Sorry, still not getting it. How would an ability score bonus be more important if the resulting modifier was smaller?
Ok, for your definition of 'few' I agree.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Make Race Matter
- Thread starter paladinm
- Start date
Sorry, still not getting it. How would an ability score bonus be more important if the resulting modifier was smaller?
Ok, for your definition of 'few' I agree.
If a 16 in a score gave a +3 mod and a 18 in a score also gave a +3, unless there is a major secondary bonus of having an 18 no one would be encouraged ever go higher than a 16.
With 16s being easier to get and preferable due to efficiency, more all 16 characters would be naturally created.
That's why I'd prefer uncapped abilities and make races more than one dimension. Easier to avoid unseen consequences.
Ability scores and racial feats/classes/whatever is good when used when it makes sense and in moderation, but the only real way you can make race matter is through role play.
As long as you treat elves and dwarfs as "human with pointy ears" and "short human" in your setting no amount of racial extras can really make them feel different from each other.
As long as you treat elves and dwarfs as "human with pointy ears" and "short human" in your setting no amount of racial extras can really make them feel different from each other.
So you are saying the opposite of what I thought. Changing modifiers to work like that would make the cap work worse. However, I don't think we have any reason to believe they would want to change the modifiers like that.
Indeed.
But it is harder to roleplay something that doesn't match their stats. If dwarves are given low speed, it would be silly to call them the fast race. If orcs are made with an Intelligent penalty, it is harder to roleplay one as smart.
Modifier were wonky before. And I've read many posts, in this very
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Assuming the maximum score was 18.
If we were to simply establish a system of diminishing returns, much like the point-buy system already utilizes, we could make it less effecient to stack a single score, but not as irrelevent as a score-cap would make them. It would allow players to choose where their scores go, but reward them less for doing so beyond a certain point.
IE: Every 2 points beyond 10 gives you a +1 modifier.
Every 3 points beyond 16 gives you a +1 modifier
Every 4 points beyond 22 gives you a +1 modifier
Ever 6 points beyond 30 gives you a +1 modifier.
Right now, someone with a 36 str gets a +13 modifier.
In a diminishing returns system, someone with a 36 str would only get a +9 modifier. We're not telling the player they can't stat their character as they choose(which is why a stat-cap does and why it's wrong), we're just de-incentivising it. Telling people how they have to stat their character is bad, telling people it's less profitable to go beyond a certain point still allows to make the decision for themselves.
Like I explained before, diminishing returns encourages sameness unless a lot of other thing aren't allowed.
If going past 16 is inefficient enough and lacks a strong secondary reason to go past, no one might ever go 16.
A dwarf fighter starts with Str 16. He'll put all his abilty boost from levels to Wisdom since doing so to Str grants no bonus. If he gets a +4 str item, he might not even use it. He'll trade with the rogue who has the +4 dex item (who doesn't use the +dex item for the same reason). He won't ask the wizard for Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Bear's Endurance (because his's a dwarf), nor Owl's Wisdom as none of them will give him a bonus. At level 10, every fighter has ~16 in their Str, Dex, Con, and Wis ability scores regardless of race because it is inefficient not too..
Diminishing returning is a soft cap. Soft caps are hard caps for people with system mastery 90% of the time. Hard caps encourages sameness. seen in happen in video games, it'll happen in d&d. Even the New York Yankees don't want to be over the luxury cap anymore
.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Like I explained before, diminishing returns encourages sameness unless a lot of other thing aren't allowed.
If going past 16 is inefficient enough and lacks a strong secondary reason to go past, no one might ever go 16.
A dwarf fighter starts with Str 16. He'll put all his abilty boost from levels to Wisdom since doing so to Str grants no bonus. If he gets a +4 str item, he might not even use it. He'll trade with the rogue who has the +4 dex item (who doesn't use the +dex item for the same reason). He won't ask the wizard for Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Bear's Endurance (because his's a dwarf), nor Owl's Wisdom as none of them will give him a bonus. At level 10, every fighter has ~16 in their Str, Dex, Con, and Wis ability scores regardless of race because it is inefficient not too..
Diminishing returning is a soft cap. Soft caps are hard caps for people with system mastery 90% of the time. Hard caps encourages sameness. seen in happen in video games, it'll happen in d&d. Even the New York Yankees don't want to be over the luxury cap anymore
But there's a pretty significant degree of sameness already. Power builds stack strength(or whatever is the best stat, or 2 best stats). Turning to MAD really doesn't solve the problem either because then we're forcing players to keep their stats low because many need to be good stats. That aside, your opening line as a great deal of "maybes" in it, there's incentive to go over the line of efficiency if you want to do so. Sure, some people might decide it's more effective to stat out other scores, others might continue to pump up their STR because that's how they envision their characters. Min/maxers will min/max regardless.
The simple solution for stat-buff items or spells is to have them affect the modifier, not your actual strength. Magic weapons already do this and it's worked out pretty well, when a magical item affects your base stat, there's additional calculations that need to be done. Skip the middleman and just bump up the modifier.
If you're not planning to build a min/maxer, then it any cap at 20 or greater isn't really going to affect your character. You're going to be a highly intelligent, highly charismatic fighter because you want to be. You will buy gear and allocate stats accordingly.
That said, if you cap a system in any say, soft caps, hard caps, then you need to inventivise stating out other scores. A two-weapon fighter in generic plate as zero use for dexterity. What's this guy want to do? Hit and hit hard. How can we make MAD play into that? Off the top of my head, use his dex modifier to increase his crit range. MAD is inherently a tricky system but it can provide useful ways to incentivise building characters within a capped system without punishing the players for not investing in those scores.
Yes it does. If a fighter with Str 16 and Con 14 and a fighter with Str 14 and Con 16 are mechanically as powerful, you are going to see both options played. The one with Str 14 might choose to increase it later through leveling or an item, but he might just choose to max his Con.
No sameness there, especially if you add 1-2 more equally important abilities into the mix.
Add diminishing returns and they can still start with either as 16, but now both will be mechanically better off if they raise the 14 to 16 rather than trying to raise the 16.
Fixed for system mastery.
Bad choices/Traps aren't choices. 3E's Weapon Specialization is a chooseable feat but only new players or people who wish to nerf themselves ever do it.
But back on topic: Races need to be more than one dimensional (ability score) in crunch.
Similar Threads
