Game design trap - Starting too close to zero.

[Crazy Jerome]

Premise: Starting a mechanic too close to zero is a design trap that often causes more trouble than it is worth.

I've seen this crop up several times lately, most recently with the rogue sneak attack column. There is all kinds of talk about how much sneak attack/backstab the rogue should get, how that balances with the rest of the character, and how to limit it to make it flavorful/fair. What isn't even discussed is that maybe everyone should get some modest 4E-style sneak attack (for having combat advantage). Then the rogue can get more of it, in certain situations.

3E skill points is another place. 2 skill points is simply too low of a base for the system to work well.

You can see the same problem with damage modifiers in many versions. If the wizard gets -1, the cleric +1, and the fighter +2--it doesn't leave much room for distinction or dealing with the rest of the system. OTOH, if the math is scaled so that the 1st level wizard gets a relatively weak +4, say, then you've got more room to tack on bonuses. There are ways of getting creative with a range of, say, +4 to +10, that aren't available when you start lower, narrower. (D&D hasn't taken advantage of these in the past. So they might not be very obvious.)

Now this doesn't apply everywhere. There is no particular reason to start possible character level at anywhere but 1. And the only reason to boost hit chances on such a scale (using the d20 linear resolution) is if you want to do some extra things with those hit chances besides hit, that don't happen to work well near zero.

 

[Kingreaper]

here is no particular reason to start possible character level at anywhere but 1.

There are, however, several reasons to have the lowest possible character level not be the default starting level.

The lowest possible level should allow people to play farmhands getting sucked into an adventure. The default starting level should allow people to be significant right from the start. Taking one level in a class shouldn't give you everything a starting character of that class gets.

You talk about a first level wizard having a +4. But I'm pretty sure that you're thinking about that in terms of a STARTING level wizard. A wizard of the lowest possible level should be getting a negative to damage. They're not even a farmhand, they don't handle rakes of shovels, so swords and spears aren't going to be made more damaging by them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

With regards to the rogue, this is very true. Everyone should have substantial advantages for whacking someone in the back of the head. Everyone should also have some form of power attack, and various other options. Advancing as a fighter or as a rogue is about getting better at those things, not trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Mengu]

From a design perspective, I agree. This is also why at level 1 a 4 hit point wizard doesn't look right, next to an 18 hit point barbarian, where as, instead of starting hit points at 0 base, if you started them at 10 base, a 14 hit point wizard, and a 28 hit point barbarian makes for a more interesting balance point.

 

[Boarstorm]

From a design perspective, I agree. This is also why at level 1 a 4 hit point wizard doesn't look right, next to an 18 hit point barbarian, where as, instead of starting hit points at 0 base, if you started them at 10 base, a 14 hit point wizard, and a 28 hit point barbarian makes for a more interesting balance point.

Does it? Depends on the amount of damage a monster does, I suppose.

Really, though, I worry more about number inflation at high levels then differentiation at low levels.

Edit: To clarify -- I think the d20 mechanic is too... coarse... for such large ranges of bonuses. When your outcomes are 1-20, the difference between +4 and +10 are astronomical. And as you level up, the range would get truly out of control.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You talk about a first level wizard having a +4. But I'm pretty sure that you're thinking about that in terms of a STARTING level wizard. A wizard of the lowest possible level should be getting a negative to damage. They're not even a farmhand, they don't handle rakes of shovels, so swords and spears aren't going to be made more damaging by them.

No, I mean explictily that whatever the bottom of the scale is for weak combatants, they should hit somewhat harder than +0, and certainly should not be dipping into the negatives unless they have outright penalties. I can see a 3 Str, pixie wizard using an improvised weapon with which he is not familiar hitting at +0. That's pretty much the bottom of the scale. And in any case, the principle I'm discussing doesn't need to account for every possible negative. If that example dips into the -1 to -3 range but the math is otherwise good, then ok. It won't come up enough to matter.

But the vast majority of characters on the scale--including farmhand wizards, should not be generally doubled or trippled by farmhand fighters. it's the doubling and trippling that causes all kinds of issues in the low-level math--and not infrequently, ends up causing different imbalances on the other end of the leveling scale, because of things put into to compensate.

This becomes even more important if they sharply narrow the range of the numbers. For example, want to really leave a place for +N weapons and armor, in a scaled down system? One option is to have such weapon do bonus damage but not change chance to hit, while amor ignores damage equal to the plus, but doesn't make the wearer harder to hit. (Leave aside for the moment the other issues with armor as damage resistance--we are talking only the magic part in this hybrid idea.) When you've got attacks doing 1d4-1, that does not work well in D&D. When your attacks start somewhere in the 1d4+4 range and go up from there, a magic dagger is nice but hardly as critical.

 

[kitsune9]

You can see the same problem with damage modifiers in many versions. If the wizard gets -1, the cleric +1, and the fighter +2--it doesn't leave much room for distinction or dealing with the rest of the system. OTOH, if the math is scaled so that the 1st level wizard gets a relatively weak +4, say, then you've got more room to tack on bonuses. There are ways of getting creative with a range of, say, +4 to +10, that aren't available when you start lower, narrower. (D&D hasn't taken advantage of these in the past. So they might not be very obvious.)

Ah, I see where you're going with this. There can be three approaches:

1. Keep it the scaling the way it is and accept whatever challenge is required.
2. Move the "base" set of modifiers to a higher number so that working in penalties and the like doesn't go below 0. However, you have shift the base DCs.
3. Keep the scaling the way it is so that +0 is a "middle ground" for modifiers at Level 1. I think this is the intended design for PF and 3.x.

Another option is that +0 is the flat / worse penalty to any action. If you had +5, but a series of penalties takes you to -3, you're at +0-done.

Personally, I like penalties where +0 is the "middle ground" at 1st level against the DCs, but I can see the point of having more options at 1st level makes for a different play and game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The most stark example of this effect that I know of is in Fantasy Hero. I've had numerous Champions players deny it left and right while admitting that they never play in the lower power ranges common to FH.

Basically, in Hero, every character has a Speed (SPD) score that determine how many times they get to act in a 12 second turn. This works great for typical starting super heroes, where your SPD will usually range between 5 and 7, with an occasional oddball dropping to 4 or jumping higher than 7. "Normals" are usually in the 2-3 range, which is appropriate for them verus super heroes. A slow "brick" at 5 is noticably slower than a fast martial artist type at 7, but not totally messed up in the action economy.

In Fantasy Hero, to keep the rest of the system math balanced, the typical starting FH character has SPD 2 to 4. But this means that your typical "slow" character" act half the amount of a typical "fast" character. What works for mundane bank robber versus a batman type does not work for an older spell caster versus a rogue. There are additional bad effects for the way the Hero SPD chart divides up the actions, too. It's not impossible to deal with, and some people may like the flavor of it, but the practical effects in most games is that you end up with most people at SPD 3 and one or two at 4.

I got around all of these negative effects by the simple house rule of adding +1 SPD for free, to every character. Suddenly, the action economy was again mostly working as intended. A slow 3 is viable versus a fast 5.

Short of "double damage on crits" and a few goofy miss chances in some versions, the negative effects in D&D are usually much more subtle. My contention in this topic is that while subtle and relatively minor, they are still there.

 

[Minigiant]

Starting from zero was always a concern for me when people asked for low numbers. This especially true for things regulated to D20s. You don't actually feel the specialness of a d20+2 over a d20-1 unless the DC is not absurdly high.

The same goes with abilities like sneak attack and power attack. The starting character should not be Jack Squat who can only do his namesake and every class is Jack Squat+ and his magically cousin Diddley Squat+.

 

[Lanefan]

So...er...whatever happened to the concept of growing in to your abilities as you go along?

I can see a 3 Str, pixie wizard using an improvised weapon with which he is not familiar hitting at +0.

The +0 point should be the average-stat commoner Human using a vaguely-familiar weapon or a fist...in other words, something we-as-players can relate to in reality...and that's where the game should start.

Your pixie wizard should probably stick to spells.

Lan-"pixies have innate invisibility for a reason"-efan