Mearls idea on modifiers in D&D

[Belen]

Keeping Modifiers Hidden
It's really hot in Seattle. Actually, in absolute terms it isn't that hot. I'm sure back in New England this would be rather average, but for us soft, Eloi-esque northwesterners, this is daunting stuff.

Anyway, the heat made me think of something RPG related. It's hot out, and I know that because of this I'm not operating at full capacity. I move a little slower, I'm more likely to just sit still, and painting miniatures is right out. The heat saps the patience I need to do that.

Of course, this prompts a thought about D&D. In the rust monster re-develop, several people commented that it's a real pain to keep track of modifiers. What if the DM did all that work? The players don't know the exact modifiers they face if those modifiers apply to all actions.

For example, the PCs are aboard a ship fighting a giant octopus. The octopus shakes the ship each round, causing unsteady footing and a -2 penalty to all attacks and checks. It doesn't matter what sort of attack or skill action the PCs take, they face the modifier. In this case, why bother burdening the player?

Even better, if a DM sees that the player fails because of the modifier, he can throw in a descriptive element to help describe what just happened.

The key is that these "secret" modifiers must be pervasive. If I take a penalty for ranged attacks but not melee ones, the player should at least know the modifier or have some sense of it. You don't want people making decisions and never realizing that they're taking penalties for them. OTOH, if you use description to give some cues, maybe that can work fine.

I have this intuitive sense that this might speed up play. It lets the players focus on what they can do to modify a roll ("Don't forget my bless spell!") while the DM takes care of monster and environment stuff.

I really do not mean to pick on Mike. I actually think he is a great guy, but some of his recent ideas have really caused me to twitch. As I was one of the people who complained about modifiers in the RM thread, then I figured I would say something about this latest idea. (Note: We'd love to see you in the New design Philosophy thread, Mike.)

I think this is an utterly horrible idea. As a DM, I cannot keep track of the mods in combat now. I usually just forget about them. In fact, players usually have to remind me if a particular monster has taken a penalty due to their actions.

3e is sick with mods. They are nearly impossible to keep track of at any given time. Everything seems reduced to a +/- mod. Feats, spells, items....they all grant mods that may or may not work at any given time.

And conditional mods are the devil. Period.

Heck, I am surprised that no one has decided to redesign the anti-magic spell. A rust monster only eats a sword. You can get a new sword. An anti-magic zone requires about an hour out-of-game to redesign the entire character.

Mods suck. They suck for the players and they suck for the DMs. I truly miss the days when every effect did not require an advanced degree in modifier theory. And, until we become cyborgs, or computers are cheap and small enough to be of real use at the table, then a game with heavy mods is just going to suck.

Have the complaints about the complexity of high level play fallen of deaf ears? It's the mods, dude, that make it utterly unfun to play.

Please, Mike, let us discuss.

 

[DragonLancer]

I agree with you. The game has far too many modifiers these days, and my players have trouble keeping track of them all, let alone me as DM.

 

[Piratecat]

I think this is an utterly horrible idea.

Boy, I disagree; I've done this for years. See, the trick is not to think of them as mods (because mods are, in fact, often evil to keep track of.) All you do is increase the foe's AC by +2 and say that the ship is shaking too hard to easily attack. Tah dah! Simple. I really don't find it much more difficult to track DCs for spells and such.

I don't do this for things like prayer spells, unless it is a prayer spell that affects the baddies. But any villain-initiated modifier just results in me scribbling out the old stat (to hit, AC, saves, etc.) and writing in the new one. It's fast and easy, I don't have to keep it in my mind since it is written down in the right place, and it burdens only me instead of six players.

 

[Belen]

Boy, I disagree; I've done this for years. See, the trick is not to think of them as mods (because mods are, in fact, often evil to keep track of.) All you do is increase the foe's AC by +2 and say that the ship is shaking too hard to easily attack. Tah dah! Simple. I really don't find it much more difficult to track DCs for spells and such.

I don't do this for things like prayer spells, unless it is a prayer spell that affects the baddies. But any villain-initiated modifier just results in me scribbling out the old stat (to hit, AC, saves, etc.) and writing in the new one. It's fast and easy, I don't have to keep it in my mind since it is written down in the right place, and it burdens only me instead of six players.

That works only if the mod applies against all foes. What is one players gets a -2 and another a -4 etc. This type of thing can happen in 3e.

At high level, the number of mods, maneauvers, spells, and conditions is utterly incomprehensible.

 

[Roman]

I agree with Mr. Mearls and Piratecat - I have also done this for a long time and it works just fine.

 

[Umbran]

Mods don't suck. Mods are what keep everything from being a boring and predictable DC 10.

Note the part where mearls takes about the mods being pervasive. That's important. If it applies to everyone, it is pretty easy to keep track of the thing. It is the special and individual cases that increase your bookkeeping.

When things get dicey, scratch paper is your friend. If you can't remember them, write them down.

 

[lukelightning]

Heck, I am surprised that no one has decided to redesign the anti-magic spell.

Oh, I've redesigned it: It doesn't exist. I've taken out all "absolute no-magic" spells and effects (e.g. beholder main eye ray). Lazy but simple.

 

[Henry]

While I don't agree totally, I empathize with the statement. Modifiers in D&D have, for me at least, gotten way out of hand.

Our group is playing a high-level (10-15, roughly) Eberron game currently, and for fun I threw open all available source books. No character was prohibited, as long as I didn't spot any obvious red balance flags. It's been a very educational game, because I've never DM'ed a higher than 10th level game in D&D until now, and never with lots of supplements. I've found that:

1. Modifiers from spells, and battlefield control spells, are Excedrin-sized difficulties. I try to keep combat fast, but we stil have moments where we slow down for 10 or 15 minutes trying to figure out how 2 or 3 spells interact with one another. DM fiat on "most common-sense solution" has saved us more than once from spending the whole afternoon looking for the answer.
2. Too many source books exacerbates problems of players not being totally prepared. If someone has to ask repeatedly about things they haven't read up on ahead of time well enough, it slows everything down, and I can't nursemaid players to make sure they have it all 100% correct-- heck, I don't have it all correct myself, sometimes.
3. Most WotC supplements are not unbalanced at all; in fact, the more classic core characters can dish out more damage with standard items than the newfangled templated behemoths. However, I am finding that many, MANY of the high-level monsters are overestimated for their CR's.

To that end, in high-level D&D the modifiers are just too much for me to keep up with. In the future, for other campaigns I run, I think I'll:

A) stick with D&D below 10th level where I can;
B) when I run high-level, limit the number of extra supplements.

Player choice is fun for the players, but there's a balance to where too much player choice can make a headache for DM's trying to understand how the effects from five different books stack with one another, because the only time players put 'em together is actually in play.

 

[Piratecat]

That works only if the mod applies against all foes. What is one players gets a -2 and another a -4 etc.

As Umbran said, that isn't what Mearls is talking about. Pervasive modifiers affect everyone, right? And in the situation you describe, I'd still raise the foe's AC by two, and then tell just that one "-4" player that he had to take -2 on attacks. One player remembering a modifier is better and faster than six players remembering a modifier.

 

[Enkhidu]

...When things get dicey, scratch paper is your friend. If you can't remember them, write them down.

I do this all the time - started doing it right around level 10 or so as a player. When I DM my notes tend to be scribbled affairs anyway, so its relatively easy to change things on the fly there as well.

Something that's helped us is to say "you are responsible for your own modifiers, but if you throw a buff that affects everyone, make a little stand-up card with the buff effect and set it in front of yourself."