Crazy Jerome
First Post
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.
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.