bmcdaniel
Adventurer
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.
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.