Why is it considered good design to have all ability score adjustments an even number

[bmcdaniel]

I've seen it asserted many times that even numbered racial adjustments are a canonical example of good (d20) game design.

As I understand it, the standard rationale is that if there was an ability score adjustment that was +/-1, players would buy an odd ability score for those abilities, thus, as compared to a +/-2 adjustment, avoiding the penalty (albeit at a higher cost) or gaining the benefit at a lower cost. The intuitive idea is that if an alternate elf had +1 dex and -1 con, it is somehow "wrong" that the player could get to an +4 dex modifier by using a 17 dex in that slot and could keep a +0 con modifier by only using an 11.

I'd like to dispute that idea, at least for point-buy systems. (I'll start by setting aside the ability score increase every 4 levels and the odd-ability score requirements of some feats). I agree that players in a point buy system are much more likely to buy odd numbered ability scores where they have odd racial adjustment modifiers. But, by the same token, players will buy even numbered ability scores where they have even racial adjustment modifiers. After all (using the DMG system), very few elves will spend 13 points to get a 17 dex, raised to a 19, when the same +4 ability modifier could be had by spending 10 points to get a 16, raised to a 18.

Indeed, the only kind of ability score generation where the players could game the system without incurring additional costs (ie their cumulative net modifiers is larger) is one where ability scores are randomly generated and then the player is allowed to place the raw scores in any ability he desired.

So, am I wrong? Or is the standard justification for even numbered ability score modifiers inapplicable to the overwhelmingly most common methods of character generation.

 

[Ranger REG]

With an odd-numbered adjustment (i.e., +/-1), there is a 50% chance that you'll see a significant increase/decrease in the ability modifier. With an even-numbered adjustment (i.e., +/-2), there is an automatic (100%) increase/decrease of ability modifier due to race and/or special feature.

For example, if you're an elf and you got a 16 rolled for Dex score, a +1 adjustment will yield the same result in ability modifier: Dex score 16-17 = Dex bonus +3.

 

[RangerWickett]

And equally noteworthy, odd modifiers let you improve strengths and hide weaknesses.

For instance, if you have

Dex 13
Con 13

and if Elves got +1 Dex and -1 Con, then you could get

Dex 14
Con 12

Which improves you Dexterity modifier, but doesn't hurt your Constitution modifier, basically negating the 'penalty' to your Con score.

 

[dcollins]

Indeed, the only kind of ability score generation where the players could game the system without incurring additional costs (ie their cumulative net modifiers is larger) is one where ability scores are randomly generated and then the player is allowed to place the raw scores in any ability he desired.

Keep in mind that that is still the core ability-generation method, and the rest of the rules are in fact designed around that.

 

[Tatsukun]

Also, (and this applies to items that give a bonus to a stat) remember that the bonus should be the same for any character. How do you price a belt of giant strength +3? For some people, it will raise their modifier by 1, for others by 2.

The same is true for racial adjustments. If the bonus (or penalty) is even, it always alters the PC's ability modifier by the same amount. That just makes it a lot easier to balance everything.

If one were to make a race that got +1 to all stats, what would the LA be? There is no good answer to that, because it would be worthless to some (like the all 10's to start present) and good for others (those with a lot of odd scores).

Long story short, it's a pain to balance. If the adjustment is even, it already balances (mostly).

-Tatsu

 

[irdeggman]

It is all about balance and minimizing off the cuff munckinism.

 

[two]

I think it's silly. A race that is: +2 Con, -1 Dex, -1 Charisma (and some other non-stat disadvantage or limitation) works just fine. What's the big deal?

Sometimes the dexterity "hit" hurts, sometimes it does not immediately. Ditto charisma. Big deal. Taken as a group, this race will be slightly less dexterous than humans, and less charismatic. Fine, done.

So what if a PC with a dex=13 takes a -1 on dex and isn't penalizied at level 1 for it? dex=12=13=+1 bonus. Big deal. Sometimes you get a 13 in dexterity before applying the penality and it doesn't hurt, sometimes you get a 12 and it does after applying the penalty. Why does it always have to be one or the other? It's still a penalty, anyway: 13 to 12. When you hit level 4, if you wanted to bump up your dex, after all, you are screwed, while a human could get it to 14 right away at level 4 (with the inherent bonus).

I play with lots of races wth +1/-1 penalties. It makes customizing races a lot easier, and helps balance those marginally too-powerful or too-weak races (give Dwarves a -1 to dex, give Half-Orcs a +1 to con).

If you are so obsessed with stopping players from "hiding" strengths and weaknesses (if they can) to such a degree that you ban the natural idea of uses +/- 1 bonuses and penalties for racial flavor, you are the one missing out. In my humble.

I mean come on. Nobody minds when the wizard "hides" his 8 in strength, or the half-orc wanders around with a charisma=6=Int. A class-based game where some stats are completly unecessary for various classes is a far more serious affront to the "hide weakness" "problem" -- in quotes because it's not really a problem. It's a bee that buzzes in various people's bonnet.

 

[Janx]

The reason +1/-1 aren't used is because a delta of 1 doesn't ALWAYS change the character.

In D&D2e, where the stat tables had modifiers at each point (in the upper and lower bands of 3-18), then a +1 or -1 had an impact. Also, the skills system directly used the Stats of the PC. Thus having a 14 or 15 stat made a difference.

Since 3e standardized the stat increase to be every 2 points, then applying a bonus or penalty needed to be a +2 or -2 increment to ensure EVERY character would be affected. A -1 penalty would have a 50% chance (applied to a random character) of actually impacting that character.

Here's a simple example. Suppose I'm the DM and I make up some lame poison that causes -1 to STR for 1d6 rounds. The player with 17 str who gets hit by it will laugh and say "Hah! I'm effectively immune!" Whereas, the player with the 16 or 18 strength will whimper, because they just lost 5% chance of hitting and +1 damage. By making it a -2 STR penalty, I ensure that the effect hits any character, and doesn't fall through the crack of some arbitrary stat assignment.

Given that when I make characters, I often hope for odd numbers and I put those odd numbers on my key stats. That way, when I get to 4th level, I can pump it up and get a boost to my character's major ability. So if you were to use 1 point deltas, I'd simply arrange my stats to minimize the impact on my character, effectively nullifying the stat penalty.

To sum up, well designed races have even stat modifiers. If the race is unbalanced, fix it another way. Most likely, the culprit is all the special abilities that have been stacked on it. And then, you've got the ECL system to account for "power-races"

Janx

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I've been toying with the idea of making ability adjustments modifiers to the point-cost rather than the final score. This might make it easier to make slight adjustments to races.

 

[dcollins]

If you are so obsessed with stopping players from "hiding" strengths and weaknesses (if they can) to such a degree that you ban the natural idea of uses +/- 1 bonuses and penalties for racial flavor, you are the one missing out. In my humble.

Or alternatively, they're just explaining the rules as written (which is what this forum is for, after all). If you really want to see your house-ruled +1/-1 races in print, you need to take it up with the WOTC designers for the next edition, because they're the ones that established the rule.

Note the rules in the DMG for calculating monster ability adjustments, and how the rule always results in a multiple-of-2 answer.