Change to ability increases...

gamecat · Oct 22, 2003

Would it be unbalanced to allow +2 to a mental ability when a character hits a level divisible by 4?

My logic behind this is that racial modifiers place twice as much value on physical ability scores.

Spatzimaus · Oct 22, 2003

It would definitely be unbalanced.

Physical modifiers cost twice as much as NEGATIVE mental modifiers, but positive mental modifiers are priceless. A no-ECL race with +2 INT becomes an instant Wizard-magnet, no matter what physical penalties you give it. It's one of the reasons that the designers specifically avoided putting races with mental boosts into the core rules.

It's just that having a penalty to a mental stat you don't use isn't very crippling; as much as Half-Orcs have been bad-mouthed, the INT and CHA losses never really hurt the majority of their classes, while the STR boost nearly always helps. While most classes gain from a physical boost, they need all three physical stats. You can't just ignore DEX and CON to raise your STR. On the other hand, the few classes that need mental stats really only need one mental stat. A Wizard can get by with lousy stats all around if he has a huge INT. Having some DEX and CON is nice, but STR, WIS, and CHA can pretty much be ignored.

So, giving a Wizard twice as many points to put into INT is a huge power swing. Since casters are pretty much the only ones who make raising mental stats a high priority, the only ones who would benefit from your proposed 2:1 ratio are the ones who are already benefitting most from just the old-fashioned +1.

FrankTrollman · Oct 23, 2003

Absolutely.

First of all: the concept that physical stats are somehow worth more than mental ones is hillariously wrong. Half Orcs really are the worst PHB race, and Gray Elves are the most powerful LA +0 race in the core rules.

Secondly: noweher do you ever get mental stats any cheaper than physical ones. In fact, when you age you get a total of +3 to your mental stats in exchange for -6 to all of your physical ones and you count yourself lucky for doing so.

Mental Stats are more powerful than physical stats. Allowing people to get larger bonuses to mental stats than they can get physical bonuses is game breaking. Already, the realities of Polymorphing and Wildshape mean that physical ability scores are virtually irrelevent for any moderately powergamed mid-level character. There is no reason to rub peoples' noses in that fact even harder.

-Frank

Renfield · Oct 23, 2003

I never liked the idea that mental negatives took double for every single physical one. I mean maybe if the campaign was one hundred percent hack and slash or something but my damn player had a sorcerer with a high CHA and a damn good diplomacy score totally avoid one of my encounters because he talked the enemy down. Now I wouldn't allow that for every encounter with intelligent beings as some I would declare are very set in their intentions but still, he did a good job, posed a decent argument then had him role and poof. Hostile was driven to neutral land. Heh, slap in the face for those foolish souls who think charisma is a worthless stat.

Draugin · Oct 23, 2003

gamecat said:
Would it be unbalanced to allow +2 to a mental ability when a character hits a level divisible by 4?

Absolutely yes, it would!

My logic behind this is that racial modifiers place twice as much value on physical ability scores.

This is an erroneous syllogism. Your absumptions are wrong, as others explained above, even in a hack'n'slash campaign.
Rather than increase sheer numbers, try to increase game impact of mental abilities (so it would be interesting to put decent stats in them).

Draugin · Oct 23, 2003

Renfield said:
<snip> Now I wouldn't allow that for every encounter with intelligent beings as some I would declare are very set in their intentions but still, he did a good job, posed a decent argument then had him role and poof. Hostile was driven to neutral land.

Well done!

Heh, slap in the face for those foolish souls who think charisma is a worthless stat.

Only a mindless munchkin could think that!

But I remind you that a player can roleplay only if behind the screen there's a DM who knows what roleplay is...
Bye!

Renfield · Oct 23, 2003

In the online living world I'm a member of (The 13 Kingdoms) we all declared that a persons normal feats (the ones at 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc.) can be sacrificed to increase a stat. Primarily because we didn't think it something that one needed to be epic for. After all, let's say a PC abuses this and adjusts all his stats. By 20th level he's a character with +12 stat points (+5 for the standard bonuses every 4 levels and +7 for sacrificing feats). And while that could get a character to 32 in a stat provided he had an eighteen and focused all of them into one stat and had a +2 racial bonus, they wouldn't have much else to back it up. Not to mention not many players are that cheap and those who are would likely learn the consequence of not having any feats to back their wonderfully high ability up. So in general they'd be on par with everyone else. We had a long debate about this until even the most balance minded people of the ones able to vote shrugged and agreed. Quite handy if you're indecisive about what feat to pick and that damnable 13 has been bugging you. I run a PnP campaign and have that as an option and none of my players have even touched it in favor of getting a nice crunchy feat.

Kemrain · Oct 23, 2003

I like Renfield's idea. You get my vote.

I also agree that doubling mental stats isn't a bright idea. For one, it helps things that, at least in the games I play, aren't broken. I've never played with anyone who thought so. I mean, "Ooh! Skillpoints! Whee!" and "More Spot and listen-ey goodness!" and "I'm sixth level but I get a +26 to diplomacy!" are all things I hear, but never "What good is it?"

I haven't seen it broken, but if it is IYC, I think there are better ways of having it fixed, rather than giving the people who'll benefit most from it a massive advantage.

- Kemrain the Spot and Listen-ey Goodness.