Ability Scores

[jodyjohnson]

The consequence of applying half a character's level to all attribute checks is that you get back to having absurd results, such as the 4 Str 90-year-old 20th level Wizard regularly out-arm-wrestling the 18 Str 18-year-old 1st level miner's son without making any use of magic.

Assuming that arm wrestling is a strength skill check rather than just comparing their strength (higher strength wins).

By your assumption the old guy wins a random % of the time based on the d20 roll alone -- that is if it's a check.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Assuming that arm wrestling is a strength skill check rather than just comparing their strength (higher strength wins).

By your assumption the old guy wins a random % of the time based on the d20 roll alone -- that is if it's a check.

Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be applied to just arm wrestling. Using a strength-based skill, like, say, swimming, the 90-year old wizard will be able to outswim his young and spry counterpart, even if the 90-year old mage spent most of his life in a desert. Adding 1/2 of a character's level to attribute/skill checks is going to lead to situations where wonky results like that are possible. Sure, a DM can apply common sense to get around those situations, but they'll be there in the rules.

 

[Vael]

Assuming that the new stat modifier calculation is correct, I see two advantages.

Zero now defines minimal requirements instead of average. Think Intelligence. In 3e, the difference between humanoids and animals was that animals have an Int score of 1 or 2. So, maybe in 4e, in order to be able to speak a language, you must have an INT modifier of at least 0, ie a score of 4 or better.

Secondly, it reduces the need for an initial 18. At low levels, having that 18 or 20 (stat adjusted nonhumans) was a massive advantage over a score of 16. Now, it's much less of an advantage, as instead of a modifier of +4 or +5 vs. a +3, it's a +7 or +8 vs. a +6.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Secondly, it reduces the need for an initial 18. At low levels, having that 18 or 20 (stat adjusted nonhumans) was a massive advantage over a score of 16. Now, it's much less of an advantage, as instead of a modifier of +4 or +5 vs. a +3, it's a +7 or +8 vs. a +6.

The reason some players need an 18 to start was so that started as the best they can be. Sliding the scale around won't change that at all.

 

[anon]

Although the accuracy of this new formula seems very much in doubt I will say that I like the idea of increasing Ability bonuses as a way of reducing the amount of luck/randomness in the game and shifting the balance, somewhat, towards Skill/Ability-based determinism.

A +2 to +4 Ability modifier is very often washed out by a bad, or average, roll, while a +5 to +7 is much less likely to be.

 

[Vael]

It won't negate the desire for high scores, but the difference is less meaningful. Two identical 1st level fighters, one with 16 STR, one with 18 STR, the latter has 1 1/3 STR of the former. Under the new system, the latter has only 1 1/6 the STR of the former.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be applied to just arm wrestling. Using a strength-based skill, like, say, swimming, the 90-year old wizard will be able to outswim his young and spry counterpart, even if the 90-year old mage spent most of his life in a desert. Adding 1/2 of a character's level to attribute/skill checks is going to lead to situations where wonky results like that are possible. Sure, a DM can apply common sense to get around those situations, but they'll be there in the rules.

My expectation is that this brings too much 3.x baggage to the 4e system.

If 4e checks are about overcoming obstacles moreso than proving whether or not 'Old Guy' can beat 'Young Olympic Swimmer', the only thing that matters will be whether your character can overcome the challenge or at least survive it. The way the skills would be relevant is how they operate in the context of a game scene or encounter.

Sure in an olympic pool we'll let Young level 1 swimmer beat Old level 20 non-swimmer every single time, but where it counts out in the story/adventure the Level 20 guy is going to have a decent chance of finding a way to survive/overcome where the Level 1 guy is overpowered by the challenge just like he would by a combat challenge.

Apply the same argument to 3.x combat and all the same issues you have surface (the 20th wizard is a better physical combatant than a 1st level Barbarian).

 

[jodyjohnson]

It won't negate the desire for high scores, but the difference is less meaningful. Two identical 1st level fighters, one with 16 STR, one with 18 STR, the latter has 1 1/3 STR of the former. Under the new system, the latter has only 1 1/6 the STR of the former.

Is it no longer a linear progression?

The identical fighters still vary on their attacks by 5%.

3.x combat doesn't care about comparative proportions. It isn't like a +4 bonus is an infinite amount greater than a +0.

 

[SteveC]

The consequence of applying half a character's level to all attribute checks is that you get back to having absurd results, such as the 4 Str 90-year-old 20th level Wizard regularly out-arm-wrestling the 18 Str 18-year-old 1st level miner's son without making any use of magic.

...and you might think that I have a problem with that, but I don't.

A level 20 character is something that is no longer entirely human or mortal any more. They are an epic being who has abilities far greater than that of a normal man.

That's just my opinion, of course, but it seems to be the direction the game is going. If this means that a level one character in his realm of expertise can't beat a level 20 character in his weak spot, I don't have a problem with that.

With that said, the level one character has a mod of +4 and the level 20 character has a mod of +7, so they're really not that unbalanced.

--Steve

 

[an_idol_mind]

Sure in an olympic pool we'll let Young level 1 swimmer beat Old level 20 non-swimmer every single time, but where it counts out in the story/adventure the Level 20 guy is going to have a decent chance of finding a way to survive/overcome where the Level 1 guy is overpowered by the challenge just like he would by a combat challenge.

Which boils down to a mechanic that some people are going to have a problem with. Some DMs will work around it, but it's a point of abstraction that will likely draw a lot of controversy.

Apply the same argument to 3.x combat and all the same issues you have surface (the 20th wizard is a better physical combatant than a 1st level Barbarian).

Sort of, but not terribly so. The high-level wizard is more likely to hit, but unless he uses magical enhancement or the like, he's not going to be doing as much damage per hit as a young barbarian with a greataxe and power attack. Furthermore, if you've got a warrior with a high strength and the right feats, he'll be almost as likely to hit with an attack as the weak wizard. (If the wizard has a strength of 6 and is swinging around a quarterstaff, he gets a +8/+3 to hit and does 1d6-2 damage -- again, discounting magic. By comparison, a barbarian with a 16 strength and weapon focus in the greataxe has a +5 to hit and does 1d12+4 damage -- a slightly lower hit probability, but its going to hurt a lot more when he does connect.)