Mearls idea on modifiers in D&D

[DM_Jeff]

My players and I are very alert when it comes to mods. Sure, as a DM I simply change the DC and the players roll normal, and this isn't taxing to me, it keeps me alert!

As for conditional modifiers we're all very good and helping each other remember, and when in doubt, that's why we have 3x5 index cards with all our common buffs and conditional modifiers magnet-attached to our big white board to help us all remember when they're in play.

-DM Jeff

 

[Desdichado]

Conditional mods are just about the only ones that I track as a GM. Otherwise, I expect the players to track all their own mods, including any "buffing" mods, temporary mods due to ability damage, etc.

I agree with you, BU, that tracking all that as a GM is tedious and overwhelming, but my solution is not to deal with them. For any given player, it's not difficult to track.

 

[Henry]

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.

Oh, we do -- and players STILL forget them.

I've had a piece of notebook paper with the words "BLESS, MOTHER 's! +1 !!!!!" because people kept forgettting I had cast it, and people STILL kept forgetting it.

Now, compound that with bull's strength, bear's endurance, amulets of health, belts of strength, Grace, Divine Agilities, etc. along with curses of ill fortune, dooms, etc. and every one of different duration, and it's an absolute mess for someone to keep track of. pervasive modifiers don't matter on, say, a mass endurance, when one player has an amulet of health, one player already has an endurance spell, etc. Stacking and overlapping, while sound ideas, cause headaches when players aren't paying attention and slap that +4 modifier on when they shouldn't be getting it in the first place,

I don't mind something that gives a +1 on the character sheet more or less permanently; it bugs me to see a bunch of mobile spell effects on or off, and the extra paperwork required.

Games with no magic in them are looking more and more attractive all the time.

 

[Henry]

By the way, speaking of Anti-magic fields, wasn't that very thing one of the "proud nails" that David Noonan actuall spoke about?

 

[Mercule]

I guess I'm one of the GMs that does this all the time. PCs absolutely don't know everything about the world around them.

Then again, it was a bit of a shock to me when the attack tables were moved from the DMG to the PHB, when 2E came out. Maybe that 1E mindset still has a hold on me.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I like mods, but as in all things, moderation is key. The situation Mike described is a perfect example of when to use circumstance modifiers. In this case, it makes the fight different and more cinematic, and since it's universal, it doesn't take that much extra effort to work with. And honestly, even cluing the players in (since they can't really do anything about it) doesn't hurt the technique in this case.

I do think, however, that the abundance of modifiers has gotten out of hand. I've said before (and I'll repeat myself till someone acknowledges the brilliance of my observation ) that one of the best things they did design-wise in 3.x was the concept of named bonuses. Unfortunately, one of the dumbest things they've done is let the number of different named bonuses grow out of hand.

Had they kept it simple (say, armor, arcane, divine, circumstance) and left it alone, not only would the game be less complex without sacrificing player choice, it would also have gone a long way to reducing item dependence.

One of the problems with buff spells is that as the players level, it becomes more incumbent on the DM to keep the pressure on and the pace of encounters up. The "20% of resources" guideline is all well and good, but if your players are constantly buffed to the max every fight, it means they aren't afraid of another fight coming down the hall.

 

[Hussar]

Going with my current campaign, in the World's Largest Dungeon, there are these sorts of pervasive mods in nearly every encounter. I have a DM's master map which I have the conditions summarized for each room. It actually isn't a huge burden if you're organized.

Now, some of the bigger rooms which have six or seven conditions can be a bit of a headache, but, meh, by and large it's not a problem.

I didn't realize that there are DM's out there that didn't do this.

 

[WayneLigon]

It's never seemed to be a great problem with us, but then we've only played three campaigns to high levels: one to 15th, the other to 15-17th, and the third to 17th. Tracking modifiers has never seemed to be a great problem but then we don't tend to cast a lot of entire-party buffs; we prefer damage and defensive spells.

About the only time we'll really buff someone is when we know we're going into a particular fight against a particular foe within x period of time. That doesn't happen very often.

When someone casts a Bless or Prayer, or whatever, they write the effect on the battlemat equivilant and erase it when the effect ends so that everyone can see it. That helps a lot.

Items and such use the tempory modifiers spots on the character sheet so that if something happens to them it's the work of maybe two or three mnutes to make the couple of changes needed. Then again, we've never really had a game where everyone had a lot of magic items granting multiple bonuses; most of that tends to be permanent anyway.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That's a funny idea...and I'd be all behind it...if not for

a) the ungodly amount of modifiers, transient and permanent, that combine (or simply overlap) to give a DM a right headache to keep track of

b) those two of my players that would rip my head off if I told them that, from now on, I'd keep most modifiers to myself and simply describe the disadvantage their characters are facing, while applying the modifiers in secret.

And you know what? Both is an outgrowth of D&D 3.X. I've seen them players in games where the only onw who knows the modifiers to an action is the one who sets them...the GM. They don't mind a bit, and play along as long as there is not too much GM's whim cropping up. Switch to D&D 3.x, and they turn into merciless accounting machines. Scary, really.

It would be nice, in a theoretical new revision, if the number of modifiers was cropped down again (maybe back to 3.0 standards), and modifing spells gave less high bonuses, but had a much longer duration. That way, if somebody wants to buff up, he does so in the morning, it lasts for most of the waking hours, and if it's dispelled, it's gone for the rest of the day unless he happened to have a second buff ready.

Less modifier-micromanagement, more easy of play for plenty of players, IMO.

 

[Mercule]

I do think, however, that the abundance of modifiers has gotten out of hand. I've said before (and I'll repeat myself till someone acknowledges the brilliance of my observation ) that one of the best things they did design-wise in 3.x was the concept of named bonuses. Unfortunately, one of the dumbest things they've done is let the number of different named bonuses grow out of hand.

QFT