Community

The other way to go is to remove the generic modifiers entirely and go back to the attribute actually directly interacting with the mechanics. I can see how someone might think it's more book keeping but it's actually the same as trimming out the attribute. Instead of going attribute -> modifier -> stuff we'd go attribute -> stuff.

I guess the reason they did it in the first place was it allowed them to add on to the system without creating tables for how attributes interacted with the new stuff.

The base numbers are still determining things though, like maximum spell level you can access. It also provides a range of scores that can make finer reflections of what a character is. I know a guy with a 15 str is slightly stronger than a guy with a 14 str. That 15 str can be used as a prerequisite as well, which notes that you need to be stronger than "+2" but not as strong as "+3".

Maybe it's cosmetic but the 3-18 attribute value system is actually functioning in many ways under the hood.

Oct 11, 2012 -- 2:43AM, kadim wrote:

The other way to go is to remove the generic modifiers entirely and go back to the attribute actually directly interacting with the mechanics. I can see how someone might think it's more book keeping but it's actually the same as trimming out the attribute. Instead of going attribute -> modifier -> stuff we'd go attribute -> stuff.

I guess the reason they did it in the first place was it allowed them to add on to the system without creating tables for how attributes interacted with the new stuff.

The base numbers are still determining things though, like maximum spell level you can access. It also provides a range of scores that can make finer reflections of what a character is. I know a guy with a 15 str is slightly stronger than a guy with a 14 str. That 15 str can be used as a prerequisite as well, which notes that you need to be stronger than "+2" but not as strong as "+3".

Maybe it's cosmetic but the 3-18 attribute value system is actually functioning in many ways under the hood.

 Using the score instead of the modifier is impossible because the range of the score between 3 and 18 (a 15 point spread) is much too large for a d20 to handle (only a 19 point spread).

I meant eliminating the generic modifier. Obviously the attributes would produce modifiers but instead of "strength" always meaning "+2" it would mean any of a variety of things expressed on the table. I don't actually think that'll happen though.

I don't think all the extra little bonuses are going to figure in. For one thing, none of them use the attribute bonus more than once. For another, much of that has been replaced with advantage. We can see how attribute modifiers are becoming even more important because of all the focus on attributes and their impact on the system in discussions.

It's actually easier to raise DCs than it is to nerf attributes 'cause a DC operates in isolation. The only checks I'd be really careful about balance are opposed rolls and attack rolls, 'cause they interact with a wider variety of mechanics.

If I'm honest though I think this discussion is largely academic because for the game to feel like D&D something has to give and let us scale up some numbers. D&D's always been a number game, people who played 2e AD&D were after that and if they didn't want to do that there was always Vampire or whatever other less rigid system to use. Paranoia used to be my decompression from the D&D number game. 3e was similarly number heavy, and 4e by all acounts is the same.

Why would 5e be any different in this regard? Moreover, why should it be when it's all ready in an established niche and other games do less rigid things so much better?

I like toying with this idea, but I doubt it'll ever see the light of day in a book as anything but a spin off or optional variant.

Because there are no clear definitions for when to add bonuses and when not to add bonuses. It is certain, new features will come with more bonuses, because of the law of power creep. There is no effort to preempt the creation of new features.



As soon as the total reaches +9, the math breaks. From that point on the game becomes a “treadmill” with ever-higher defense/DC totals versus ever-higher attack/skill totals.


 
The rules can help ensure the success of bounded accuracy by eliminating the score, and defining a +4 as Nonhuman, and making certain kinds of extra bonuses illegal.

Players can optionally play with crazy-big math, but they are no longer within the realm of Human experience.   

Oct 11, 2012 -- 3:23AM, Haldrik wrote:

Because there are no clear definitions for when to add bonuses and when not to add bonuses. It is certain, new features will come with more bonuses, because of the law of power creep. There is no effort to preempt the creation of new features.



As soon as the total reaches +9, the math breaks. From that point on the game becomes a “treadmill” with ever-higher defense/DC totals versus ever-higher attack/skill totals.


 
The rules can help ensure the success of bounded accuracy by eliminating the score, and defining a +4 as Nonhuman, and making certain kinds of extra bonuses illegal.

Players can optionally play with crazy-big math, but they are no longer within the realm of Human experience.   

That's more of a matter of too many modifers. If bounded accuracy works and the total # of modifiers are kept low then, there the problem never comes.

Modifiers over +9 warp math but mods under +4 are ignorable depending on the DC.

It's not about the modifier... it's the DC.

If the DC is high (16+), then you need a high modifier to have a character who reliably beats it.

It about making reliable characters hit with a roll over 10.