Mearls idea on modifiers in D&D

[The Shaman]

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.

That's a brilliant observation, Rodrigo Istalindir.

And I mean that most sincerely.

I agree that there is way too much temporary effects bookkeeping involved in the game, and that the players have it much easier than the game master. Creating encounters with multiple monster types, some (or many, or most, or ALL) with class levels, becomes a real nightmare - it's like managing an entire adventuring party by yourself, particularly if you want to maintain any sense of mystery for the players.

And that doesn't include the amount of out-of-game time spent preparing the encounter in the first place - even with computer aids, it can be prohibitively time-consuming.

 

[Klaus]

The problem isn't with the modifiers, it's with remembering them and applying them. So it's not a 'software' (rules) problem, but a 'hardware' one. If there was a way to be reminded of those modifiers...


... hmm... I sense ideas for a BattleBox brewing...

 

[tetsujin28]

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

Yeah, I'm with you guys. I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. Mods are absolutely necessary, and really not all that big a deal to keep track of.

 

[Nyaricus]

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.

I'll echo The Shaman and say I think this statement is very poignant; I mean this is one of peoples major problems, right? What if we were to limit modifiers in and of themselves? That would help bring more stability to the system; 3.0 survived with less that what we have now, so I don't see why not.

I'm not much for 4e, but now that he (Rodrigo) says it, I suppose this will be one of the changes we'll deal with in the transistion - and be the better for it!!

I think I'll start a thread in House Rules about this...

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

My biggest problem with mods and buffs was addressed in 3.5 for the most part - the fact that characters would never actually seem to be workign off of their actual scores - the scores were always modified by something. That's lessened somewhat, but still somewhat the case.

 

[Vanye]

What modifiers were added in 3.5 that aren't in the DMG? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any...

 

[Arnwyn]

Mearls lost me with his

why bother burdening the player?

Burdening the player? Burdening the player?

Now, I don't mind modifiers all that much, and I don't mind even keeping some 'secret' if it works for the circumstances... but if the modifier is pervasive and affects all players, then I don't believe it's reasonable to lump yet another thing on to the already overworked DM. "Burdening the player" indeed.

A questionable idea, with a terrible example.

 

[nerfherder]

However, I say why fight a human behavior that's that pervasive, for the sake of entertainment? If it were, say, for raising your kids, or keeping your job, it'd be one thing. But the last thing a lot of people want to do is make too much bookwork for their gaming, and there's got to be some form of compromise line without it getting too problematic.

Thanks for eloquently expressing something I've thought for a while now.

Cheers,
Liam

 

[eyebeams]

It sounds like a fun thing to do occasionally, just like it is when it's an optional rule in wargames (I played in a fun Btech game using double-blind elements and a GM ages ago). Why is it necessary to assume that any change like this must be adopted for all time?

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, I'm with you guys. I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. Mods are absolutely necessary, and really not all that big a deal to keep track of.

I agree with you.

And another secret is: it doesn't even matter THAT much.
If I'm off by 1 there is a 5% chance that it changes the result and nearly a 100% chance that it has no impact on the fun of the game.