Ability Scores [Streamlining D&D]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ABILITY SCORES

The first thing that strikes me is that the ability scores are
unnecessarily complex. Use the bonus as the score and you eliminate a
level of complexity which doesn't appear to be needed. There are a
few things this would affect. The biggest thing it affects is
generating the abilities themselves, but we'll look at that in a
moment. It also makes the system less granular. This means everything
that affects or relies on the ability scores must be halved such as
feat prerequisites and poisons (as always in D&D when you create a
fraction, round down and minimum one). The biggest problem with this
comes up with ability score increases, which means a character would
only get one every 8 levels, 2 in total.

Look at generating ability scores. There are 3 main methods of
generating ability scores. The normal method is rolling dice. 4d6
drop lowest 24 dice in total, with the additional actions of removing
the lowest and adding the remaining 3 together 6 times. This requires
some time to do, and has the possibility of creating wildly under or
overpowered characters which creates a host of problems. The next and
probably most popular method of generating ability scores is the point
buy. While much more balanced, it has the possibility of overwhelming
new players, and even taking a considerable amount of time to veterans
who agonize over where to place each of 25 to 32 points. It also
favors number crunchers, allowing them to create characters
considerably more powerful than others. The last and mostly unused
(except for NPCs) method is the array. The standard array is six
abilities 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. This is the best method for
streamlining. This is slightly lower than the average of 4d6, and
you'd loose 2 ½ points if converting to bonuses as I suggest. So
convert to bonuses we have 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, -1 (I'd still use that for
NPCS). Then we want to add 2 points to this somewhere for PCs to be of
average power in a standard game. My first inclination would be to
remove the negative and increase one of the +2s but most people think
having a negative somewhere gives some character.. So we'll add it
on the ones that were almost there anyway, the 15 & 13. So final
suggested PC array is 3, 2, 2, 1, 0, -1 (equivilent to 16, 14, 14, 12,
10, 8).

[Taking it down a Notch: Not converting to modifiers. I'd suggest
and array of 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 to give some options to increase
stats at halfway points, and this is a good boost over the standard
array used for NPCs. I like PCs to be special, and usually players do
too]

[Taking it One Step Further: To eliminate another step in character
creation, you can tie these abilities to the classes. Suggested
abilities for each class:
Class Str Dex Con Wis Int Cha
Barbarian 3 2 2 1 0 -1
Bard 1 2 0 -1 2 3
Cleric 2 0 1 3 -1 2
Druid -1 0 2 3 1 2
Fighter 3 1 2 2 -1 0
Monk 2 2 1 3 -1 0
Paladin 2 0 1 2 -1 3
Ranger 2 3 0 2 -1 1
Rogue 0 3 1 -1 2 2
Sorcerer -1 2 2 0 1 3
Wizard -1 2 2 0 3 1
]

[Taking it Sideways. Add 5 to each ability score so you have a 1 to 10
range for normal characters after racial adjustments, which would avoid
negatives. This works fine with skills, AC, & Saves, as you just add 5
to the DCs. A problem comes with Hit Points & Damage, which get very
inflated; It would need some serious play testing to discover exactly
how it affects balance. If you want to counteract this remove the
effect Con has on HP and Str on Damage. Con becomes almost useless in
that case, and Str, while still useful for hitting things, lifting, and
athletics, becomes a much less useful ability. One could take it
halfway, Con still gives a bonus to HP, but only a one time bonus. Str
could be divided as the user sees fit giving some bonus to hit, and
some to damage, as a sort of automatic Power Attack]

[Taking it All the Way: Eliminate ability scores altogether. Each
class gets bonuses to things that normally would be done by the ability
scores, or just things they'd be good at. I'd make all negative
scores above in 'taking it one step further' equivalent to 0 for that.
All other things that would affect abilities would instead just affect
the final numbers, I.E. a Bull's Strength would give you +2 to hit
and damage in melee. Poisons would just give cumulative minuses.]
48 answers Last reply
More about ability scores streamlining
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I disagree with your premise, at least for 3E. In 2E, I'd agree,
    because anything less than 16 was meaningless and strength between 18
    and 19 was stupid. It's easy to remember. When working with numbers
    below 8 or above 20 which aren't so common, just look at the table.

    I finally learned KISS when it comes to changing anything in D&D when I
    tried to convert D&D spell system into Ars Magica spell system many
    years ago. If you have to go to a lot of trouble to alter something to
    suit your taste, don't bother playing D&D or just lump it. If you can
    write a change in at most two sentences, you're good to go.

    Gerald Katz
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    > ABILITY SCORES
    >
    > The first thing that strikes me is that the ability scores are
    > unnecessarily complex. Use the bonus as the score and you eliminate a
    > level of complexity which doesn't appear to be needed. There are a
    > few things this would affect. The biggest thing it affects is
    > generating the abilities themselves, but we'll look at that in a
    > moment. It also makes the system less granular. This means everything
    > that affects or relies on the ability scores must be halved such as
    > feat prerequisites and poisons (as always in D&D when you create a
    > fraction, round down and minimum one). The biggest problem with this
    > comes up with ability score increases, which means a character would
    > only get one every 8 levels, 2 in total.
    >
    > Look at generating ability scores. There are 3 main methods of
    > generating ability scores. The normal method is rolling dice. 4d6
    > drop lowest 24 dice in total, with the additional actions of removing
    > the lowest and adding the remaining 3 together 6 times. This requires
    > some time to do, and has the possibility of creating wildly under or
    > overpowered characters which creates a host of problems. The next and
    > probably most popular method of generating ability scores is the point
    > buy. While much more balanced, it has the possibility of overwhelming
    > new players, and even taking a considerable amount of time to veterans
    > who agonize over where to place each of 25 to 32 points. It also
    > favors number crunchers, allowing them to create characters
    > considerably more powerful than others. The last and mostly unused
    > (except for NPCs) method is the array. The standard array is six
    > abilities 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. This is the best method for
    > streamlining. This is slightly lower than the average of 4d6, and
    > you'd loose 2 ½ points if converting to bonuses as I suggest. So
    > convert to bonuses we have 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, -1 (I'd still use that for
    > NPCS). Then we want to add 2 points to this somewhere for PCs to be of
    > average power in a standard game. My first inclination would be to
    > remove the negative and increase one of the +2s but most people think
    > having a negative somewhere gives some character.. So we'll add it
    > on the ones that were almost there anyway, the 15 & 13. So final
    > suggested PC array is 3, 2, 2, 1, 0, -1 (equivilent to 16, 14, 14, 12,
    > 10, 8).

    Consider instead:

    .. use an array, I recommend 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, -1

    .. player arranges scores to taste

    .. this is a little light, so allow the player to assign the last two
    points as desired. You may want to limit it to a single free point
    per ability score, but this only means you won't see a +4; any other
    score combination can be done whether you add +2 to a single score or
    +1 to two scores.

    I considered having the last two points assigned by race or class
    choice. This works out more or less the same as assigning them
    freely, assuming the player can assign the array to taste.

    This allows *some* variation, and it takes bugger all time. You could
    have someone with 4,2,1,1,0,-1, or 2,2,1,1,1,0, or 3,3,1,1,0,-1, etc.

    Much of the complexity of point buy comes from the variable cost of the
    scores, not 'point buy' itself. If the scores were fixed-cost per point
    (as you've got here) most of the complexity goes away.


    After that, you might simply give an additional point every four levels.
    Every eight levels, that seems too far apart, and too little effect...
    especially since using point buy it's not too difficult to finesse
    things so that you can net +4 or +5 total bonus increase over your
    career (by buying up to odd values, then you could have 'every' bump
    increasing the bonus to something).

    If you want, you could put a constraint on how the points are spent.
    You can only bump the same ability score twice, say. Me, I'd probably
    ignore it altogether.

    (Yes, this makes for higher total bonus than core. You're taking away a
    lot of the synergies possible if you don't allow multiclassing, so this
    probably isn't as unbalancing as doubling the number of ability score
    bumps would normally be.)

    > [Taking it down a Notch: Not converting to modifiers. I'd suggest
    > and array of 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 to give some options to increase
    > stats at halfway points, and this is a good boost over the standard
    > array used for NPCs. I like PCs to be special, and usually players do
    > too]

    This fits with the standard 3-18 values people expect to see in D&D, but
    I think going with the modifiers alone is simpler. This increases the
    strategy a bit too -- do I bump something *now* (increase an odd value),
    or wait until next time and bump something *later*?

    Again, working with just the modifiers simplifies this and removes a
    certain amount of strategy: "*what* do I bump in effect?", rather than
    "should I bump something now, or wait and double up?"

    > [Taking it One Step Further: To eliminate another step in character
    > creation, you can tie these abilities to the classes. Suggested
    > abilities for each class:
    > Class Str Dex Con Wis Int Cha
    > Barbarian 3 2 2 1 0 -1
    > Bard 1 2 0 -1 2 3
    > Cleric 2 0 1 3 -1 2
    > Druid -1 0 2 3 1 2
    > Fighter 3 1 2 2 -1 0
    > Monk 2 2 1 3 -1 0
    > Paladin 2 0 1 2 -1 3
    > Ranger 2 3 0 2 -1 1
    > Rogue 0 3 1 -1 2 2
    > Sorcerer -1 2 2 0 1 3
    > Wizard -1 2 2 0 3 1
    > ]

    (gah, tabs or some such. These things work way better if you use
    spaces. Fixed. Oh, and it usually goes Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha)

    Ah, okay, you did consider assignment by class.

    Me, I think I'd rather see some slight variation -- keep the array,
    arrange to taste, and allow two free points to be assigned as desired.
    This does run slightly counter to 'minimize strategy', but I think it's
    a reasonable element to include and it's probably within the 'some
    strategy' needed... and it's still way simpler than standard point buy.

    > [Taking it Sideways. Add 5 to each ability score so you have a 1 to 10
    > range for normal characters after racial adjustments, which would avoid
    > negatives. This works fine with skills, AC, & Saves, as you just add 5
    > to the DCs. A problem comes with Hit Points & Damage, which get very
    > inflated; It would need some serious play testing to discover exactly
    > how it affects balance. If you want to counteract this remove the
    > effect Con has on HP and Str on Damage. Con becomes almost useless in
    > that case, and Str, while still useful for hitting things, lifting, and
    > athletics, becomes a much less useful ability. One could take it
    > halfway, Con still gives a bonus to HP, but only a one time bonus. Str
    > could be divided as the user sees fit giving some bonus to hit, and
    > some to damage, as a sort of automatic Power Attack]

    While this can be made to work mathematically, it varies quite a bit
    from the normal 3-18, and the much simpler and more elegant modifier
    version. I'd recommend against this.

    > [Taking it All the Way: Eliminate ability scores altogether. Each
    > class gets bonuses to things that normally would be done by the ability
    > scores, or just things they'd be good at. I'd make all negative
    > scores above in 'taking it one step further' equivalent to 0 for that.
    > All other things that would affect abilities would instead just affect
    > the final numbers, I.E. a Bull's Strength would give you +2 to hit
    > and damage in melee. Poisons would just give cumulative minuses.]

    Heavily archetypal behavior then, but it's probably not unreasonable.
    Feels kind of boardgamish, though.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    tussock wrote:
    > Justisaur wrote:
    > > ABILITY SCORES
    > > The biggest problem with this comes up with ability score increases,
    > > which means a character would only get one every 8 levels, 2 in total.
    >
    > If you eliminate enhancement bonuses and inherant bonuses to stats
    > you free up a total +18 modifier or so, though not more than +5 or +6
    > per stat.

    I've never actually seen anyone have inherant bonuses, and items/spells
    that increase abilities are a big part of D&D that I wouldn't want to
    eliminate.

    > What you could do is allow +1 to any four stat mods, once per 4
    > levels. You could even link it to classes by putting it in their
    > progression tables, so as to force a certain style for better game balance.
    >

    Yes, I was thinking of tieing it to the class. It would be simpler to
    eliminate them, but that's one of the changes between 2 & 3e that
    players really liked, so I wouldn't want to eliminate them.

    > > Look at generating ability scores.
    > <snip>
    > > So convert to bonuses we have 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, -1 (I'd still use that for
    > > NPCS). Then we want to add 2 points to this somewhere for PCs to be of
    > > average power in a standard game. My first inclination would be to
    > > remove the negative and increase one of the +2s but most people think
    > > having a negative somewhere gives some character.. So we'll add it
    > > on the ones that were almost there anyway, the 15 & 13. So final
    > > suggested PC array is 3, 2, 2, 1, 0, -1 (equivilent to 16, 14, 14, 12,
    > > 10, 8).
    >
    > Let the players choose, and allow both to go on one stat to get you
    > a +4 (which is *very* useful for alot of classes).

    This goes counter to my intetions, but I may include it as an option,
    in the final product.

    >
    > > [Taking it One Step Further: To eliminate another step in character
    > > creation, you can tie these abilities to the classes. Suggested
    > > abilities for each class:
    > > Class Str Dex Con Wis Int Cha
    > <snip>
    > > ]
    >
    > Or just fix the final modifier by class, and let the players
    > arrange the 2/2/1/1/0/-1 to taste (to suit their skill picks).
    >
    > Brb +2 Str
    > Brd +2 Cha
    > Clr +1 Wis, +1 Cha
    > Drd +2 Wis
    > Ftr +1 Str, +1 Con
    > Mnk +1 Dex, +1 Wis
    > Pal +1 Str, +1 Cha
    > Rgr +1 Str, +1 Dex
    > Rog any of Dex/Int/Cha, to suit different Rogue types.
    > Src +1 Dex, +1 Cha
    > Wiz +2 Int
    >
    > That'd be first level, and follow something similar for stat
    > increases every four levels in each class (perhaps force three and let
    > the player choose the fourth if you are replacing the enhancement and
    > inherant bonuses).

    I rather like that.

    > For streamlined DnD, I'd ditch multi-classing.
    >

    Of course.

    > > [Taking it Sideways. Add 5 to each ability score so you have a 1 to 10
    > > range for normal characters after racial adjustments, which would avoid
    > > negatives. This works fine with skills, AC, & Saves, as you just add 5
    > > to the DCs. A problem comes with Hit Points & Damage, which get very
    > > inflated;
    > <snip>
    >
    > Base HP/level has become 5, which is about right. d4's are then -2
    > HP/level, d6's are -1, d8's are normal, d10's are +1, and Brbs are +2.

    Hmm. Do you mean that for damage as well then? And you get a problem
    with bows & crossbows if you do that. I'd really like to eliminate the
    negatives, remember bad old negative AC? Doesn't really work anyway,
    you are just moving the negatives from the ability scores to HD &
    weapons.

    >
    > You can do a similar fix for skill picks. With no multi-classing,
    > you can just pick skills at 1st level, and have them all have a bonus
    > equal to level plus stat mod. That's a couple points higher than core,
    > which is just right if you do away with synergy bonuses.
    >

    Definately no synergy bonuses. I was planning on rolling skills into
    the classes, but it makes Int a dump stat unless I can figure something
    else to do with it. One of the better changes from 2e IMHO. I think
    there's too many skills to choose from though. I'll take a look at it
    later.

    > > [Taking it All the Way: Eliminate ability scores altogether. Each
    > > class gets bonuses to things that normally would be done by the ability
    > > scores, or just things they'd be good at. I'd make all negative
    > > scores above in 'taking it one step further' equivalent to 0 for that.
    > > All other things that would affect abilities would instead just affect
    > > the final numbers, I.E. a Bull's Strength would give you +2 to hit
    > > and damage in melee. Poisons would just give cumulative minuses.]
    >
    > Looks like a more complicated system that does the same thing as
    > having ability scores. If Str adds to hit and damage then anything else
    > that adds to hit and damage is easiest remembered as a Str mod.

    The things that are in the brackets were sort of 'optional rules' I
    don't really like the idea of eliminating them altogeather, but It's a
    good place to start with everything - asking the question 'do we really
    need this at all?'

    - Justisaur
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    tussock wrote:
    > Keith Davies wrote:
    > > tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Justisaur wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Use the bonus as the score and you eliminate a level of complexity
    > >>>which doesn't appear to be needed. There are a few things this would
    > >>>affect. The biggest thing it affects is generating the abilities
    > >>>themselves, but we'll look at that in a moment. It also makes the
    > >>>system less granular. This means everything that affects or relies
    > >>>on the ability scores must be halved such as feat prerequisites and
    > >>>poisons (as always in D&D when you create a fraction, round down and
    > >>>minimum one).
    > >>
    > >> All fairly easily done up front, redo the poison table and a
    > >>couple of spells and monster abilities. You could probably ditch
    > >>stat-based feat prerequsites (most only work properly if you have that
    > >>stat high anyway).
    > >
    > > Not *strictly* true. Ability score prereqs can result in limitations on
    > > just how many schticks you can have. For instance, if you need 15+ in
    > > three or more scores to follow three different feat trees, it's going to
    > > be difficult. If you waive ability score prereqs, it makes it easy to
    > > dabble and can lead to greater chance of niche invasion.
    >
    > One I forgot is the Int prereq on the expertise chain (keeps a lot
    > of fighters out of it), which doesn't benefit from Int.
    >
    > > That said, I lean more toward BAB, base save, and skill rank prereqs.
    > >
    > > (Hmm... consider for saves:
    > > Warrior: good fort, medium reflex, poor will
    > > Wizard: good will, medium reflex, poor fort
    > > Rogue: good reflex, medium fort, poor will
    >
    > Warrior/Adept/Expert. 8]
    >
    > > It'd be nice if it worked out such that no class had the same rating
    > > in a save as the other too -- if one's got medium reflex, one of the
    > > others has good and the other has poor -- but it doesn't really work
    > > out without feeling contrived.
    >
    > Your Wizard (who also builds into a Cleric-type class) should
    > really have a medium Fort save, and if your Rogue builds into a Bard
    > then he needs medium Will.
    > It marks the Wizard as "strong of mind and soul" and the rogue
    > "quick and canny".
    >
    > > Which, given the archetypal behavior of the thing probably isn't too
    > > bad, really, but I don't *really* like it.
    > > )
    >
    > 8]
    >
    > <Re: Ability scores reduced to modifiers>
    > >> Or just fix the final modifier by class, and let the players
    > >>arrange the 2/2/1/1/0/-1 to taste (to suit their skill picks).
    > >
    > > As I mentioned, this is for all purposes the same as allowing the player
    > > to pick where the stat goes. Well, almost; if the player gets to choose
    > > entirely he can deliberately do a suboptimal build (Barbarian with -1
    > > Str would be possible if he put the -1 in Str and the two free points
    > > elsewhere).
    >
    > Yep, there's
    >
    > > So, evidently there *is* a certain (design) benefit to not allowing
    > > unconstrained assignment of the two free points.
    >
    > It also fills in the class advancement table a bit. 8]
    >
    > >> That'd be first level, and follow something similar for stat
    > >>increases every four levels in each class (perhaps force three and let
    > >>the player choose the fourth if you are replacing the enhancement and
    > >>inherant bonuses).
    > >
    > > Or base it on race and class, as above.
    >
    > It might be nice to give races /something/ as they level up,
    > mirroring some of the racial classes in the splats, and things you get
    > from racial substitution levels.
    >
    > >>>[Taking it Sideways. Add 5 to each ability score so you have a 1 to 10
    > >>>range for normal characters after racial adjustments, which would avoid
    > >>>negatives. This works fine with skills, AC, & Saves, as you just add 5
    > >>>to the DCs. A problem comes with Hit Points & Damage, which get very
    > >>>inflated;
    > >>
    > >><snip>
    > >>
    > >> Base HP/level has become 5, which is about right. d4's are then -2
    > >>HP/level, d6's are -1, d8's are normal, d10's are +1, and Brbs are +2.
    > >
    > > This gives slightly more 'benefit' to those with small hit dice. Each
    > > gets +0.5 hit points over the average; for d4 this is a 20% increase,
    > > for a d10 class it's about 9% increase.
    >
    > Sort of, alot of people seem to use it as a house rule anyway. If
    > you use the above stuff about classes adding to stats by level, you can
    > soon drop the Wizard back to his place again by giving him less Con.
    >
    > > My method (HD size -2) is more generous in hit points, but supports the
    > > toughness expectations of the various classes -- a d12 guy *is*
    > > (slightly more than) twice as tough as a d6 guy. Remember that a Con
    > > bonus is 'bigger' for small HD types than big HD types; this helps
    > > balance it out again.
    >
    > I'd rather keep the Brb and Ftr in place ralative to the monsters
    > damage than worry overly much about boosts to the Sor/Wiz; they're
    > screwed anyway when a melee monster chews on them, and they need all the
    > help they can get against damage spells.
    >
    > >> You can do a similar fix for skill picks. With no multi-classing,
    > >>you can just pick skills at 1st level, and have them all have a bonus
    > >>equal to level plus stat mod. That's a couple points higher than core,
    > >>which is just right if you do away with synergy bonuses.
    > >
    > > Sligtly lower, unless ability scores run higher -- max ranks is level+3.
    >
    > It's in referance to a 0-10, average 5, stat modifier. Level +5
    > instead of (level+3) +2 from synergy. Remove the bonuses from masterwork
    > tools and you won't even have to change the DCs for equal chances.
    >
    > And while I'm on skills, chuck out opposed rolls (for all jobs,
    > combat stuff too). Active character rolls, the other uses take-10
    > (except for saves, players like rolling saves).

    Changing saves to active character rolls gives spellcasters something
    to do. After all it's an attack roll of a kind. You don't have
    defenders roll in a normall attack, makes no sense. If you really
    wanted to get into fixing the spell system you'd make it similar to an
    attack, say caster level vs. a Save DC. You'd have to double (or
    better) saves. You could also make the classes have good medium and
    poor Spell Bab say wizards/sorcerers/druids with good, Clerics & Bards
    with medium, and Rangers & Paladins with poor. I'd really like to get
    rid of spell resistance rolls as well while were at it (2 rolls per
    spell is a bit much), but haven't a clue how to do it.

    The spell attack roll may not work all that well as you'd have to
    either roll a whole lot of them on AE's versus groups, or have one roll
    where everything saves or not.

    - Justisaur
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur wrote:
    > ABILITY SCORES
    >
    > The first thing that strikes me is that the ability scores are
    > unnecessarily complex.

    Yep, pure legacy for compatability with good old 3d6.

    > Use the bonus as the score and you eliminate a level of complexity
    > which doesn't appear to be needed. There are a few things this would
    > affect. The biggest thing it affects is generating the abilities
    > themselves, but we'll look at that in a moment. It also makes the
    > system less granular. This means everything that affects or relies
    > on the ability scores must be halved such as feat prerequisites and
    > poisons (as always in D&D when you create a fraction, round down and
    > minimum one).

    All fairly easily done up front, redo the poison table and a couple
    of spells and monster abilities. You could probably ditch stat-based
    feat prerequsites (most only work properly if you have that stat high
    anyway).

    > The biggest problem with this comes up with ability score increases,
    > which means a character would only get one every 8 levels, 2 in total.

    If you eliminate enhancement bonuses and inherant bonuses to stats
    you free up a total +18 modifier or so, though not more than +5 or +6
    per stat.
    What you could do is allow +1 to any four stat mods, once per 4
    levels. You could even link it to classes by putting it in their
    progression tables, so as to force a certain style for better game balance.

    > Look at generating ability scores.
    <snip>
    > So convert to bonuses we have 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, -1 (I'd still use that for
    > NPCS). Then we want to add 2 points to this somewhere for PCs to be of
    > average power in a standard game. My first inclination would be to
    > remove the negative and increase one of the +2s but most people think
    > having a negative somewhere gives some character.. So we'll add it
    > on the ones that were almost there anyway, the 15 & 13. So final
    > suggested PC array is 3, 2, 2, 1, 0, -1 (equivilent to 16, 14, 14, 12,
    > 10, 8).

    Let the players choose, and allow both to go on one stat to get you
    a +4 (which is *very* useful for alot of classes).

    > [Taking it One Step Further: To eliminate another step in character
    > creation, you can tie these abilities to the classes. Suggested
    > abilities for each class:
    > Class Str Dex Con Wis Int Cha
    <snip>
    > ]

    Or just fix the final modifier by class, and let the players
    arrange the 2/2/1/1/0/-1 to taste (to suit their skill picks).

    Brb +2 Str
    Brd +2 Cha
    Clr +1 Wis, +1 Cha
    Drd +2 Wis
    Ftr +1 Str, +1 Con
    Mnk +1 Dex, +1 Wis
    Pal +1 Str, +1 Cha
    Rgr +1 Str, +1 Dex
    Rog any of Dex/Int/Cha, to suit different Rogue types.
    Src +1 Dex, +1 Cha
    Wiz +2 Int

    That'd be first level, and follow something similar for stat
    increases every four levels in each class (perhaps force three and let
    the player choose the fourth if you are replacing the enhancement and
    inherant bonuses).
    For streamlined DnD, I'd ditch multi-classing.

    > [Taking it Sideways. Add 5 to each ability score so you have a 1 to 10
    > range for normal characters after racial adjustments, which would avoid
    > negatives. This works fine with skills, AC, & Saves, as you just add 5
    > to the DCs. A problem comes with Hit Points & Damage, which get very
    > inflated;
    <snip>

    Base HP/level has become 5, which is about right. d4's are then -2
    HP/level, d6's are -1, d8's are normal, d10's are +1, and Brbs are +2.

    You can do a similar fix for skill picks. With no multi-classing,
    you can just pick skills at 1st level, and have them all have a bonus
    equal to level plus stat mod. That's a couple points higher than core,
    which is just right if you do away with synergy bonuses.

    Use my houserule that creatures without a Con score base HP mods on
    Str, and as most undead are quite strong it's all good, you can even
    lower some of their HD back to reasonable levels. 8]


    > [Taking it All the Way: Eliminate ability scores altogether. Each
    > class gets bonuses to things that normally would be done by the ability
    > scores, or just things they'd be good at. I'd make all negative
    > scores above in 'taking it one step further' equivalent to 0 for that.
    > All other things that would affect abilities would instead just affect
    > the final numbers, I.E. a Bull's Strength would give you +2 to hit
    > and damage in melee. Poisons would just give cumulative minuses.]

    Looks like a more complicated system that does the same thing as
    having ability scores. If Str adds to hit and damage then anything else
    that adds to hit and damage is easiest remembered as a Str mod.

    --
    tussock

    Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur wrote:
    > ABILITY SCORES
    >
    > The first thing that strikes me is that the ability scores are
    > unnecessarily complex ....

    True, but I don't think there's much room for streamlining here.
    Simplifying ability scores might make a big difference in a ground-up
    redesign of the game. However, changing the baseline from the system
    that all published materials currently use will result in more prepwork
    (converting the numbers), a steeper learning curve for players (who must
    learn the house rule in addition to the book rules), and slowdowns all
    around (as players convert stuff in their heads whenever the changes
    aren't already written down).

    > Use the bonus as the score and you eliminate a level of complexity
    > which doesn't appear to be needed. There are a few things this would
    > affect. The biggest thing it affects is generating the abilities
    > themselves, but we'll look at that in a moment.

    Unless you regularly roll ability scores for monsters, this will affect
    the players much more than the DM. Furthermore, players don't roll
    ability scores very often, so it won't result in much time savings
    there. It could make a difference for DMs, but the game already offers
    alternatives (standard arrays and stock scores).

    > It also makes the system less granular. This means everything that
    > affects or relies on the ability scores must be halved such as feat
    > prerequisites and poisons (as always in D&D when you create a
    > fraction, round down and minimum one).

    Having just used a bunch of wraiths in my last adventure, I see that
    you'll also have some problems with converting stat damage. In some
    cases, like the wraith, halving the scores could cause minor slowdowns:
    The wraith's 1d6 Con drain becomes 1d3, which is not nearly as
    convenient to roll.

    > The biggest problem with this comes up with ability score increases,
    > which means a character would only get one every 8 levels, 2 in total.

    I think this issue alone is enough to make it more trouble than it's
    worth. Better to focus on game elements that you can change without
    invalidating existing rules and supplements. Even better, focus on
    methods that can improve the game without changing the rules at all.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    > The spell attack roll may not work all that well as you'd have to
    > either roll a whole lot of them on AE's versus groups, or have one
    > roll where everything saves or not.

    You normally need to roll a whole lot of saving throws for area spells,
    so that's no change. If you want to eliminate those rolls, just use one
    attack roll, but compare it to the defenders individually. You won't get
    as much variety in the results (i.e., versus homogeneous foes, area
    spells will be all-or-nothing), but it should still work reasonably well
    over the long haul.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
    >
    >>Justisaur wrote:
    >>
    >>>Use the bonus as the score and you eliminate a level of complexity
    >>>which doesn't appear to be needed. There are a few things this would
    >>>affect. The biggest thing it affects is generating the abilities
    >>>themselves, but we'll look at that in a moment. It also makes the
    >>>system less granular. This means everything that affects or relies
    >>>on the ability scores must be halved such as feat prerequisites and
    >>>poisons (as always in D&D when you create a fraction, round down and
    >>>minimum one).
    >>
    >> All fairly easily done up front, redo the poison table and a
    >>couple of spells and monster abilities. You could probably ditch
    >>stat-based feat prerequsites (most only work properly if you have that
    >>stat high anyway).
    >
    > Not *strictly* true. Ability score prereqs can result in limitations on
    > just how many schticks you can have. For instance, if you need 15+ in
    > three or more scores to follow three different feat trees, it's going to
    > be difficult. If you waive ability score prereqs, it makes it easy to
    > dabble and can lead to greater chance of niche invasion.

    One I forgot is the Int prereq on the expertise chain (keeps a lot
    of fighters out of it), which doesn't benefit from Int.

    > That said, I lean more toward BAB, base save, and skill rank prereqs.
    >
    > (Hmm... consider for saves:
    > Warrior: good fort, medium reflex, poor will
    > Wizard: good will, medium reflex, poor fort
    > Rogue: good reflex, medium fort, poor will

    Warrior/Adept/Expert. 8]

    > It'd be nice if it worked out such that no class had the same rating
    > in a save as the other too -- if one's got medium reflex, one of the
    > others has good and the other has poor -- but it doesn't really work
    > out without feeling contrived.

    Your Wizard (who also builds into a Cleric-type class) should
    really have a medium Fort save, and if your Rogue builds into a Bard
    then he needs medium Will.
    It marks the Wizard as "strong of mind and soul" and the rogue
    "quick and canny".

    > Which, given the archetypal behavior of the thing probably isn't too
    > bad, really, but I don't *really* like it.
    > )

    8]

    <Re: Ability scores reduced to modifiers>
    >> Or just fix the final modifier by class, and let the players
    >>arrange the 2/2/1/1/0/-1 to taste (to suit their skill picks).
    >
    > As I mentioned, this is for all purposes the same as allowing the player
    > to pick where the stat goes. Well, almost; if the player gets to choose
    > entirely he can deliberately do a suboptimal build (Barbarian with -1
    > Str would be possible if he put the -1 in Str and the two free points
    > elsewhere).

    Yep, there's

    > So, evidently there *is* a certain (design) benefit to not allowing
    > unconstrained assignment of the two free points.

    It also fills in the class advancement table a bit. 8]

    >> That'd be first level, and follow something similar for stat
    >>increases every four levels in each class (perhaps force three and let
    >>the player choose the fourth if you are replacing the enhancement and
    >>inherant bonuses).
    >
    > Or base it on race and class, as above.

    It might be nice to give races /something/ as they level up,
    mirroring some of the racial classes in the splats, and things you get
    from racial substitution levels.

    >>>[Taking it Sideways. Add 5 to each ability score so you have a 1 to 10
    >>>range for normal characters after racial adjustments, which would avoid
    >>>negatives. This works fine with skills, AC, & Saves, as you just add 5
    >>>to the DCs. A problem comes with Hit Points & Damage, which get very
    >>>inflated;
    >>
    >><snip>
    >>
    >> Base HP/level has become 5, which is about right. d4's are then -2
    >>HP/level, d6's are -1, d8's are normal, d10's are +1, and Brbs are +2.
    >
    > This gives slightly more 'benefit' to those with small hit dice. Each
    > gets +0.5 hit points over the average; for d4 this is a 20% increase,
    > for a d10 class it's about 9% increase.

    Sort of, alot of people seem to use it as a house rule anyway. If
    you use the above stuff about classes adding to stats by level, you can
    soon drop the Wizard back to his place again by giving him less Con.

    > My method (HD size -2) is more generous in hit points, but supports the
    > toughness expectations of the various classes -- a d12 guy *is*
    > (slightly more than) twice as tough as a d6 guy. Remember that a Con
    > bonus is 'bigger' for small HD types than big HD types; this helps
    > balance it out again.

    I'd rather keep the Brb and Ftr in place ralative to the monsters
    damage than worry overly much about boosts to the Sor/Wiz; they're
    screwed anyway when a melee monster chews on them, and they need all the
    help they can get against damage spells.

    >> You can do a similar fix for skill picks. With no multi-classing,
    >>you can just pick skills at 1st level, and have them all have a bonus
    >>equal to level plus stat mod. That's a couple points higher than core,
    >>which is just right if you do away with synergy bonuses.
    >
    > Sligtly lower, unless ability scores run higher -- max ranks is level+3.

    It's in referance to a 0-10, average 5, stat modifier. Level +5
    instead of (level+3) +2 from synergy. Remove the bonuses from masterwork
    tools and you won't even have to change the DCs for equal chances.

    And while I'm on skills, chuck out opposed rolls (for all jobs,
    combat stuff too). Active character rolls, the other uses take-10
    (except for saves, players like rolling saves).

    >> Use my houserule that creatures without a Con score base HP mods
    >>on Str, and as most undead are quite strong it's all good, you can
    >>even lower some of their HD back to reasonable levels. 8]
    >
    > Not a bad house rule, that. I considered a feat to do something similar
    > (just as I have a feat that lets you use Str modifier for Fort saves).

    The only trick is you have to use Cha modifier for incorpreal
    undead, which stacks alot of effect onto that one stat. Fortunately,
    players just don't play incorpreal undead, so it can't really be twinked.

    --
    tussock

    Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
    > Keith Davies wrote:
    >>
    >> That said, I lean more toward BAB, base save, and skill rank prereqs.
    >>
    >> (Hmm... consider for saves:
    >> Warrior: good fort, medium reflex, poor will
    >> Wizard: good will, medium reflex, poor fort
    >> Rogue: good reflex, medium fort, poor will
    >
    > Warrior/Adept/Expert. 8]
    >
    >> It'd be nice if it worked out such that no class had the same rating
    >> in a save as the other too -- if one's got medium reflex, one of the
    >> others has good and the other has poor -- but it doesn't really work
    >> out without feeling contrived.
    >
    > Your Wizard (who also builds into a Cleric-type class) should
    > really have a medium Fort save, and if your Rogue builds into a Bard
    > then he needs medium Will.

    This is why my class framework says 'pick your saves'.

    > It marks the Wizard as "strong of mind and soul" and the rogue
    > "quick and canny".

    I think *any* of the class types could have any arrangement of saves.
    That's why I set my class framework up as I did. For Justisaur's plan,
    it's probably best that the saves be nailed down. The good saves are
    pretty clear: Warrior Fort, Wizard Will, Rogue Reflex. The medium and
    poor saves could go either way for *any* of them. Perhaps allow the
    player to choose -- he doesn't get to multiclass, so it doesn't
    particularly complicate anything.

    >>> That'd be first level, and follow something similar for stat
    >>>increases every four levels in each class (perhaps force three and let
    >>>the player choose the fourth if you are replacing the enhancement and
    >>>inherant bonuses).
    >>
    >> Or base it on race and class, as above.
    >
    > It might be nice to give races /something/ as they level up,
    > mirroring some of the racial classes in the splats, and things you get
    > from racial substitution levels.

    ISTR mentioning the possibility of each race giving a choice of two
    abilities to bump, and each class giving a choice of two abilities to
    bump, and you alternate between them (4th: race, 8th: class, etc.)


    >>>>[Taking it Sideways. Add 5 to each ability score so you have a 1 to 10
    >>>>range for normal characters after racial adjustments, which would avoid
    >>>>negatives. This works fine with skills, AC, & Saves, as you just add 5
    >>>>to the DCs. A problem comes with Hit Points & Damage, which get very
    >>>>inflated;
    >>>
    >>><snip>
    >>>
    >>> Base HP/level has become 5, which is about right. d4's are then -2
    >>>HP/level, d6's are -1, d8's are normal, d10's are +1, and Brbs are +2.
    >>
    >> This gives slightly more 'benefit' to those with small hit dice. Each
    >> gets +0.5 hit points over the average; for d4 this is a 20% increase,
    >> for a d10 class it's about 9% increase.
    >
    > Sort of, alot of people seem to use it as a house rule anyway. If
    > you use the above stuff about classes adding to stats by level, you can
    > soon drop the Wizard back to his place again by giving him less Con.

    The recommended variation in the PH is to round down, though. You're
    effectively rounding up with the above.

    My suggestion gives even *more*, though. Flavor issue, I think; because
    we're working with archetypal characters, 'weak' should be *weak*,
    'tough' should be *tough*. Con can adjust things, but I'd rather there
    be a tradeoff here. I don't like the idea of being forced to have a low
    HD *and* low Con. I'd rather see someone who wants more hit points
    trade off for it.

    >> My method (HD size -2) is more generous in hit points, but supports the
    >> toughness expectations of the various classes -- a d12 guy *is*
    >> (slightly more than) twice as tough as a d6 guy. Remember that a Con
    >> bonus is 'bigger' for small HD types than big HD types; this helps
    >> balance it out again.
    >
    > I'd rather keep the Brb and Ftr in place ralative to the monsters
    > damage than worry overly much about boosts to the Sor/Wiz; they're
    > screwed anyway when a melee monster chews on them, and they need all the
    > help they can get against damage spells.

    There is that.

    Y'know, we could for the sake of convenience just give everyone full hit
    points per HD. The system is being set up such that they will of
    necessity lose some of the goodies that'll otherwise keep them alive.

    >>> You can do a similar fix for skill picks. With no multi-classing,
    >>>you can just pick skills at 1st level, and have them all have a bonus
    >>>equal to level plus stat mod. That's a couple points higher than core,
    >>>which is just right if you do away with synergy bonuses.
    >>
    >> Sligtly lower, unless ability scores run higher -- max ranks is level+3.
    >
    > It's in referance to a 0-10, average 5, stat modifier. Level +5
    > instead of (level+3) +2 from synergy. Remove the bonuses from masterwork
    > tools and you won't even have to change the DCs for equal chances.

    Ah, missed that.

    > And while I'm on skills, chuck out opposed rolls (for all jobs,
    > combat stuff too). Active character rolls, the other uses take-10
    > (except for saves, players like rolling saves).

    The border cases are mildly problematic, though. If either of us can
    roll, and has to meet the DC, then the roller has a slight advantage.
    Turn it around, and the other guy gets the advantage.

    You can set it up so this doesn't happen, but it's not as obvious.

    >>> Use my houserule that creatures without a Con score base HP mods
    >>>on Str, and as most undead are quite strong it's all good, you can
    >>>even lower some of their HD back to reasonable levels. 8]
    >>
    >> Not a bad house rule, that. I considered a feat to do something similar
    >> (just as I have a feat that lets you use Str modifier for Fort saves).
    >
    > The only trick is you have to use Cha modifier for incorpreal
    > undead, which stacks alot of effect onto that one stat. Fortunately,
    > players just don't play incorpreal undead, so it can't really be twinked.

    True enough.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > Wait until a PC wizard gets to 18th level. You'll see [inherent
    > bonuses] then.

    Why not at 17th level? Indeed, I'd expect the wizard to save up an extra
    8,000 XP past the 18th-level breakpoint, so that he can buy his +5 Int
    all at once.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur wrote:
    > That's pretty end game. Since 3e came out I've only had one campaign
    > get to 17th, none to 18, and the wizard didn't seem to be interested
    > in [inherent bonuses].

    Hm. Given that and the high number of PC casualties, I would say that
    the problem is not with D&D. No, it's clear that YOUR PLAYERS ARE NUTS,
    N-V-T-S, NUTS.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:42:25 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Justisaur wrote:
    >> That's pretty end game. Since 3e came out I've only had one campaign
    >> get to 17th, none to 18, and the wizard didn't seem to be interested
    >> in [inherent bonuses].
    >
    >Hm. Given that and the high number of PC casualties, I would say that
    >the problem is not with D&D. No, it's clear that YOUR PLAYERS ARE NUTS,
    >N-V-T-S, NUTS.

    So where are Latrina and Natella?
    --
    The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
    the conservative adopts them.
    Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:42:25 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    ><bradd+news@szonye.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >
    >>Justisaur wrote:
    >>> That's pretty end game. Since 3e came out I've only had one campaign
    >>> get to 17th, none to 18, and the wizard didn't seem to be interested
    >>> in [inherent bonuses].
    >>
    >>Hm. Given that and the high number of PC casualties, I would say that
    >>the problem is not with D&D. No, it's clear that YOUR PLAYERS ARE NUTS,
    >>N-V-T-S, NUTS.

    > So where are Latrina and Natella?

    Y'know, I don't actually like the film, so most allusions to it will be
    lost on me. I recently rented it to see if I liked it as much as I did
    when I was a kid, and I turned it off halfway through the Roman act.
    (Wish I'd done the same with Young Frankenstein before buying it.) I
    guess Mel Brooks just isn't funny to me anymore. Except for the NVTS
    line. That was kinda funny.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:00:17 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:42:25 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    >><bradd+news@szonye.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>
    >>>Justisaur wrote:
    >>>> That's pretty end game. Since 3e came out I've only had one campaign
    >>>> get to 17th, none to 18, and the wizard didn't seem to be interested
    >>>> in [inherent bonuses].
    >>>
    >>>Hm. Given that and the high number of PC casualties, I would say that
    >>>the problem is not with D&D. No, it's clear that YOUR PLAYERS ARE NUTS,
    >>>N-V-T-S, NUTS.
    >
    >> So where are Latrina and Natella?
    >
    >Y'know, I don't actually like the film, so most allusions to it will be
    >lost on me.

    Actually, I was going for Bromwell High. Keisha often tries to spell
    out words for added emphasis, and always misspells them.
    (Also gives lines like "English should be easy, I speaks the bitch")

    --
    The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
    the conservative adopts them.
    Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:37:23 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > > Wait until a PC wizard gets to 18th level. You'll see [inherent
    > > bonuses] then.
    >
    > Why not at 17th level? Indeed, I'd expect the wizard to save up an extra
    > 8,000 XP past the 18th-level breakpoint, so that he can buy his +5 Int
    > all at once.

    Actually, I meant 17th level. I probably confused it with my
    character, who waited for 18th level because we were out and about
    through all of 17th level.

    I did buy all mine at once (you have to, as I understand it), but I
    wrote a scroll, and bought two more with cash from another wizard who
    owed me, so I didn't need to save up as much XP all at one time.

    I tihnk i'll lay off the wishes once the others get to 20th, so I get
    to epic not too far behind them.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    > > It isn't even, quite, but it *is* simple and quick to determine. 16d8
    > > hit points == 128 hit points. I can do that in my head. '16*4.5' is
    > > harder. I've got my times tables memorized, but I've never studied the
    > > 'n.5' times tables. I could of course do (16*1+16*8)/2=(16+128)/2=72,
    > > but again that's more work.
    >
    > It's easy enough to do in two steps:
    >
    > 16 x 4.5 = 16 x 4 + 16 / 2 = 64 + 8 = 72.

    Uh. Actually it's much simpler than that....

    16x4.5 is the same as 8*9 = 72

    (or (16/2)*(4.5*2))

    If you've got an odd number you add the odd part of the progression so
    17d8 is 8*9 +5 = 77

    - Justisaur
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Keith Davies wrote:
    > >>> Going with full hit points for everyone, though, keeps it more or
    > >>> less balanced ....
    >
    > Bradd wrote:
    > >> But that's a problem for resource-limited characters like blasters
    > >> and healers, unless you also double their resources (by doubling
    > >> spell slots, halving the cost of wands, etc). Otherwise, the
    > >> unlimited-attack classes will outlast them.
    >
    > > In the interest of simplfication and expediency, maximize
    > > *everything*, then. A longsword does 8 points of damage, a 5d6
    > > /fireball/ does 30 points of damage, /cure light wounds/ heals 8+level
    > > points, and so on. That brings things pretty much back into step, and
    > > speeds things up some more.
    >


    Have to say, I love this idea.

    > That works, and speeds up the game, if you don't mind the loss of
    > randomness. However, it causes a new balance problem:
    >
    > > In fact, this also reduces the impact of ability score bonuses.
    > > Rather than Str 14 meaning you almost double your damage with a
    > > longsword (4.5+2 = 6.5), it only increases it by a quarter (8+2).
    >
    > It also reduces the effect of magic weapons: Bonus dice (flaming, etc.)
    > will stay in line with everything else, but enhancement bonuses are
    > effectively halved. You're also effectively halving the effects of
    > Weapon Specialization, Point Blank Shot, and other warrior-class
    > staples. In contrast, spellcasters rely very little on these kinds of
    > bonuses; you've just shifted the balance too far in the other direction.

    It's easy enough to fix those as well, just double the damage of the
    pluses on the things you want the same. You get weird effects though,
    like +2 to hit weapons are +4 damage, might make that harder to track.
    I was thinking of dropping the offensive staples in favor of more
    general feats, although it might really hurt fighters, have to give
    them something in return.

    You also forget you loose maximize (and possibly empower) for the
    casters (not a big deal IMHO).

    - Justisaur
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > >> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    > >> > It isn't even, quite, but it *is* simple and quick to determine. 16d8
    > >> > hit points == 128 hit points. I can do that in my head. '16*4.5' is
    > >> > harder. I've got my times tables memorized, but I've never studied the
    > >> > 'n.5' times tables. I could of course do (16*1+16*8)/2=(16+128)/2=72,
    > >> > but again that's more work.
    > >>
    > >> It's easy enough to do in two steps:
    > >>
    > >> 16 x 4.5 = 16 x 4 + 16 / 2 = 64 + 8 = 72.
    > >
    > > Uh. Actually it's much simpler than that....
    > >
    > > 16x4.5 is the same as 8*9 = 72
    > >
    > > (or (16/2)*(4.5*2))
    > >
    > > If you've got an odd number you add the odd part of the progression so
    > > 17d8 is 8*9 +5 = 77
    >
    > Ugh, maybe it's just because I have a headache, but that gives me a
    > headache.

    Your's gives me a headache. Basically it's the same as saying every 2
    levels you get 9 HP, maybe that will make sense.

    - Justisaur
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <slrndgloou.dc2.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >Y'know, we could for the sake of convenience just give everyone full hit
    >points per HD. The system is being set up such that they will of
    >necessity lose some of the goodies that'll otherwise keep them alive.

    It's certainly simpler, and I can't think of any players who would object. It
    would seem to go along with eliminating random abilitiy scores in favour of
    point buy. I'm not so sure about applying the same idea to monsters, though,
    which one probably must do also to keep things simple.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:00:17 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    ><bradd+news@szonye.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >
    >>Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:42:25 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    >>><bradd+news@szonye.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>>
    >>>>Justisaur wrote:
    >>>>> That's pretty end game. Since 3e came out I've only had one campaign
    >>>>> get to 17th, none to 18, and the wizard didn't seem to be interested
    >>>>> in [inherent bonuses].
    >>>>
    >>>>Hm. Given that and the high number of PC casualties, I would say that
    >>>>the problem is not with D&D. No, it's clear that YOUR PLAYERS ARE NUTS,
    >>>>N-V-T-S, NUTS.
    >>
    >>> So where are Latrina and Natella?
    >>
    >>Y'know, I don't actually like the film, so most allusions to it will be
    >>lost on me.
    >
    > Actually, I was going for Bromwell High. Keisha often tries to spell
    > out words for added emphasis, and always misspells them.
    > (Also gives lines like "English should be easy, I speaks the bitch")

    Ah. I was referring to History of the World Part I, which IIRC features
    a character named Latrina, thus my confusion.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
    > In article <slrndgloou.dc2.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >>Y'know, we could for the sake of convenience just give everyone full hit
    >>points per HD. The system is being set up such that they will of
    >>necessity lose some of the goodies that'll otherwise keep them alive.
    >
    > It's certainly simpler, and I can't think of any players who would
    > object. It would seem to go along with eliminating random abilitiy
    > scores in favour of point buy. I'm not so sure about applying the
    > same idea to monsters, though, which one probably must do also to keep
    > things simple.

    You are inflating the staying power of the PCs if you do this.

    Actually, consider this: PCs determine hit points once per level. The
    DM has to do it for *every creature they fight*. Going with a fixed
    number per hit die greatly speeds this (core uses the mean); because
    you've inflated PC power, you should do the same with monsters to keep
    things more or less even.

    It isn't even, quite, but it *is* simple and quick to determine. 16d8
    hit points == 128 hit points. I can do that in my head. '16*4.5' is
    harder. I've got my times tables memorized, but I've never studied the
    'n.5' times tables. I could of course do (16*1+16*8)/2=(16+128)/2=72,
    but again that's more work.

    Going with full hit points for everyone, though, keeps it more or less
    balanced. Yes, it means you'll need twice as many shots to take it
    down, but then you have the hit points to stand up to being hit twice as
    many times yourself.

    This also removes a certain amount of luck and randomness from things --
    because everything is tougher, there's less chance of a crit killing
    something outright.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    > It isn't even, quite, but it *is* simple and quick to determine. 16d8
    > hit points == 128 hit points. I can do that in my head. '16*4.5' is
    > harder. I've got my times tables memorized, but I've never studied the
    > 'n.5' times tables. I could of course do (16*1+16*8)/2=(16+128)/2=72,
    > but again that's more work.

    It's easy enough to do in two steps:

    16 x 4.5 = 16 x 4 + 16 / 2 = 64 + 8 = 72.

    > Going with full hit points for everyone, though, keeps it more or less
    > balanced. Yes, it means you'll need twice as many shots to take it
    > down, but then you have the hit points to stand up to being hit twice
    > as many times yourself.

    But that's a problem for resource-limited characters like blasters and
    healers, unless you also double their resources (by doubling spell
    slots, halving the cost of wands, etc). Otherwise, the unlimited-attack
    classes will outlast them.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >> It isn't even, quite, but it *is* simple and quick to determine. 16d8
    >> hit points == 128 hit points. I can do that in my head. '16*4.5' is
    >> harder. I've got my times tables memorized, but I've never studied the
    >> 'n.5' times tables. I could of course do (16*1+16*8)/2=(16+128)/2=72,
    >> but again that's more work.
    >
    > It's easy enough to do in two steps:
    >
    > 16 x 4.5 = 16 x 4 + 16 / 2 = 64 + 8 = 72.

    Still not nearly as easy as 16 * 8.

    >> Going with full hit points for everyone, though, keeps it more or less
    >> balanced. Yes, it means you'll need twice as many shots to take it
    >> down, but then you have the hit points to stand up to being hit twice
    >> as many times yourself.
    >
    > But that's a problem for resource-limited characters like blasters and
    > healers, unless you also double their resources (by doubling spell
    > slots, halving the cost of wands, etc). Otherwise, the unlimited-attack
    > classes will outlast them.

    In the interest of simplfication and expediency, maximize *everything*,
    then. A longsword does 8 points of damage, a 5d6 /fireball/ does 30
    points of damage, /cure light wounds/ heals 8+level points, and so on.
    That brings things pretty much back into step, and speeds things up some
    more.

    In fact, this also reduces the impact of ability score bonuses. Rather
    than Str 14 meaning you almost double your damage with a longsword
    (4.5+2 = 6.5), it only increases it by a quarter (8+2). This is
    probably good, in terms of simplification, especially if Justisaur does
    go with 'track the modifiers only, and give a bonus point every four
    levels'.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:
    >>> Going with full hit points for everyone, though, keeps it more or
    >>> less balanced ....

    Bradd wrote:
    >> But that's a problem for resource-limited characters like blasters
    >> and healers, unless you also double their resources (by doubling
    >> spell slots, halving the cost of wands, etc). Otherwise, the
    >> unlimited-attack classes will outlast them.

    > In the interest of simplfication and expediency, maximize
    > *everything*, then. A longsword does 8 points of damage, a 5d6
    > /fireball/ does 30 points of damage, /cure light wounds/ heals 8+level
    > points, and so on. That brings things pretty much back into step, and
    > speeds things up some more.

    That works, and speeds up the game, if you don't mind the loss of
    randomness. However, it causes a new balance problem:

    > In fact, this also reduces the impact of ability score bonuses.
    > Rather than Str 14 meaning you almost double your damage with a
    > longsword (4.5+2 = 6.5), it only increases it by a quarter (8+2).

    It also reduces the effect of magic weapons: Bonus dice (flaming, etc.)
    will stay in line with everything else, but enhancement bonuses are
    effectively halved. You're also effectively halving the effects of
    Weapon Specialization, Point Blank Shot, and other warrior-class
    staples. In contrast, spellcasters rely very little on these kinds of
    bonuses; you've just shifted the balance too far in the other direction.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >> > It isn't even, quite, but it *is* simple and quick to determine. 16d8
    >> > hit points == 128 hit points. I can do that in my head. '16*4.5' is
    >> > harder. I've got my times tables memorized, but I've never studied the
    >> > 'n.5' times tables. I could of course do (16*1+16*8)/2=(16+128)/2=72,
    >> > but again that's more work.
    >>
    >> It's easy enough to do in two steps:
    >>
    >> 16 x 4.5 = 16 x 4 + 16 / 2 = 64 + 8 = 72.
    >
    > Uh. Actually it's much simpler than that....
    >
    > 16x4.5 is the same as 8*9 = 72
    >
    > (or (16/2)*(4.5*2))
    >
    > If you've got an odd number you add the odd part of the progression so
    > 17d8 is 8*9 +5 = 77

    Ugh, maybe it's just because I have a headache, but that gives me a
    headache.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
    > Keith Davies wrote:
    >>>> Going with full hit points for everyone, though, keeps it more or
    >>>> less balanced ....
    >
    > Bradd wrote:
    >>> But that's a problem for resource-limited characters like blasters
    >>> and healers, unless you also double their resources (by doubling
    >>> spell slots, halving the cost of wands, etc). Otherwise, the
    >>> unlimited-attack classes will outlast them.
    >
    >> In the interest of simplfication and expediency, maximize
    >> *everything*, then. A longsword does 8 points of damage, a 5d6
    >> /fireball/ does 30 points of damage, /cure light wounds/ heals 8+level
    >> points, and so on. That brings things pretty much back into step, and
    >> speeds things up some more.
    >
    > That works, and speeds up the game, if you don't mind the loss of
    > randomness. However, it causes a new balance problem:

    Given that excessive randomness was deemed bad, this is probably in
    line. Keep the hit roll and saves, but making all damage (and all soak)
    standard values should make things move along more.

    >> In fact, this also reduces the impact of ability score bonuses.
    >> Rather than Str 14 meaning you almost double your damage with a
    >> longsword (4.5+2 = 6.5), it only increases it by a quarter (8+2).
    >
    > It also reduces the effect of magic weapons: Bonus dice (flaming,
    > etc.) will stay in line with everything else, but enhancement bonuses
    > are effectively halved. You're also effectively halving the effects of
    > Weapon Specialization, Point Blank Shot, and other warrior-class
    > staples. In contrast, spellcasters rely very little on these kinds of
    > bonuses; you've just shifted the balance too far in the other
    > direction.

    Happily, *those* are all constants. Double them for damage purposes.
    Weapon Specialization now does +4 damage rather than +2, a +1 weapon
    does +2 damage (you can write them up that way, as well -- +2/+4 -- so
    you don't forget). Looks wartish, though.

    *Or*, chop the cost of enhancement bonuses by a third (not a half -- we
    have to double damage to keep in step, but doubling the attack bonus is
    a bit much; this splits the difference).


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >> > It isn't even, quite, but it *is* simple and quick to determine. 16d8
    >> > hit points == 128 hit points. I can do that in my head. '16*4.5' is
    >> > harder. I've got my times tables memorized, but I've never studied the
    >> > 'n.5' times tables. I could of course do (16*1+16*8)/2=(16+128)/2=72,
    >> > but again that's more work.
    >>
    >> It's easy enough to do in two steps:
    >>
    >> 16 x 4.5 = 16 x 4 + 16 / 2 = 64 + 8 = 72.
    >
    > Uh. Actually it's much simpler than that....
    >
    > 16x4.5 is the same as 8*9 = 72
    >
    > (or (16/2)*(4.5*2))
    >
    > If you've got an odd number you add the odd part of the progression so
    > 17d8 is 8*9 +5 = 77

    *still* harder than 16 * 8.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > Happily, *those* are all constants. Double them for damage purposes.
    > Weapon Specialization now does +4 damage rather than +2, a +1 weapon
    > does +2 damage (you can write them up that way, as well -- +2/+4 -- so
    > you don't forget). Looks wartish, though.

    When somebody complains about too much prep work or slow gameplay, I
    think any solution that requires a global re-write to published stats is
    a complete non-starter. Prepwork doesn't get any more extensive than
    that, and you'll constantly be mixing up the official and house rules
    during play.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    One of the voices in my head - or was it Keith Davies? - just said...
    > Rather
    > than Str 14 meaning you almost double your damage with a longsword
    > (4.5+2 = 6.5), it only increases it by a quarter (8+2).

    The difference is less than you think. 4.5 to 6.5 isn't nearly "almost
    double", it's about a 44% increase. (And in practice it will be less,
    because that character will nearly always have a Strength bonus).
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
    > > Keith Davies wrote:
    > >>>> Going with full hit points for everyone, though, keeps it more or
    > >>>> less balanced ....
    > >
    > > Bradd wrote:
    > >>> But that's a problem for resource-limited characters like blasters
    > >>> and healers, unless you also double their resources (by doubling
    > >>> spell slots, halving the cost of wands, etc). Otherwise, the
    > >>> unlimited-attack classes will outlast them.
    > >
    > >> In the interest of simplfication and expediency, maximize
    > >> *everything*, then. A longsword does 8 points of damage, a 5d6
    > >> /fireball/ does 30 points of damage, /cure light wounds/ heals 8+level
    > >> points, and so on. That brings things pretty much back into step, and
    > >> speeds things up some more.
    > >
    > > That works, and speeds up the game, if you don't mind the loss of
    > > randomness. However, it causes a new balance problem:
    >
    > Given that excessive randomness was deemed bad, this is probably in
    > line. Keep the hit roll and saves, but making all damage (and all soak)
    > standard values should make things move along more.
    >

    This was something i was thinking of, there

    > >> In fact, this also reduces the impact of ability score bonuses.
    > >> Rather than Str 14 meaning you almost double your damage with a
    > >> longsword (4.5+2 = 6.5), it only increases it by a quarter (8+2).
    > >
    > > It also reduces the effect of magic weapons: Bonus dice (flaming,
    > > etc.) will stay in line with everything else, but enhancement bonuses
    > > are effectively halved. You're also effectively halving the effects of
    > > Weapon Specialization, Point Blank Shot, and other warrior-class
    > > staples. In contrast, spellcasters rely very little on these kinds of
    > > bonuses; you've just shifted the balance too far in the other
    > > direction.
    >
    > Happily, *those* are all constants. Double them for damage purposes.
    > Weapon Specialization now does +4 damage rather than +2, a +1 weapon
    > does +2 damage (you can write them up that way, as well -- +2/+4 -- so
    > you don't forget). Looks wartish, though.
    >

    There are a couple issues with it I can think of. First what do you do
    with DR & Energy Resistance since they won't be as effective if you
    leave them alone.

    This is actually an issue even if you just give strait values to weapon
    damages , as for instace someone with a bastard sword against DR 5 will
    normally do damage half the time, but if you make thier damage 5 they
    will never do any damage. I'm not sure it matters though, as you get
    2.5 damage half the time, versus 5 damage all the time, but against a
    doubled HP base if you max the damage, which comes out the same in the
    long run. Of course this screws with the relative less utility of
    using more dice - for instance a greatsword is actually worse than a
    two-handed sword against DR because of the curve of 2d6. I don't think
    that was actually intended though, so can probably ignored.

    There's another issue with DR, which is what to do when you drop
    alignments.

    One more issue with maxing damage & HP I can see, which is the fact
    that normally HP are maxed at 1st lv for PCs anyway, which gives them a
    significant boost in survivability, if all damages are maxed out, this
    will drop 1st lv. characters almost 2x as fast, and will have a
    significant effect up through at least 3rd lv. I guess the easy fix
    for that would be to double 1st lv HP (or at least from the HD).

    It not only drops the effectiveness of Str, but also of Con... Not
    necessarily bad, I've always felt that con was too useful in 3.x and
    Str too useful to non spell combatants.

    > *Or*, chop the cost of enhancement bonuses by a third (not a half -- we
    > have to double damage to keep in step, but doubling the attack bonus is
    > a bit much; this splits the difference).
    >

    To hit bonuses are worth considerably more than damage bonuses, It
    might be worth a slight discount, but not an awful lot.

    - Justisaur
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Adding this table for Attribute Gains, lowered it to every 5 levels,
    since it's worth a bit more.

    Class 5th 10th 15th 20th
    Barbarian +1 Str +1 Con +1 Dex +1 Str
    Bard +1 Cha +1 Dex +1 Cha +1 Str
    Cleric +1 Wis +1 Cha +1 Str +1 Con
    Druid +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Wis +1 Dex
    Fighter +1 Con +1 Str +1 Con +1 Str
    Monk +1 Dex +1 Str +1 Wis +1 Con
    Paladin +1 Cha +1 Wis +1 Str +1 Cha
    Ranger +1 Dex +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Cha
    Rogue +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Cha
    Sorcerer +1 Cha +1 Con +1 Cha +1 Dex
    Wizard +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Cha

    - Justisaur
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:37:38 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    > > It isn't even, quite, but it *is* simple and quick to determine. 16d8
    > > hit points == 128 hit points. I can do that in my head. '16*4.5' is
    > > harder. I've got my times tables memorized, but I've never studied the
    > > 'n.5' times tables. I could of course do (16*1+16*8)/2=(16+128)/2=72,
    > > but again that's more work.
    >
    > It's easy enough to do in two steps:
    >
    > 16 x 4.5 = 16 x 4 + 16 / 2 = 64 + 8 = 72.

    I find: 16/2 x 4.5x2 = 8 x 9 = 72 is faster, because I can memorise
    what double the average of a die is.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:32:51 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Keith Davies wrote:
    > > Happily, *those* are all constants. Double them for damage purposes.
    > > Weapon Specialization now does +4 damage rather than +2, a +1 weapon
    > > does +2 damage (you can write them up that way, as well -- +2/+4 -- so
    > > you don't forget). Looks wartish, though.
    >
    > When somebody complains about too much prep work or slow gameplay, I
    > think any solution that requires a global re-write to published stats is
    > a complete non-starter. Prepwork doesn't get any more extensive than
    > that, and you'll constantly be mixing up the official and house rules
    > during play.

    I don't think remembering that weapon enhancement bonuses give +1 to
    hit, and +2 to damage per +1 of bonus is a big deal. Also, it'll look
    like a nice little bonus to most player familiar with D&D 3.x.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:37:38 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    ><bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >> > It isn't even, quite, but it *is* simple and quick to determine. 16d8
    >> > hit points == 128 hit points. I can do that in my head. '16*4.5' is
    >> > harder. I've got my times tables memorized, but I've never studied the
    >> > 'n.5' times tables. I could of course do (16*1+16*8)/2=(16+128)/2=72,
    >> > but again that's more work.
    >>
    >> It's easy enough to do in two steps:
    >>
    >> 16 x 4.5 = 16 x 4 + 16 / 2 = 64 + 8 = 72.
    >
    > I find: 16/2 x 4.5x2 = 8 x 9 = 72 is faster, because I can memorise
    > what double the average of a die is.

    That works well enough for even levels, I suppose, but I think my
    approach is a bit easier (for me) in dealing with the rounding issues at
    odd levels.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org> wrote:
    > One of the voices in my head - or was it Keith Davies? - just said...
    >> Rather
    >> than Str 14 meaning you almost double your damage with a longsword
    >> (4.5+2 = 6.5), it only increases it by a quarter (8+2).
    >
    > The difference is less than you think. 4.5 to 6.5 isn't nearly "almost
    > double", it's about a 44% increase. (And in practice it will be less,
    > because that character will nearly always have a Strength bonus).

    yeah, I was rounding pretty grossly.

    How would it be less 'because that character will nearly always have a
    Strength bonus'? I'm talking about his Strength bonus here -- it's
    already taken into account.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >> When somebody complains about too much prep work or slow gameplay, I
    >> think any solution that requires a global re-write to published stats is
    >> a complete non-starter. Prepwork doesn't get any more extensive than
    >> that, and you'll constantly be mixing up the official and house rules
    >> during play.

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > I don't think remembering that weapon enhancement bonuses give +1 to
    > hit, and +2 to damage per +1 of bonus is a big deal. Also, it'll look
    > like a nice little bonus to most player familiar with D&D 3.x.

    My own experience tells me differently; I would expect players to forget
    sometimes when reading non-converted material. I'd also expect them to
    re-double sometimes when reading from already-converted material. And
    I'd definitely expect to see occasional arguments, reminders, and all-
    around confusion when somebody gets it wrong.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > On 25 Aug 2005 13:47:39 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
    > carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    > > Adding this table for Attribute Gains, lowered it to every 5 levels,
    > > since it's worth a bit more.
    > >
    > > Class 5th 10th 15th 20th
    > > Barbarian +1 Str +1 Con +1 Dex +1 Str
    > > Bard +1 Cha +1 Dex +1 Cha +1 Str
    > > Cleric +1 Wis +1 Cha +1 Str +1 Con
    > > Druid +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Wis +1 Dex
    > > Fighter +1 Con +1 Str +1 Con +1 Str
    > > Monk +1 Dex +1 Str +1 Wis +1 Con
    > > Paladin +1 Cha +1 Wis +1 Str +1 Cha
    > > Ranger +1 Dex +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Cha
    > > Rogue +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Cha
    > > Sorcerer +1 Cha +1 Con +1 Cha +1 Dex
    > > Wizard +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Cha
    >
    > That pretty strongly says "Fighters are tanks", IMO. Also, why do
    > Sorcerers get Con, and wizards not (and what the heck use does a
    > wizard have for Cha)?
    >

    Flavor? Just wanted to diferentiate them a little more, wizards can
    use the cha for enchantment type spells. Your suggestions are welcome

    - Justisaur
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:32:54 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > > I find: 16/2 x 4.5x2 = 8 x 9 = 72 is faster, because I can memorise
    > > what double the average of a die is.
    >
    > That works well enough for even levels, I suppose, but I think my
    > approach is a bit easier (for me) in dealing with the rounding issues at
    > odd levels.

    Ah. I've long internalised the 'average, round up' of all the dice, so
    that's not something I really notice.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 25 Aug 2005 13:47:39 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Adding this table for Attribute Gains, lowered it to every 5 levels,
    > since it's worth a bit more.
    >
    > Class 5th 10th 15th 20th
    > Barbarian +1 Str +1 Con +1 Dex +1 Str
    > Bard +1 Cha +1 Dex +1 Cha +1 Str
    > Cleric +1 Wis +1 Cha +1 Str +1 Con
    > Druid +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Wis +1 Dex
    > Fighter +1 Con +1 Str +1 Con +1 Str
    > Monk +1 Dex +1 Str +1 Wis +1 Con
    > Paladin +1 Cha +1 Wis +1 Str +1 Cha
    > Ranger +1 Dex +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Cha
    > Rogue +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Cha
    > Sorcerer +1 Cha +1 Con +1 Cha +1 Dex
    > Wizard +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Cha

    That pretty strongly says "Fighters are tanks", IMO. Also, why do
    Sorcerers get Con, and wizards not (and what the heck use does a
    wizard have for Cha)?

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:24:36 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > > I don't think remembering that weapon enhancement bonuses give +1 to
    > > hit, and +2 to damage per +1 of bonus is a big deal. Also, it'll look
    > > like a nice little bonus to most player familiar with D&D 3.x.
    >
    > My own experience tells me differently; I would expect players to forget
    > sometimes when reading non-converted material. I'd also expect them to
    > re-double sometimes when reading from already-converted material. And
    > I'd definitely expect to see occasional arguments, reminders, and all-
    > around confusion when somebody gets it wrong.

    I'd use some convention for writing this sort of thing. Something
    like: Descriptions such as "longsword +1" _never_ inculde the
    conversion, descriptions of things such as attack statistics, such as
    "Full attack: Longsword +1, +15/+10, 1d8+6, 19-20/x2" _always_ have
    the damage converted.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    >> On 25 Aug 2005 13:47:39 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
    >> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >>
    >> > Adding this table for Attribute Gains, lowered it to every 5 levels,
    >> > since it's worth a bit more.
    >> >
    >> > Class 5th 10th 15th 20th
    >> > Barbarian +1 Str +1 Con +1 Dex +1 Str
    >> > Bard +1 Cha +1 Dex +1 Cha +1 Str
    >> > Cleric +1 Wis +1 Cha +1 Str +1 Con
    >> > Druid +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Wis +1 Dex
    >> > Fighter +1 Con +1 Str +1 Con +1 Str
    >> > Monk +1 Dex +1 Str +1 Wis +1 Con
    >> > Paladin +1 Cha +1 Wis +1 Str +1 Cha
    >> > Ranger +1 Dex +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Cha
    >> > Rogue +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Cha
    >> > Sorcerer +1 Cha +1 Con +1 Cha +1 Dex
    >> > Wizard +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Cha
    >>
    >> That pretty strongly says "Fighters are tanks", IMO. Also, why do
    >> Sorcerers get Con, and wizards not (and what the heck use does a
    >> wizard have for Cha)?
    >>
    >
    > Flavor? Just wanted to diferentiate them a little more, wizards can
    > use the cha for enchantment type spells. Your suggestions are welcome

    That might work, if you change the spells so that Charisma actually
    matters.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    One of the voices in my head - or was it Bradd W. Szonye? - just said...
    > Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > >> On 25 Aug 2005 13:47:39 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
    > >> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    > >>
    > >> > Adding this table for Attribute Gains, lowered it to every 5 levels,
    > >> > since it's worth a bit more.
    > >> >
    > >> > Class 5th 10th 15th 20th
    > >> > Barbarian +1 Str +1 Con +1 Dex +1 Str
    > >> > Bard +1 Cha +1 Dex +1 Cha +1 Str
    > >> > Cleric +1 Wis +1 Cha +1 Str +1 Con
    > >> > Druid +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Wis +1 Dex
    > >> > Fighter +1 Con +1 Str +1 Con +1 Str
    > >> > Monk +1 Dex +1 Str +1 Wis +1 Con
    > >> > Paladin +1 Cha +1 Wis +1 Str +1 Cha
    > >> > Ranger +1 Dex +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Cha
    > >> > Rogue +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Cha
    > >> > Sorcerer +1 Cha +1 Con +1 Cha +1 Dex
    > >> > Wizard +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Cha
    > >>
    > >> That pretty strongly says "Fighters are tanks", IMO. Also, why do
    > >> Sorcerers get Con, and wizards not (and what the heck use does a
    > >> wizard have for Cha)?
    > >>
    > >
    > > Flavor? Just wanted to diferentiate them a little more, wizards can
    > > use the cha for enchantment type spells. Your suggestions are welcome
    >
    > That might work, if you change the spells so that Charisma actually
    > matters.

    That's already in the rules. Charisma governs the saves for mind-
    affecting spells, regardless of class.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur wrote:
    >>> Flavor? Just wanted to diferentiate them a little more, wizards can
    >>> use the cha for enchantment type spells.

    Bradd wrote:
    >> That might work, if you change the spells so that Charisma actually
    >> matters.

    Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
    > That's already in the rules. Charisma governs the saves for mind-
    > affecting spells, regardless of class.

    Cite? I've never heard of this before. The /charm/ spells do require an
    opposed Charisma check when giving orders, but otherwise Charisma is
    irrelevant if you're a wizard, as far as I know.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:53:37 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
    scribed into the ether:

    >Justisaur wrote:
    >>>> Flavor? Just wanted to diferentiate them a little more, wizards can
    >>>> use the cha for enchantment type spells.
    >
    >Bradd wrote:
    >>> That might work, if you change the spells so that Charisma actually
    >>> matters.
    >
    >Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
    >> That's already in the rules. Charisma governs the saves for mind-
    >> affecting spells, regardless of class.
    >
    >Cite? I've never heard of this before. The /charm/ spells do require an
    >opposed Charisma check when giving orders, but otherwise Charisma is
    >irrelevant if you're a wizard, as far as I know.

    It is one of the alternate save rules suggested in the DMG.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 26 Aug 2005 10:46:09 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    >
    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > > On 25 Aug 2005 13:47:39 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
    > > carved upon a tablet of ether:
    > >
    > > > Adding this table for Attribute Gains, lowered it to every 5 levels,
    > > > since it's worth a bit more.
    > > >
    > > > Class 5th 10th 15th 20th
    > > > Barbarian +1 Str +1 Con +1 Dex +1 Str
    > > > Bard +1 Cha +1 Dex +1 Cha +1 Str
    > > > Cleric +1 Wis +1 Cha +1 Str +1 Con
    > > > Druid +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Wis +1 Dex
    > > > Fighter +1 Con +1 Str +1 Con +1 Str
    > > > Monk +1 Dex +1 Str +1 Wis +1 Con
    > > > Paladin +1 Cha +1 Wis +1 Str +1 Cha
    > > > Ranger +1 Dex +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Cha
    > > > Rogue +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Cha
    > > > Sorcerer +1 Cha +1 Con +1 Cha +1 Dex
    > > > Wizard +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Cha
    > >
    > > That pretty strongly says "Fighters are tanks", IMO. Also, why do
    > > Sorcerers get Con, and wizards not (and what the heck use does a
    > > wizard have for Cha)?
    > >
    >
    > Flavor? Just wanted to diferentiate them a little more, wizards can
    > use the cha for enchantment type spells. Your suggestions are welcome

    I'd just give the wizards the same as sorcerers, but with Int instead
    of Cha. If that's not different enough, swap the Con and Dex, too.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
    > Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    >>> On 25 Aug 2005 13:47:39 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
    >>> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >>>
    >>> > Adding this table for Attribute Gains, lowered it to every 5 levels,
    >>> > since it's worth a bit more.
    >>> >
    >>> > Class 5th 10th 15th 20th
    >>> > Barbarian +1 Str +1 Con +1 Dex +1 Str
    >>> > Bard +1 Cha +1 Dex +1 Cha +1 Str
    >>> > Cleric +1 Wis +1 Cha +1 Str +1 Con
    >>> > Druid +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Wis +1 Dex
    >>> > Fighter +1 Con +1 Str +1 Con +1 Str
    >>> > Monk +1 Dex +1 Str +1 Wis +1 Con
    >>> > Paladin +1 Cha +1 Wis +1 Str +1 Cha
    >>> > Ranger +1 Dex +1 Wis +1 Con +1 Cha
    >>> > Rogue +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Cha
    >>> > Sorcerer +1 Cha +1 Con +1 Cha +1 Dex
    >>> > Wizard +1 Int +1 Dex +1 Int +1 Cha
    >>>
    >>> That pretty strongly says "Fighters are tanks", IMO. Also, why do
    >>> Sorcerers get Con, and wizards not (and what the heck use does a
    >>> wizard have for Cha)?
    >>>
    >>
    >> Flavor? Just wanted to diferentiate them a little more, wizards can
    >> use the cha for enchantment type spells. Your suggestions are welcome
    >
    > That might work, if you change the spells so that Charisma actually
    > matters.

    I've changed spellcasting a fair amount -- did you see my [kjd-imc]
    posts on it? I'd appreciate your thoughts -- and spellcasting now does
    use all three stats:

    .. Int affects skill points, and thus indirectly how many spells you
    know (spell knowledge is bought with skill points, along spell paths)

    .. Wis affects magic points (same as Con affects hit points)

    .. Cha affects how 'hard' you cast a spell (save DC and SR check -- add
    Cha for overcoming SR, target adds Wis to 'bolster' SR)


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
    > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:53:37 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
    > scribed into the ether:
    >
    >>Justisaur wrote:
    >>>>> Flavor? Just wanted to diferentiate them a little more, wizards can
    >>>>> use the cha for enchantment type spells.
    >>
    >>Bradd wrote:
    >>>> That might work, if you change the spells so that Charisma actually
    >>>> matters.
    >>
    >>Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
    >>> That's already in the rules. Charisma governs the saves for mind-
    >>> affecting spells, regardless of class.
    >>
    >>Cite? I've never heard of this before. The /charm/ spells do require an
    >>opposed Charisma check when giving orders, but otherwise Charisma is
    >>irrelevant if you're a wizard, as far as I know.
    >
    > It is one of the alternate save rules suggested in the DMG.

    Ah, OK.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    One of the voices in my head - or was it Bradd W. Szonye? - just said...
    > Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
    > > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:53:37 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
    > > scribed into the ether:
    > >
    > >>Justisaur wrote:
    > >>>>> Flavor? Just wanted to diferentiate them a little more, wizards can
    > >>>>> use the cha for enchantment type spells.
    > >>
    > >>Bradd wrote:
    > >>>> That might work, if you change the spells so that Charisma actually
    > >>>> matters.
    > >>
    > >>Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
    > >>> That's already in the rules. Charisma governs the saves for mind-
    > >>> affecting spells, regardless of class.
    > >>
    > >>Cite? I've never heard of this before. The /charm/ spells do require an
    > >>opposed Charisma check when giving orders, but otherwise Charisma is
    > >>irrelevant if you're a wizard, as far as I know.
    > >
    > > It is one of the alternate save rules suggested in the DMG.
    >
    > Ah, OK.

    I suspect I probably got it from another D20 game, actually, though I'm
    not sure which one. I didn't intend to pass off an optional rule as a
    standard one; I really thought it was the standard rule. But it turns
    out it isn't, in D&D or Arcana Evolved, which one of my current games
    makes heavy use of. EQ, maybe?
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games