Removing /2

[False God]

Generally speaking, I find -10 then /2 to be a fairly cumbersome way to determine your modifier. I realize that most games don't do negatives anymore and that is fairly important to D&D's math, but I'm wondering what the effect of getting rid of the "divide by 2" to determine your modifier. Obviously there's a major power bump using standard scores, but that can be resolved by using lower starting scores. A 13 becomes effectively a 16. To my mind, this also gives more value on the fairly rare stat bumps 3.5 gives, and as 5E would put it, "keeps the lower level monsters more relevant" longer since their scores are now effectively higher.

Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone's tried it, how much of an effect it's had, and if its was good, bad or just meh?

[Beni-Kujaku]

Basically, it comes from the comparison between the 4d6-L method and what is appropriate as a modifier on a d20. Simply removing the /2 and reducing the initial score to match it would just improve the effectiveness of ability bonuses and penalties. If you further halve anything dealing ability damage and giving ability score bonuses, then I don't see how it would be meaningfully different from what we currently have. I don't really understand the point of it. The halving of the modifier is just there to put more granularity on ability penalties. But I agree that ASI every four increases should be +2. 5e understood that well, and did exactly that.

[Ramza00]

Generally speaking, I find -10 then /2 to be a fairly cumbersome way to determine your modifier. I realize that most games don't do negatives anymore and that is fairly important to D&D's math, but I'm wondering what the effect of getting rid of the "divide by 2" to determine your modifier. Obviously there's a major power bump using standard scores, but that can be resolved by using lower starting scores. A 13 becomes effectively a 16. To my mind, this also gives more value on the fairly rare stat bumps 3.5 gives, and as 5E would put it, "keeps the lower level monsters more relevant" longer since their scores are now effectively higher.

Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone's tried it, how much of an effect it's had, and if its was good, bad or just meh?

Would you do the same with Save DCs (HD/2) and Good and Bad Saves (HD/2 and 3 respectively) ?

[Particle_Man]

The other way to go is the Mutants and Masterminds route of replacing ability scores (3-18) with ability modifiers (-5 to +5) outright.

[False God]

Basically, it comes from the comparison between the 4d6-L method and what is appropriate as a modifier on a d20. Simply removing the /2 and reducing the initial score to match it would just improve the effectiveness of ability bonuses and penalties. If you further halve anything dealing ability damage and giving ability score bonuses, then I don't see how it would be meaningfully different from what we currently have. I don't really understand the point of it. The halving of the modifier is just there to put more granularity on ability penalties. But I agree that ASI every four increases should be +2. 5e understood that well, and did exactly that.
Right, it's not supposed to change the nature of the game and in many cases would be "Basically what we have now." it's just a removal of what I find unnecessary excess math which IMO rather infuriatingly turns big numbers into small numbers. If the goal is small numbers, why not just have a way to arrive there first, instead of going past it and then making a u-turn?


Would you do the same with Save DCs (HD/2) and Good and Bad Saves (HD/2 and 3 respectively) ?

No, primarily because you don't have to calculate those, they're just given at your new level. If you had to calculate them every level, then yes I'd be inclined to adjust them as well.

My main objection to having to using division. Simple addition or subtraction is fine, but those are IMO the most complex math you should have to use in order to determine something in a game. My second objection is how it devalues high numbers (there's no point in a game having high numbers if it's going to turn them into low numbers) and my final objection is how it reduces granularity since all the odd scores have little to no impact on gameplay.


The other way to go is the Mutants and Masterminds route of replacing ability scores (3-18) with ability modifiers (-5 to +5) outright.

I thought about that, but was honestly looking for it to be -10 to +10(well, in 3.X/PF it's +Infinity really) for an increase in granularity of scores and more "growing room" between a low score and a high score.

[Telonius]

It's cumbersome as-is, but there are a whole lot of fiddly things that would be impacted if you changed it.

If you made it so that 11 is +1, 12 is +2, and so on, all of the ability score buff or debuff spells (and buff items) would have a whole lot more impact. Point buy would make a much bigger difference. Certain things like lift capacity and how long you can hold your breath depend on the raw score, not just the bonus.

Probably the biggest impact would be in prereq stats. Would you keep Power Attack at Str 13, Combat Expertise at Int 13? Or would you put it at Str 11, Int 11 (for the +1), or adjust them otherwise?

[False God]

It's cumbersome as-is, but there are a whole lot of fiddly things that would be impacted if you changed it.

If you made it so that 11 is +1, 12 is +2, and so on, all of the ability score buff or debuff spells (and buff items) would have a whole lot more impact. Point buy would make a much bigger difference. Certain things like lift capacity and how long you can hold your breath depend on the raw score, not just the bonus.

Probably the biggest impact would be in prereq stats. Would you keep Power Attack at Str 13, Combat Expertise at Int 13? Or would you put it at Str 11, Int 11 (for the +1), or adjust them otherwise?

To work backwards:

Adjusting prereqs depends on if I want to run a high-power or low-power game and secondly, how difficult I want it to be to get some of these abilities. If I run a high-power game, I leave stat generation, and prereqs alone. Numbers are just bigger from the beginning. If I want to run a low-power game, I can adjust things if I want these to be readily available, or I can not, if I want them to be harder to reach. Notably, a 13 is now functionally the same as a 16 was, and arguably people who are going to take Power Attack were probably going to have a 16, and therefore no adjustment would really be necessary.

I'm fine with the buffs and debuffs having more impact, I honestly feel like most of them they don't have enough of an impact. So that's a fine side-effect.

Anything that depends on the raw score wouldn't change how it works. It might be higher (or lower), but the way it works means it doesn't need adjustment.

[Ramza00]

Right, it's not supposed to change the nature of the game and in many cases would be "Basically what we have now." it's just a removal of what I find unnecessary excess math which IMO rather infuriatingly turns big numbers into small numbers. If the goal is small numbers, why not just have a way to arrive there first, instead of going past it and then making a u-turn?



No, primarily because you don't have to calculate those, they're just given at your new level. If you had to calculate them every level, then yes I'd be inclined to adjust them as well.

My main objection to having to using division. Simple addition or subtraction is fine, but those are IMO the most complex math you should have to use in order to determine something in a game. My second objection is how it devalues high numbers (there's no point in a game having high numbers if it's going to turn them into low numbers) and my final objection is how it reduces granularity since all the odd scores have little to no impact on gameplay.


See I am hearing two radically different complaints here.

It is more work (empirics aka actual experience) and
It is not aesthetically pleasing

Aka the is-ought gap or fact-value distinction with the hyphen being the gap sometimes called bar in the barred subject.

More technically we would write it as this ✍️

'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.


It is alright to have multiple complaints, and it is all right to be messy and have things in the gap (that is where fantasy and criticism comes in, trying to solve the gap.)

But I bring up 6 or so paragraphs not to be verbose…but instead to point out an irrevocable problem for you are creating more work with one goal, when you are trying to solve the second goal. Thus I am asking which is your primary and which is your secondary goal. If it’s aesthetics, we’ll be prepared for lots of work prior to the table, and only a small reduction of work “at the table.”

=====

For example one reason 3.5 and 5th edition is like this for they wanted to keep the monster stat blocks aesthetically similar between editions in regards to a sense of scale even if everything mechanically changed between edition. To make a 30 feel a sense of scale different than a 20 even if 20 is the new 30 due to dividing by 2. Hidden aesthetics preferences is one of the motors that drive DND history over 50+ years.

[Crake]

But I agree that ASI every four increases should be +2. 5e understood that well, and did exactly that.

Personally, I give players a set of point buy points equal to increasing their max ability score by 1. That way, they can either increase their best score by 1, OR bump a bunch lower stats

[meschlum]

There was an earlier thread which asked a similar question, namely what happened if attributed bonuses started at 0 (so stat / 2, no minus 10 involved). General feeling was that it boosted the double dipping class features (Divine Grace, Monk AC bonus), and got messy otherwise.

- Armor Dex limits mean heavy armor is a lot less valuable.
- Skill rolls need to be seriously revised (either a lot easier and harder depending on modifier, or need to be changed wholesale)
- Item and monster ability based saving throws need to be reviewed (not all monster abilities are based off an attribute, DC for alchemical items, etc.)
- Damage resistance needs to be revised
- Casters get more spells, saves are about the same (except for Paladins, etc.), spell damage is lower (higher CON bonus) - if using Stat - 10, this makes spells more lethal against low Con foes (a rarity) but the general case is still more battlefield control and less direct damage.
- Undead are a little more fragile (no Con bonus, low Con isn't common).
- Hit rates are about the same (improved against armor using humanoids, worse against monks, neutral otherwise)
- With Con bonuses, being hit (level) times in melee does about the same damage. Being hit more often is more deadly, so hydras and other multi-strikers are advantaged while alpha hits are a bit worse (of course, an Ubercharger doing more than HD * Con bonus damage overkill won't notice the difference)
- (new) If attributes start at the same level as before, and can be boosted the same ways, SAD is even more amplified, so casters (and uber chargers) are rewarded. Druids are probably happy too, with wildshape even more empowered.
- (new) CON damage is terrifying, and poison is now twice as powerful - bad news for low level characters.

So you're punishing dump stats (fun note: an elf wizard with 6 Con now has 0 HP / HD (rounded to 1), so no reason not to dump further) and shifting the meta towards SAD, casters focusing on battlefield control (more no save spells), lightly armored multiattackers, and large groups (ideally archers, so they can get a lot of attacks in early). Plus a lot of work rebalancing items, monsters, and skills.

Or you can declare everything attribute related is now just its modifier (including spells and magic items), and see essentially no change mechanically (the +1 to an attribute every 4 levels is twice as good as before, wishes give at most a +2 to an attribute, and playing silly games with aging, reaching level 20, point buy, and (original) +5 tomes works a bit differently). Basically create your own point buy for straight bonuses / penalties and be done with it (plus changing the attribute bonuses from magic and leveling, poison damage, and whatever else I've missed).

[Bohandas]

Personally I'd keep the /2 part and get rid of the -10

[spectralphoenix]

Would also need to look at ability damage/drain, and what happens when your score hits zero, if you aren't starting from ten.

[AvatarVecna]

Previous thread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?649732-What-are-the-consequences-of-raising-attribute-bonuses)

[AsuraKyoko]

Personally, I give players a set of point buy points equal to increasing their max ability score by 1. That way, they can either increase their best score by 1, OR bump a bunch lower stats

Ooh, I really like that idea! I might have to try that out. The only potential pitfall would be that it gives fewer points to characters that didn't max out a stat, so MAD characters would get less. I'd probably just go based on the highest base stat in the party, then give out that many points to everyone.