Optional math pitfalls?

[Fredrik Svanberg]

Here is the optional math idea:

Instead of (ability modifier + half level) as a value for various things, why don't we use (ability value + level - 10)/2?

Old system

18 (+4) + 1 (+½) = 4½ = 4

New system

(18 + 1 - 10)/2 = 4½ = 4

But!

17 (+3) + 1 (+½) = 3½ = 3

And!

(17 + 1 - 10)/2 = 4 = 4

Suddenly odd ability values and odd levels aren't "useless" anymore.

Now, my main question is whether this would cause more or less min-maxing (I'm hoping for less) and if there is some balance issue I've missed?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmmm, can't really think of a reason why this would be a problem, and it is true, you do come out with a set of numbers that makes even and odd ability scores give bonuses at respectively even and odd levels instead of all bonuses being at even levels. Overall the bonuses are the same. Roughly 50% of characters will get a +1 one level sooner.

It will have some minor effects on optimization in that players are going to make slightly different tradeoffs, but the overall value of the tradeoffs is really no different. I really cannot see how it would break anything. There is no game mechanic that would be upset. Overall progression works fine.

Honestly I think the game designers were just so caught up in using their one standardized bonus scheme for everything that it never occured to anyone to do it this way instead. That and it can't be easily laid out in a neat table. Gets my endorsement.

 

[BartD]

I have considered doing the same and don't really see any balance issues. But so far, I think the simplicity of increasing everything at even levels is better with my group.

The difference is really just using either

floor( (stat-10 + level)/2 )
instead of
floor( (stat-10)/2 ) + floor(level/2)

or saying "round up at odd levels"

 

[77IM]

As BartD points out, this is mathematically equivalent to keeping the .5 from odd levels and odd ability scores, and rounding down after you add them. (Interpreted this way, it may also have implications for powers like sly flourish where multiple ability scores factor into damage.)

I don't see any problem with it at all. It's an occasional +1 boost here and there which makes odd ability scores more useful. Personally, I don't think the additional math would really make this worthwhile for my group, but YMMV.

-- 77IM

 

[deleteme123456]

It means that 28 is no longer the target; 29 or 27 is, which means you start with 17 instead of 18, and save 4 points on the point buy, possibly buy a 16 up to a 17.

Instead of 18 (+4), 18 (+4), 14 (+2), 13 (+1), 10, 8 (-1), [or 18/16/16, just moving the racials around] the min-maxers buy
17 (+4), 17 (+4), 15 (+3), 11, 10, 8 (-1)

So it lets you get +4/+4/+3 which is otherwise impossible (costs 5 more points than you have). Your 4th best stat, which you probably don't really care about (although it might be CON for some classes) goes to a +0 modifier instead of a +1, but you could also build the more equivalent:
17/17/13/13/11/9 and have the nice benefit of two +4s and two +2s, a +1, and a +0, and an array that scales very nicely into epic. Alternatively, you can do 17/15/15 if you want a more equal 2nd/3rd best stat for weapon mastery feats, for example.

That's a nice power increase there.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And then you do away with the fairly lame Weapon/Implement Expertise feat taxes and you're really basically pretty much back where you started , at least at heroic tier. Even at paragon you probably at least still have saved enough to get yourself a +2 where you really care about it. Granted at epic you won't have the equivalent of the +3 for Expertise, but you could at least make those into paragon/epic tier feats and cut them back by a +. There are always ways to fudge things back into cosmic alignment if it matters a lot.