Stat bumps from level increase

[Starfox]

Attribute advancement is one place where I am against siloing. If everyone gets a +1 to their main stat at certain levels, that is just stat inflation. To be meaningful, stat increases have to be optional, balanced against some other attractive option. Say you spend 2 feats to increase a stat by one point, or some such.

 

[delericho]

I think that the problem here is that a certain ability is too important, if there is a real a choice between more offence (STR) or defence (dex) it works.

Problem there is that just about every class requires one (or at most two) ability scores. And, indeed, classes that rely on more stats are avoided because they lead to much weaker characters (the 3e monk, for example, or... I forget the 4e term. V-shaped classes, or something?)

It's very difficult to ensure that every class requires multiple abilities, and that they are all equivalently reliant on an equivalent number of stats.

My concern is how big the bonuses are. It the highest bonus you can get to attack is +3 at level 10, a +4 from 18 would be stressed over the +2 from 14. But if it is +15 (10 from levels, 2 from weap. focus, +2 from proficiency, +1 from level) then the 18 will not be as needed as much.

Not that I want high bonuses. But piddy +2 bonuses emphasizes max stats.

I agree.

There seems to be a sweet spot where the total a character scores on his attack roll/skill check/whatever is roughly equally split between luck (the d20 roll) and skill (his modifier). Mathematically, it doesn't matter all that much - d20+10 vs DC 20 is mathematically the same as d20+50 vs DC 60, but the former feels better.

This suggests that typical modifiers, across the life of the campaign, should probably range from -5 at worst (a 1st level Wizard attacking with a sword) up to about +25 at best (a max level Fighter attacking with a sword), with the bulk of the game playing in the +5 to +15ish range.

So, I would recommend the following stat modifiers: 1-2 -3, 3-5 -2, 6-8 -1, 9-11 0, 12-14 +1, 15-17 +2, 18+ +3

Suppose the game then gives a BAB between +1 and +15 (as in 4e), and allows for feats (or similar) to give another bonus between +1 and +5, that should allow for a 1st level Fighter to get approx +5 at 1st level with his sword, rising to about +25 at max level. Which, as I said, feels 'about right'.

(What I don't like about the above is that this seems to put too much emphasis on static modifiers. The max-level Fighter gets his +25 on every attack, whether he just stands there hacking away, or if he carefully employs terrain, tactics, or is aided with magic. Since we don't really want to push the total modifier above +25, because of the sweet spot, that seems to create an issue. I don't currently have a good solution to that!)

 

[Ramaster]

I like the 4e model. You get two +1s.

One of them will inevitably go to your main stat, and that leaves a bit of room to use the other +1 to round up another stat. You get to customize a bit, and move sideways on the power scale apart from moving up.

 

[billd91]

I like stat increases via leveling because it means a character doesn't have to be at the height of his abilities right at generation. He can grow in ways other than just class-based statistics.

While it can lead to optimization abuses, it can also alleviate weaknesses in initial generation and lead to better rounded characters. Whether it's the former or the latter (or something in between) is a question of play style and frame of mind. And frankly, I'd rather have expansive tools and ideas in my kit than strip them down to defend against the worst excesses generated by players who think they have to "win" D&D at the cost of table harmony. I can fix that problem myself by booting the player.

 

[nightwalker450]

The Cavalier, back in UA 1e, had percentiles added on to some of the ability scores. Like say, 15/56. Then every level,you'd roll d100 and add them to the total.

I believe (though not sure) that Hackmaster took this and applied it to all characters and stats.

I think that's an interesting way of doing it, but I'm not convinced stats need to go up. But I'm not opposed, either.

I'd be interested in this, if you could also throw a rider on it that makes higher stats increase at a slower rate than lower stats.

As in me rolling poorly on starting stats, means my stats will increase at a faster rate, than the person who rolled great stats at the beginning.

 

[BobTheNob]

THis is another one of those "It was great when I first saw it, after playing it I realised I dont like it".

3e came in with point buy stats and increases per level, the 4e polished it up. But by this stage stat increasing had stopped being complimentary to your characters growth and had simply becomes a requirement, meaning the entire reason for having the stat increase had lost its charm for me.

If they could find a way of every stat having value for every class, that might be different, but even then it wouldnt fly because of the "every class has a primary stat" approach, meaning stacking one is always the way to go, and since every player will innevitably do that, monster design has to cater for this, and your back into the same arms race again where stat growth is mandatory.

Got to admit, Im looking back to when stats were random and helped define your character rather than just being a set of min-max dials.

Im kinda taken by what DCC does in that it sais "Roll up 4, and one of them is your starting point". You wont end up with a Juggernaught, but to me thats kinda the point. See this link for a tool for rolling up 0-level characters for the DCC system

Dungeon Crawl Cassics 0-Level Party Generator

 

[TwinBahamut]

I would hate the idea of random stat increases. That would be worse than random hitpoint increases, and it was a good thing when those were removed in 4E.

I'm fine with gaining stats as you level up, though, especially in something like 5E, in which ability scores are looking to be more essential than ever. The issue of players only boosting the one primary stat of their characters is certainly a valid concern, but I do think it can be addressed. Even something as simple as the +1 bonus to all stats you get when you go up in tier in 4E addresses that somewhat. A system where characters alternate between choosing three stats to improve and improving every stat would avoid that issue. A system where stat gains are pre-determined (by class or something) rather than chosen by the player could also address that.

 

[Lwaxy]

For some games, we only do stat increases to stats where you have done something for. Did you train to be stronger, faster, learned a lot? Or had an experience that made you wiser?

Of course that makes the mages go study every bit of free time, but it makes sense at least

 

[Gryph]

The Cavalier, back in UA 1e, had percentiles added on to some of the ability scores. Like say, 15/56. Then every level,you'd roll d100 and add them to the total.

I believe (though not sure) that Hackmaster took this and applied it to all characters and stats.

I think that's an interesting way of doing it, but I'm not convinced stats need to go up. But I'm not opposed, either.

You actually added the result of 2d10 to the percentile. Kept the stat inflation fairly modest.

The last 1e campaign I ran longterm used this variant for all 6 ability scores. The players enjoyed the bonus and the occassional stat increase, but the overall effect was pretty modest. We played from 1 to 9 and most characters ended up with 2 stat increases of 1 each. I also ruled this increase (unlike magic) couldn't let a character exceed the racial maximum for an ability. I don't think I would do it again.

Over 30+ years I've played all editions and several house rules with ability increases of some form or another. I've decided, finally I learn slow, that regular, programmed stat increases are hard on the system math. They exacerbate the trained skill to DC problems of mid to high level. They also cause the loss of some of my favorite iconic magic items from early additions like Gauntlets of Ogre Power or Belt of Giant Strength.

I would prefer to see no levelling based ability increases. I would also like to see magic items granting ability score increases (but not spells).

 

[BobTheNob]

Over 30+ years I've played all editions and several house rules with ability increases of some form or another. I've decided, finally I learn slow, that regular, programmed stat increases are hard on the system math.

In a way, Much the same for me.

The thing about it is that it looked so good "on paper". When I got my hands on 3e I thought it was gods gift to P&P, and stat increases looked fantastic. Not only for character growth, but also from the "real world" perspective...I pump weights, shouldn't my strength increase (a debate that existed in or 2e days)?

Yet for all that it made sense when it came in, Im at a point where Im thinking, for reasons of math AND identity (I considered stats part of character identity prior to 3e) I am so leaning back to random stats and no increase with level.

People can disagree with me all they like, Im NOT putting forward what I think is "best for the system". Im just stating the reflected observation that experience gave me.