Cyclopedia Ability Modifiers

[Delta]

In D&D Rules Cyclopedia-style play, how do ability modifiers work, again?

 

[T. Foster]

You mean what scores give what adjustments? It's the same as the 1981/Moldvay Basic Set:

3 = -3
4-5 = -2
6-8 = -1
9-12 = no adjustment
13-15 = +1
16-17 = +2
18 = +3

I don't like this chart -- I think the adjustments start too close to the center of the curve, I think +/-3 is too big an adjustment for something purely chance-based, and I don't like using the same chart for every ability score. I much prefer the ad-hoc adjustments in OD&D.

 

[Delta]

That is the chart I'm looking for. Thank you!

 

[S'mon]

I like it. I find it works much better than either the 3e or 1e-2e versions.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I much prefer the ad-hoc adjustments in OD&D.

I've been running a Holmes game, and (to my surprise) I found I really like the way the ability mods work under those rules (*very* close to the OD&D rules). One interesting side-effect is it made shields more valuable, because AC adjustments are harder to come by. In general, it made things less "numbers focused." Not a bad thing, in my book.

 

[T. Foster]

In general, it made things less "numbers focused." Not a bad thing, in my book.

QFT.

IIRC, the only differences in the ability adjustments between OD&D and Holmes Basic is that the latter gives the extra hp bonus for Con 17-18 from Supplement I (which I'm not crazy about -- +2 or 3 hp/level is an awfully big bonus for doing nothing more than having a lucky roll), and leaves out the reaction/loyalty adjustments and max retainers for Charisma (which, ironically, makes the stat that had the biggest quantifiable in-play impact in OD&D into the one stat with no quantifiable in-play impact at all -- since strength and wisdom at least affect XP for fighters and clerics).

 

[Lancelot]

I liked the Rules Cyclopedia treatment as well, although it did get a little funky if you exceeded an 18 stat (from memory, 19-20 was +4... then 21-24 was +5... and so on, all the way up to a max of +20 with a 100 stat score). The stat ranges for each "bump" in plus were somewhat arbitrary. For example, you needed to refer to a table to figure out what bonus a creature with a 33 Strength had, unlike current 3E.

It was vastly better than 1e/2e treatment, though. Back in those days, most of my players simply rerolled or chose another class if their fighter didn't have an 18 Strength. You needed a 16 Strength to get +1 melee damage (only), and a 17 Strength gave you +1 attack/damage. Apart from encumbrance (rarely used) and breaking doors (also rarely used), it became meaningless. And, of course, if you got that 18 Strength, out comes the percentile dice...

The result: characters with uber-stats all over the place. A 1e/2e fighter with: S 15, D 14, C 14, I 18, W 14, Ch 18... had no significant "combat-meaningful" bonuses over a fighter with a 9 score in every stat.

The Cyclopedia/Basic treatment made a character with as low as a 13 stat feel like they were getting some bang for their buck.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

IIRC, the only differences in the ability adjustments between OD&D and Holmes Basic is that the latter gives the extra hp bonus for Con 17-18 from Supplement I...and leaves out the reaction/loyalty adjustments and max retainers for Charisma...

Yeah, that sounds right. The Holmes rules do mention that PCs with Cha below 13 can't hire more than 5 followers (which is perfectly congruent with the OD&D Cha table), and that low Cha affects follower loyalty. However, it doesn't go into any more specifics, leaving that up to the DM. I just house-ruled in the OD&D rules to cover this; it seems like what the rules had in mind, in any case. (Also, I really like including lots of followers in the party -- makes things interesting and does give high Cha PCs an important role. There's a high-Cha fighter in my Holmes game that has been extremely helpful keeping the followers loyal, etc -- they're exploring B4-The Lost City, so there're several followers from the desert caravan, and I plan on introducing some stragglers soon, too...)

 

[Delta]

I'm considering house-ruling into an OD&D game a system of 9-12: no bonus, 13-15: +1, 16-18: +2, 19-21: +3 (for deities from Supplement IV, if required). I must admit I like the unified chart for all abilities, because I like as much to be recallable mentally on the fly as possible.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm considering house-ruling into an OD&D game a system of 9-12: no bonus, 13-15: +1, 16-18: +2, 19-21: +3 (for deities from Supplement IV, if required). I must admit I like the unified chart for all abilities, because I like as much to be recallable mentally on the fly as possible.

If I were going with a unified chart, I'd probably make +1 the max for the normal range (i.e. 3-18), or make +2 for 18s, only -- definitey a taste issue, though. I like what you have better than the B/X modifiers.

Have you seen Gary Gygax's OD&D house rules from a 2005 game he ran?