Ability Score Modifier Progression

[Atlatl Jones]

I ran my first playtest last night, and for the most part really like how it turned out. The players all loved the funnel method, though we loved all the characters so much that it was a same to see some of them go.

A few of us, myself included, didn't like the combination of OD&D stat modifiers with 3d6-rolled stats. There was too little variation between the characters. Only two characters out of nine had +2 to a stat, and one character had nothing but +0's. (Ironically, the one character who got really lucky, with more stat bonuses than most of the other PCs combined, was the first to die.)

I think I would like the game better if it used 3e stat modifiers. Or maybe a hybrid, the same +0 range as OD&D so characters don't have too many penalties, like:

3: -4
4: -3
5-6: -2
7-8: -1
9-12: 0
13-14: +1
15-16: +2
17: +3
18: +4

[finarvyn]

Not a bad idea, although I've played with the -3 to +3 range for a long time and it's never been a problem for me.

I guess it comes down to how much you want stats to influence the game. Your chart isn't bad but it does make those 18's that much more valuable (with +4) and 3's that much more miserable (at -4).

A larger range certainly makes luck a bigger part of the creation of characters.

[Atlatl Jones]

That's true about the +4's. It's no so much the range that I didn't like, but the fact that almost every stat will be between -1 and +1, with 2's extremely rare and 3's virtually nonexistant.

It would probably be better as:

3-4: -3
5-6: -2
7-8: -1
9-12: 0
13-14: +1
15-16: +2
17-18: +3

[bholmes4]

I could handle the last idea. I like that every range has two numbers except 9-12 which has 4 (at the 0 modifier). Works out nicely.

I don't want +4s though.

[jmucchiello]

3-4: -3
5-6: -2
7-8: -1
9-12: 0
13-14: +1
15-16: +2
17-18: +3

The change here also make -2 and -3 happen more often than the BD&D chart does.

[geordie racer]

I think the DCC progression is spot on perfect, it really works well with the fluctuating stats and rolling a 3 or an 18 should be special.

[jmucchiello]

The question you need to ask yourself simple. Should someone with a +3 bonus to a specific ability score be a 1 in 216 or 1 in 72 kind of person?

[smathis]

I think the DCC progression is spot on perfect, it really works well with the fluctuating stats and rolling a 3 or an 18 should be special.

I was a proponent of the Basic D&D bonuses/penalties. So, no surprise, I like them.

[finarvyn]

The question you need to ask yourself simple. Should someone with a +3 bonus to a specific ability score be a 1 in 216 or 1 in 72 kind of person?

You're spot on with this!

The entire point of a 3d6 roll is that it gives a bell shape and that means that the extremes are harder to get than the middle. If you adjust the +/- range so that many stats on the ends get high bonuses, you might as well scrap 3d6 and go to an alternate form of attribute generation.

Just my opinion.

[smathis]

The entire point of a 3d6 roll is that it gives a bell shape and that means that the extremes are harder to get than the middle. If you adjust the +/- range so that many stats on the ends get high bonuses, you might as well scrap 3d6 and go to an alternate form of attribute generation.

Just my opinion.

+d7 here.

Just look at D&D after they decided to mess with the stat bonuses. Eventually they scrapped the random roll and went to point buy. Then magic item buy. Then monthly subscription buy.

There's a moral in there somewhere.

[Atlatl Jones]

The question you need to ask yourself simple. Should someone with a +3 bonus to a specific ability score be a 1 in 216 or 1 in 72 kind of person?

Good point.

My issue was more with the rarity of +2's than the "capstone" +3's. In my last playtest, only 2 out of 9 PCs had +2's, and none had -2's. I'd prefer that 15's be +2 and 6's be -2.

[abk108]

I like the modifiers as they are now. They give the idea that most people are average, but that doesn't stop them from getting rich, famous and victorious. In this game, unlike 3E, you could perfectly play a 13 INT wizard, without feeling like garbage. The warrior probably has got 14 STR, anyway And also, like in real life, it's actually skill and experience that make one competitive: it's the level 3 warrior i'd like by my side, not the one with 18 STR!

[meinvt]

In this game, unlike 3E, you could perfectly play a 13 INT wizard, without feeling like garbage.

This is what I think is so great about the system. It does take getting used to, and is an adjustment, particularly for those with a point buy background.

What makes the game work is that you don't need significant ability scores to have success.

[jmucchiello]

In this game, unlike 3E, you could perfectly play a 13 INT wizard, without feeling like garbage.

This is what I think is so great about the system. It does take getting used to, and is an adjustment, particularly for those with a point buy background.

What makes the game work is that you don't need significant ability scores to have success.

There's a catch-22 here, though. The reason you don't play a 13 INT wizard in 3E is he will never learn 4th level spells. The expectation in 3E is that the game will progress to 7th level after 10-15 sessions. So there is good reason to believe that your 13 Int wizard will be a party liability.

OTOH, DCCRPG seems to be saying, you won't get to 7th level anyway so why worry. It is a symptom of Appendix N thinking: stories are episodic, not serial. D&D-like RPGs have been serial for many years now. You have to remind the players that you are stepping back to the episodic era.

[echoota]

I think the thing that is the most jarring for me in how the stats progress are the numbers 12 and 15. There is no difference between a 9 and a 12, and a 15 is kind of "meh..." even though statistically it's a pretty awesome value.

I can see the value in having a 12 or 15 IF the number is in Luck, or if you are an arcane caster and want to use spell burn. The problem is that those get pretty situational. It would be great if there was some kind of "exertion burn" for martial characters to chew up their physical stats to pump up various maneuvers. That way these ranges of values have more meaning in the system overall, rather than just hoping that they fall into place in just the exact manner.

[moes1980]

In this game, unlike 3E, you could perfectly play a 13 INT wizard, without feeling like garbage.

This is what I think is so great about the system. It does take getting used to, and is an adjustment, particularly for those with a point buy background.

What makes the game work is that you don't need significant ability scores to have success.

There's a catch-22 here, though. The reason you don't play a 13 INT wizard in 3E is he will never learn 4th level spells. The expectation in 3E is that the game will progress to 7th level after 10-15 sessions. So there is good reason to believe that your 13 Int wizard will be a party liability.

OTOH, DCCRPG seems to be saying, you won't get to 7th level anyway so why worry. It is a symptom of Appendix N thinking: stories are episodic, not serial. D&D-like RPGs have been serial for many years now. You have to remind the players that you are stepping back to the episodic era.

but of course, in 3rd ed, you got to roll 4d6 and drop the lowest and put scores whereever you like. also, you got to boos your scores every 4 levels.


Gonna have to thow in my vote for keeping the stats the same. With all the ability damage you take in this game, I noticed that it usually takes a lot to change your modifier. I think thats a good thing if your taking alot of ability damage (as well as alot of permanant ability damage) compared to other RPGs. (So far, a fighter has been healed from 0 twice, and thus lost 3 points of stamina, but still hasnt suffered hp loss because of it).

I say keep them how they are.