, and I feel like saves are slightly too big.

[JNAProductions]

It's more work than the alternative (odd scores give a extra +1 on ability checks, instead of saves) because it will affect more situations with more monsters with more potential for takes, e.g. a beholder's saving throws say "Int +8, Wis +7, Cha +8" but you have to look elsewhere in the start block to determine that they're all odd and should now be Int +9, Wis +8, Cha +9.

It's probably also more powerful than boosting ability checks--you'll wind up with more Wis 13 PCs than Wis 14 PCs for example. But you may consider that more of a feature than a bug.

For me it's a bit too much. I want odd scores to be interestingly distinct from even scores, but a smaller change that works is better than a big change, and I feel like saves are slightly too big.

No need to change monsters-they don't have to follow the same rules as PCs.

And saves are a purely defensive benefit-it makes players hardier, but NOT killier. That is, in my opinion, a good thing.

[da newt]

Fair point - I was assuming PC's only, and like JNA said - it's a small defensive buff.