PDA

View Full Version : Odd stats and modifiers[3.5]



ZerglingOne
2011-02-03, 02:34 AM
I don't think I have to explain to anyone here that one number is higher than another. It is after all quite obvious that 17 is higher than 16. However, in the world of D&D this is sadly not the case.

It has always bothered me that having a stat at 17 confers no greater bonus than a 16. Both are after all a +3 modifier. It's nothing but a stepping stone to 18.

I submit to you all a fairly easy system to help deal with this "one stat per 4 levels" or "odd stats really don't count" shortfall.

Let's take for example a situation where our friendly neighborhood fighter has a strength of 17 and a total attack modifier of +8. He is fighting an enemy with an AC of 20 and rolls an 11. This would normally miss, however, since he has 17 strength, he gets a 50/50 chance to have a higher modifier for this round. However this is handled, high/low or a coin flip, if he succeeds, his attack would go through to represent that 17 strength is higher than 16.

This could work a multitude of ways. A rogue potentially fails a reflex saving throw by 1, but has 19 dex, he flips a coin and calls heads, it's heads and he makes his saving throw.

For those of you that would claim it could slow down play, I disagree because it's only in cases where a check is off by 1 and the player has an odd number in the stat associated with the check.

I hope you guys like the idea.

Critical
2011-02-03, 04:46 AM
Let's take for example a situation where our friendly neighborhood fighter has a strength of 17 and a total attack modifier of +8. He is fighting an enemy with an AC of 20 and rolls a 12. Generally the tie would go to the defender in this case. However, since he has 17 strength, he gets a 50/50 chance to have a higher modifier for this round. However this is handled, high/low or a coin flip, if he succeeds, his attack would go through to represent that 17 strength is higher than 16.


A fighter'd hit, actually.

And that's not really a fix, that's just a little cherry on top. And it also involves more dice(which'll get annoying at times) and easily gives your players an idea of how much AC an enemy has or the DC a task has, once you reach out for your coin/whatever dice you use to do the 50/50 roll. Unless you're going to be sneaky, which I'm not going to be for such a lousy thing.

I'd say, ask a player to pick two skill checks/ability checks with the associated ability and give them a +1 on them, nice and smooth.

ZerglingOne
2011-02-03, 05:05 AM
I like your +1 to x number of skills/checks of their choice. However, I understand that this may not be the most elegant way of going about it, but it is CERTAINLY extremely simple. Most checks are after all made on a d20, you roll to confirm criticals after rolling a threat, this would be no different in essence. Most people won't let all criticals hit as criticals, and this situation would come up far less often than a critical hit.

First of all, you have to have an odd stat let's say that's a 50% chance, second you have to roll within 1 of success 5% chance, third it has to be on whatever you're trying to do, which is based on a skill that's based on 1 of the 6 abilities. You're just rolling for an 11 or better instead of trying to hit the AC again. It's essentially a "threat" based on the fact that your modifier is technically 3.5 on a 17. This would be about a 1% chance in any given situation.

Either way works, but I don't think it adds many rolls at all. It just saves your ass that one in 100 times you'd have lost it.

Edit: Where does it say that a fighter hits on a tie? I've never seen that rule before.

Edit2: Keep in mind this could very easily be a DM roll, and when I DM even, I tend to mess with my players by starting to randomly roll dice, so they probably wouldn't even think twice about it. This makes them easily finding out AC a little harder.

Zaydos
2011-02-03, 05:14 AM
Edit: Where does it say that a fighter hits on a tie? I've never seen that rule before.

Simple answer AC is just another DC and you always beat DCs on a tie.

More accurate answer:

Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the
round, you managed to connect solidly.
Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon youíre using. If the result is at least as high as the targetís AC, you hit and deal damage.

You are not the first person not to know this today.

ZerglingOne
2011-02-03, 05:16 AM
You are not the first person not to know this today.

Wow...Today? o_O... Gonna change it in original post.

Critical
2011-02-03, 08:21 AM
Either way works, but I don't think it adds many rolls at all. It just saves your ass that one in 100 times you'd have lost it.

And makes you roll the die 99 other useless freaking times. Not a good trade-off, if you ask me.



Edit2: Keep in mind this could very easily be a DM roll, and when I DM even, I tend to mess with my players by starting to randomly roll dice, so they probably wouldn't even think twice about it. This makes them easily finding out AC a little harder.
Meh, I don't really find it that comfortable to use. I mean, okay, your player rolls the dice and gets into the described situation, then you'll have to roll to confirm. If you don't, then you'll have to remember some rolls you did before... That just adds unneeded difficulties.


An idea popped up: even result on the roll - you get a +1, odd - you don't. How's that?

Jeraa
2011-02-03, 12:16 PM
I don't think I have to explain to anyone here that one number is higher than another. It is after all quite obvious that 17 is higher than 16. However, in the world of D&D this is sadly not the case.

It has always bothered me that having a stat at 17 confers no greater bonus than a 16. Both are after all a +3 modifier. It's nothing but a stepping stone to 18.


Off Topic: Then you would of hated 1st and second edition. When a Strength of 8 gave the same attack/damage bonus of a strength of 15, a dexterity of 7 was mechanically the same as a dex of 14, etc...

On topic: A 17 is better than a 16. Looking at the numbers, a 16 has a +3 mod, and 18 has a +4 mod. Safe to assume the mod for a 17 is actually +3.5. Its just half points don't count mechanically. In-game, yes, a person with a 17 strength is stronger.

Jane_Smith
2011-02-03, 01:24 PM
There is a game system called "True20" thats d20 based with some changes, of course. In there system? Ability scores are not 1-18+. They only go by ability bonuses - -4 to +4 range or higher (representing 1-18 for dnd scores). Perhaps you might impliment that into a dnd game and translate ability-score requirements/prerequisites into ability-bonus requirements and do away with the odd-numbered scores entirely?

Debihuman
2011-02-03, 01:27 PM
What you're doing is slowing down combat. Not only for the players but for the DM who has to flip a coin for every monster too. I think that anything that slows down combat is a bad idea.

Debby

Knaight
2011-02-03, 07:39 PM
Off Topic: Then you would of hated 1st and second edition. When a Strength of 8 gave the same attack/damage bonus of a strength of 15, a dexterity of 7 was mechanically the same as a dex of 14, etc...

On topic: A 17 is better than a 16. Looking at the numbers, a 16 has a +3 mod, and 18 has a +4 mod. Safe to assume the mod for a 17 is actually +3.5. Its just half points don't count mechanically. In-game, yes, a person with a 17 strength is stronger.

1e and 2e had the roll under stat rolls however, which made every number different.

As far as numeric differences, having an odd number does add a bit of resiliency once stat decreasing effects start flying around, which is plenty.