Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6118667" data-attributes="member: 70709">I get what WotC is going for, but there are some very inelegant bits as others have pointed out.  At the end of the post I have some ideas about how to mitigate them, while keeping the spirit largely intact.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The even/odd nature of ability scores being useful really hurts the +1 ability xor feat choice. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A +1 has diminishing usefulness once the ability score cap is reached in the most important or two scores. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Feats increase in power with level, so defining a proper relative value between a +1 and a feat is practically a lost cause at any level. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This means the marginal utility of a +1 is greatest at low levels, so everyone from rational optimizers to those with the common cognitive bias for avoiding risk (even when non-optimal) will tend to pump ability scores early, delaying cool stuff until later. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Maintaining bounded accuracy with a hard-cap is IMHO inelegant in general, but conspicuously inelegant when almost everyone is bound to bump up against it for at least one score. </li> </ul>The inclination for feats to be optional per character (so characters  with or without them can play together at the same table) does  also inconvenience those who would rather not deal with them ever, and leaves  open "temptation" for players who prefer to do without but feel  compelled to look over any list of abilities that are, in principle, available to their character.  I can't think of any solution where whether or not to use feats is a per-character choice that wouldn't involve this sort of tradeoff, though, so it isn't unique to the current proposal.  (I personally feel this is a reasonable tradeoff to attempt because saying "no feats ever" is a much easier table rule than trying to balance feats with some default replacement, as this entire thread demonstrates.  The goal of more players compatible with more tables is, over all, a noble pursuit.  That said, I have plenty of sympathy for those who feel this does not serve them best even if the mechanical balance were sublime.)I think there may be a way to smooth out some of the bullet point issues.  What if we got rid of the stark choice between +1 vs. a feat?  For example, suppose feats granted something cool, but also granted +1 to a related ability score if it is below a certain value.Example feat:Necromancer - You can raise some zombies, etc.  When you take this feat raise your Constitution by +1 if it is 13 or less.In lieu of a feat one might choose to increase any two different ability scores, but subject to similar limits, perhaps as a function of their sum.  The notion being that characters are always training, but going from a 10->11 is relatively easier than going from a 15->16, so a feat with relatively weak impact might allow 15->16, while one with relatively strong impact might not.  This encapsulates some of the feeling of a point buy without the book-keeping.  A character that concentrates on brawny feats might organically increase Str or Con by choosing such feats, but only to a point.  Eventually the awesome feats they want won't be able to raise that score any more, but there might be a slightly less awesome feat that does.  Or they can choose an awesome feat that helps a different ability score.  In short, the +1 xor feat choice turns on smoothly, and only if the character chooses to develop in that direction.  This is also in keeping with the spirit of class or background influencing ability scores by telling how the character has chosen to develop.This should also mitigate the sting of odd ability scores since they would probably be accompanied by a feat.  It also provides opportunity for characters with weak ability scores to catch up (but never surpass) characters with strong ones if they concentrate on appropriate feats.  I also think it may be possible to use this to remove the hard-cap on ability scores without losing bounded accuracy.  As a design principle one simply does not write feats which permit increasing a 20->21, for example.  However, a race or template might grant more flexibility here.  For example, suppose that races didn't grant an ability score bonus but instead let the character treat a particular score as lower than it is for the purposes of whether it can be increased or not.  That means they have a larger "cap", and it is easier for them to raise a score to any particular value, but unless they actually develop the character in that direction it doesn't necessarily come into play.  This kind of approach may be especially helpful to navigate the thorny territory of bounded accuracy and monster PCs, which are pretty much inevitable at some point during any edition.If feats aren't in use how does the ability score increase work?  Perhaps it is as simple as "increase by +1 as many as two ability scores whose current total is k or less", where k might depend on the character's level.  For example, if at first level k=16, then one might raise a single 16 to 17, or two 8s to 9s.  The key is a good tradeoff between raising a single larger score or multiple smaller ones in a way which respects bounded accuracy.  There are lots of potential variations, but I need to think about it more.  I think it could, however, prevent at least some of the rush to the ability score cap while making it easier to estimate the relative value of feats vs. ability score increases in the context of bounded accuracy.  Optimization is still possible, of course, but diminishing returns are built into the system.  This idea does introduce path dependence into ability scores (since increases depend on what you have, and therefore on when you take it), and I admit I don't like that. The weirdest shift I see in this idea is that the marginal utility for some feat can actually be lessened by having a better ability score.  This certainly cuts against the grain, although I think it can be conceptually justified.  In any case, starting with a lower ability score one can, at best, catch up, but never surpass.</blockquote>

Verification