Balance Question [DnD 3.5]

[averagejoe]

I've been thinking about how odd numbered ability scores are pretty irrelevant; a 16 strength guy is exactly as strong as a 17 strength guy except in carrying capacity. As one way to counteract this I was thinking about adding or subtracting one from all those buffs that give a straight even number to an ability score. Thoughts? Would this seriously upset anything?

[JellyPooga]

The advantage of having even numbered buffs is that it adds a set number to the abilities it affects. For Example; Bulls Strength effectively adds +2 to hit and damage. If you make it an odd number, then it's just a little more paper work; e.g. Bulls Strength would add +1 to hit and damage for those with even Strength and +2 to his and damage for those with odd strength.

It would make buffs have a different effects on different characters.

Having said that, though, I don't think it would horribly throw the game out of kilter if you wanted to do it. Personally I quite liked the 3.0 idea which added a random number (1d4+1 I think), though I'd personally make it a variable based on caster level (so that a 10th level Cleric buffs better than a 3rd level Cleric, for example)

[Kaiyanwang]

I guess the random has been eliminated to avoid abuses.

[JellyPooga]

I guess the random has been eliminated to avoid abuses.

Like what? At most, a Maximised Empowered Bulls Strength gave 1d4+6 Str, but for a Level 7 spell that's far from overpowered

[kamikasei]

I guess the random has been eliminated to avoid abuses.

More likely, I'd say it was eliminated to simplify bookkeeping: you always know how much that spell is going to up your to-hit and damage, or whatever, instead of having to record a roll and refer to it each time.

I think the reasoning may be that if the same buff has different effects depending on whether you have an odd or even score, odd scores become more worthwhile. As things stand, there are only a handful of reasons if you're point-buying to spend enough to increase a score by one rather than two: to buffer against drain or to meet feat minimums, that's pretty much it.

[Fishy]

All of the feats with ability score prerequisites require odd-numbered ability scores. An int 13 fighter is very different from an int 12 fighter, for example.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You could say that if you have an odd stat, round its bonus up instead of down. For example, a two-handed weapon with Str 16 deals +4 damage, but with Str 17 it would deal +5 damage. If you use average HP, make an odd-numbered Con add 0.5 HP/level. For most ability scores this wouldn't be applicable, but the above two are fairly significant.

Also keep in mind that every feat that has an ability score prerequisite requires an odd-numbered ability score. A character may take Int 12 for more skill points, but they'd need Int 13 to get Combat Expertise.

If you're going to adjust the buffs, make them add one point more, instead of one point less. An odd numbered ability score gets just as much benefit from a +4 buff as it does from a +3, by reducing the bonus you're only making a medium-power spell less useful. A bonus of +5 is no more useful than a +4 for an even ability score, but the benefit to an odd ability score is significantly greater.

[Gnorman]

Also keep in mind that every feat that has an ability score prerequisite requires an odd-numbered ability score. A character may take Int 12 for more skill points, but they'd need Int 13 to get Combat Expertise.

Which really runs counterintuitive to the whole streamlining process, as these are the only things that key off of odd scores (well, besides carrying capacity). I guess it's sort of a nod to the randomness of the roll - if you end up rolling a fighter with a 13, at least you have somewhere to put it where it's not just a glorified 12.

[Kaiyanwang]

Like what? At most, a Maximised Empowered Bulls Strength gave 1d4+6 Str, but for a Level 7 spell that's far from overpowered

Actually, didn't think about the fact that if you maximized and twinned it, it didn't stack. I'am wrong, probably they changed this aspect for what kamikasei said.

The real nerf was only about duration, so.

[Goatman_Ted]

I also like the 3.0 versions of the Animal's Ability spells.

Any change that cuts down on item-dependency is a good change in my book.

[ericgrau]

It might be simpler to eliminate odd stats all together, lower or raise all pre-reqs by 1, and give a +2 to an ability score every 8 levels. Odd stats would be lowered by one, or perhaps you flip a coin to raise/lower each. Tomes would be available in +2, +4, and perhaps +6 to counter the lack of a level 20 inherent boost. Wishes to do the same would need an even number of castings to have any effect. From there you could take it a step further and only track your modifiers.

[JonestheSpy]

It might be simpler to eliminate odd stats all together, lower or raise all pre-reqs by 1, and give a +2 to an ability score every 8 levels. Odd stats would be lowered by one, or perhaps you flip a coin to raise/lower each. Tomes would be available in +2, +4, and perhaps +6 to counter the lack of a level 20 inherent boost. Wishes to do the same would need an even number of castings to have any effect. From there you could take it a step further and only track your modifiers.

This must be using a defintion of the word 'simpler' that I was previously unaware of...

[Devils_Advocate]

If you really want to make odd scores relevant, you could convert d20 (d20 + stat mod) into 2d20 (2d20 + stat). This also gives rolls a bell curve distribution, obviously.

I've thought about doing that, but I've not yet been wiling to sit down and list all of the math you have to do for the conversion. Obviously, you have to double the right differences and add or subtract 10 in the right places to get everything to work out right.

[Eloel]

This must be using a defintion of the word 'simpler' that I was previously unaware of...

When everything is even, you can divide everything by 2 without losing precision. (yay math!) While at it, if you reduce everything by 5, without affecting anything, you get the 'new' system, where -1 ability score means -1 ability modifier, and where +5 score is +5 modifier.

Now, THAT is simple :)

[Sergeantbrother]

When everything is even, you can divide everything by 2 without losing precision. (yay math!) While at it, if you reduce everything by 5, without affecting anything, you get the 'new' system, where -1 ability score means -1 ability modifier, and where +5 score is +5 modifier.

Now, THAT is simple :)

Yeah, I have often thought that should be the next logical step for attributes, that the attribute is the modifier. So the average human has a zero for every attribute.

[darkblust]

i prefer having odd numbered skills,beacause every 4 levels i get an added bonus

[averagejoe]

I'm aware of the feat thing, but I find it unsatisfying because each feat tends to be relevant to a few classes per feat, and generally one feat chain for each ability score, and often they're pumping that ability anyways, for example, power attack or point blank shot. While there are exceptions, feat prerequisites do not generally go very far in distinguishing even ability scores from odd ones. Even when it matters (as with intelligence and a fighter) what distinguishes an int 15 fighter from an int 14 fighter? Or an int 11 fighter from an int 10 fighter? It just doesn't go very far.

i prefer having odd numbered skills,beacause every 4 levels i get an added bonus

That's another potential difference, but a lot of the time people tend to want to pump just one stat, and spellcasters almost always do.