Cyclopedia Ability Modifiers

[jdrakeh]

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.

All reasons why I'm big on Holmes-era D&D (it's easily my favorite edition of said game). Especially the 'shield effect' -- in most versions of the game, shields aren't worth what you pay for them but the adjustments in Holmes make them worth every penny

 

[Delta]

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

Wow, that's fascinating. It very much resembles what I'm planning to do with it... including start PCs at 3rd level (which coincidentally is also like the Saga Star Wars evolution to start at 3 HD).

Couple of quibbles with that page, in that they're not actually variations from the 3 booklets (guess I should forward them to the author):
- PCs already get +1 hp/die if Con > 14.
- Dex already doesn't affect AC (and does affect missile fire).
- No training to up levels that I can tell in books.

The one thing I can't deal with is declaring all actions before initiative. I'm happy to enforce that for spellcasting, but having everyone involved call out an action & remember it is too much for me.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Yes, I've come to really dislike 1e's approach - STR 17 +1/+1, but STR 18 can get you up to +3/+6 on the d% roll. 3e has the opposite problem, with bonuses starting at 12 and penalties at 9 all NPCs need to have mods, which is a pain for the GM.

I find the Moldvay-RC system is a happy medium; I can stat NPCs in the 9-12 range; PCs get meaningful boosts for stats in the 13-16 range and don't need 18s; conversely the maximum stat is 18/+3 so you don't get the runaway escalation of 3e or 1e's enormous bonuses in the 19-25 range. I'm glad C&C went with the Moldvay-RC system.

 

[RFisher]

Couple of quibbles with that page, in that they're not actually variations from the 3 booklets (guess I should forward them to the author)

If Gary felt it was worth mentioning--even if it wasn't a variation from the book--then I felt it was worth recording. Sometimes confirmation is as important to note as variation.

Truth be told, though, I was more interested in recording what Gary & Deogolf reported about the rules they were using rather than any criteria for what should go in the list or not. I edited the page to reflect that. (Removed the "varied from the printed books" bit.)

 

[RFisher]

As for ability scores & their affect on the game...

Generally, if I have a number, I want every increment of that number to count somehow. Otherwise, I'd rather switch to a scale that only has the values that count or toss the number completely.

I'd happily play classic D&D without ability scores.

In current practice, I used the +3 to -3 modifiers. For really not much of any reason beyond that's what was in the rules I used as my baseline. I tended to use ability checks in the form of roll under an ability score on d20 or Xd6 (usually the latter) so that every point of an ability score might matter.

 

[Delta]

If Gary felt it was worth mentioning--even if it wasn't a variation from the book--then I felt it was worth recording. Sometimes confirmation is as important to note as variation.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Generally, if I have a number, I want every increment of that number to count somehow. Otherwise, I'd rather switch to a scale that only has the values that count or toss the number completely...I tended to use ability checks in the form of roll under an ability score on d20 or Xd6 (usually the latter) so that every point of an ability score might matter.

That last part is one way to make the full 3-18 range significant, even when there isn't an attribute modifier for every number in the range. I also use the actual attribute score when looking at contests of strength and similar situations. Lastly, keep in mind that the 3-18 range is more than just a range of numbers; it also establishes a probability curve. So even numbers that don't supply an attribute bonus are still performing a game-function (at character creation time, at the very least).

 

[T. Foster]

As for ability scores & their affect on the game...

Generally, if I have a number, I want every increment of that number to count somehow. Otherwise, I'd rather switch to a scale that only has the values that count or toss the number completely.

I'd happily play classic D&D without ability scores.

In current practice, I used the +3 to -3 modifiers. For really not much of any reason beyond that's what was in the rules I used as my baseline. I tended to use ability checks in the form of roll under an ability score on d20 or Xd6 (usually the latter) so that every point of an ability score might matter.

The adjustments in OD&D (except for Charisma) could pretty closely be modeled with 1d6: 1 = 3-6 (major penalty: -20% XP, -1 hp/die), 2 = 7-8 (minor penalty: -10% XP, -1 missiles), 3-4 = 9-12 (no adjustment), 5 = 13-14 (minor bonus: +5% XP, will withstand adversity, +1 missiles), 6 = 15-18 (major bonus: +10% XP, +1 hp/die). The big loss would be point-trading, and the incidental "color" of being able to make finer distinctions (which can affect both player role-playing and ref's ad-hoc judgments). Plus, I get the feeling that the bell-curve distribution of rolling 3d6 feels "less random" to players than rolling 1d6, even though the actual percentages are comparable.

Something I've toyed with (and discussed a bit at this thread at the K&K Alehouse) is making ability scores optional -- allowing the player to choose whether they want to roll ability scores for their character, and how many, and which ones, with any score they choose not to roll assumed to be average (9-12). Thus the player is choosing to gamble and take the risk -- is the possibility of getting +1 hp/die worth the risk of getting stuck with -1 hp/die? Is the possibility of +10% XP worth the risk of -20% XP (or, more realistically, having to take a different class)? I like the idea of making this gamble an affirmative choice by the player -- you can play it safe with all average stats or you can press your luck on 1 or more of them -- rather than something purely random.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'd happily play classic D&D without ability scores.

There's a thread on Dragonsfoot about doing that.

 

[RFisher]

That last part is one way to make the full 3-18 range significant, even when there isn't an attribute modifier for every number in the range.

Right.

Then there's things like mysterious fountains that randomly add (or subtract) points from ability scores. Those could have a much greater affect if you dropped the scores & only kept the modifiers. Or you'd have to have them work in fractions, which would (IMHO) make them less fun.