Ability modifers range

[aesdana]

I played Sailors of the starless sea with 0-level pcs and wondered if it would be a consistent idea to reduce the range of ability modifers from -3 / +3 to -1 / +1 (for example).

What I mean is :

• consistent idea = would still be in the spirit of the dcc rpg game design. Consistency is important as the game may be designed around the possibiliy of having high ability modifiers so as to be able reach the best results in some tables (crtis, spells, etc) : that's why I ask.
• od&d has abilities having almost no impact on your pc effectiveness, making luck and subsequent play not (or less) dependent on initial luck while generating ability scores.

Reducing the range of ability score modifiers (along with number of known spells) would thus reduce player frustration when they roll poorly. Besides, you could still have a decent warrior with a 7 strength for example.

It's fun to roll poor ability scores and play "against nature" but I think you could still have this fun while not frustrating player who had bad initial luck with ability scores and still giving bonuses for having good scores (e.g. you could have +1 over 15). I like the idea of playing a dumb wizard or a weak fighter but I like it even more when the system makes it possible : with such a big range of modifers, I'm not sure the fun remains.

By the way, does the "non-standard" distribution of modifiers (on page 18) already adress this concern ?

Aesdana, Frenchman playing DCC.


ADMIN EDIT: Fixed the syntax for the list.

[finarvyn]

Welcome to the boards, Aesdana.

You bring in some interesting design questions. Here are some quick thoughts:

1. DCC was based on the d20 SRD (standard reference doc) and as such tends to use by default the stat bonuses that were used in the SRD.

2. House rule it! I play a lot of OD&D and I don't play every campaign the same. Sometimes I use the lesser bonus values that you mentioned from the white boxed set, sometimes I use the -3 to +3 scale from Moldvay Basic, and occasionally I'll get the urge to use a different scale.

I find that the stat bonuses generally don't make that much of a difference mechanically but do have an impact on the flavor of the game. If I want a dark-n-gritty game I go with smaller bonuses, but if I want it to be more grand and cinematic I go with larger bonuses.

And I certainly agree that "play it as you roll it" can be a load of fun, particularly when you get wacky combos like having weak fighters or dumb wizards. Some players (such as my wife) don't like that style, however, so I end up adjusting things to avoid those situations most of the time in my own campaign.

Again, welcome to the boards and nice first post!

[Ravenheart87]

1. DCC was based on the d20 SRD (standard reference doc) and as such tends to use by default the stat bonuses that were used in the SRD.

Then changed those, because the d20 system reference document's -5 to +5 range influenced the rolls a bit more than Lord Goodman wanted to, plus with using 3d6 during character creation instead of 4d6k3 low scores would penalize the players even more then they should be.

As for the -1 to +1 range, feel free to try it out. I'm not really a fan of it, I even change that in OD&D games for some attributes, like Gygax did in Supplement I. For a d6 roll +1 is quite a nice bonus, but for a d20 roll it's not that big deal. An idea that I'd like to tinker with is using -1 to +3 for primary attributes (eg. the dexterity for thief) and -1 to +1 range for secondary attributes (eg. the dexterity for cleric).

[finarvyn]

1. DCC was based on the d20 SRD (standard reference doc) and as such tends to use by default the stat bonuses that were used in the SRD.

They changed those, because the d20 system reference document's -5 to +5 range influenced the rolls a bit more than Lord Goodman wanted to, plus with using 3d6 during character creation instead of 4d6k3 low scores would penalize the players even more then they should be.

I stand corrected. Honestly, my 3E/d20 experience is almost nil.

[smathis]

1. DCC was based on the d20 SRD (standard reference doc) and as such tends to use by default the stat bonuses that were used in the SRD.

Then changed those, because the d20 system reference document's -5 to +5 range influenced the rolls a bit more than Lord Goodman wanted to, plus with using 3d6 during character creation instead of 4d6k3 low scores would penalize the players even more then they should be.

As for the -1 to +1 range, feel free to try it out. I'm not really a fan of it, I even change that in OD&D games for some attributes, like Gygax did in Supplement I. For a d6 roll +1 is quite a nice bonus, but for a d20 roll it's not that big deal. An idea that I'd like to tinker with is using -1 to +3 for primary attributes (eg. the dexterity for thief) and -1 to +1 range for secondary attributes (eg. the dexterity for cleric).

Back in the day, I was a hardcore advocate for the -3/+3 range. I've got nothing against +1/-1. But I felt that +5/-5 was just too much and it didn't follow the natural bell curve of a 3d6 roll's results.

+3/-3 is still my favorite but, if I were to change anything about it, I'd probably ignore it for hit points accumulating over levels. I think that's probably the stat bonuses' worst application.

[Ravenheart87]

I stand corrected. Honestly, my 3E/d20 experience is almost nil.

Don't worry, I made a little error too. I failed to mention that the -5 to +5 is on a 1 to 20 range, due to the -2 and +2 racial bonuses. I seem to recall that Intelligence can't go below 3 during character creation. Since the bonus was calculated with a formula there is no upper limit for ability scores in the d20 SRD.