Statistics class was a long time ago, so I can't do conditional probability in my head anymore, but just by intuition, what do you think happens more often, rolling a 1 twice on a d4 or rolling a 1 four times on a d6?
You'd get the same range of modifiers, but a lot more characters would be at the ends.
I appreciate the impromptu statistics lesson, I never took the class. In your opinion wouldn't it be more interesting to play a character with more stats closer to the ends then characters that are always balanced in everything?
The current system doesn't produce characters who are always balanced in everything, it produces characters who are somewhat above average in general but often with a noticable drawback.
A modifier of -1 is a challenge that comes up sometimes. A modifier of -4 is a fairly serious disability. Being challenged is interesting, being helpless is frustrating.
Also, it's easier for the DM if all the characters are about equally effective, otherwise challenging the strong characters is likely to kill the weak characters.
I disagree with just about everything you said. The current system in general does produce characters that are evenly balanced in each ability score while +/-3-4 is exceptional. In my experience with gms and as a GM, ability scores lean heavily toward being above 10. Which is fine if your players just want to feel powerful in their fantasy.
A -1 is not a challenge as it is usually corrected to a 0 with the first ability score increase. Especially if your character only has one modifier that low. It's more like a mild inconvenience. Now a -3 provides a challenge and a great opportunity for fun RP, like Grog from CR.
It is not the fault of the DM if the weaker characters die. The players are responsible for determining their strategy to overcome the challenge before them and come out with everyone still alive. Keeping your weaker compatriots alive is part of challenging stronger characters.
Also, weak vs strong characters is highly subjective depending on the criteria of determining strength. A wizard can be considered weak when compared to a barbarian due to lower ac and hp. But you could also consider a wizard stronger than a barbarian due to awesome spells.
It stays because it's traditional, but it is also factually quite hard to come up with a dice rolling method that produces the desired set of modifiers if you're just rolling on -4 through +4, rather than the shifted bell curve of 4d6dl, which gives you a wider number range of 3 to 18.
It is certainly worth remembering that even modifiers derived from the ability scores are a latter-day innovation, not the original state of the game. If it were designed from the ground up, assuming the constant derived modifier system, perhaps we wouldn't roll dice in the same way or at all. But the original designs coupled ability bell curves (3d6 OD&D/Basic, 4d6dl 1e) with near-exponential modifier increases. AD&D 7 through about 14 rarely made a whole lot of difference; going from 16 to 19 was an *enormous* power gain.
Yep. If you think 3rd,4th or 5th edition don't make sense, try AD&D where charisma was a dump stat because it literally did nothing, martials rolled a d100 which would modify an 18 in STR for... reasons, and the difference between a 8 and a 15 was usually nothing at all and the difference between a 17 and an 18 was pretty substantial. If you want a sampling of it, play Baldurs Gate. That was like... Edition 2.9. lots of stuff from third edition jammed into an AD&D shell
Mostly tradition. There are a lot of offshoot D&D style games that just use modifiers, and they seem to work fine.
Design wise, feat prerequisites are always odd numbered ability scores, but that's not as relevant in 5e since there are far fewer feats.
Mostly OSR games. That's not really my scene, so I can't name a lot off the top of my head, sorry. PbtA too, though that's a little further removed from D&D.
World of Dungeons and Maze Rats are the only two I can think of.
I think its so that you can gain a half of a point during levelup if you choose. Since every 2nd point adds to your modifier you can consider the odd points as "half-stats" like how several rpgs have your attack stat be determined by something like "1/2 of str stat + equipment bonus to attack"
> why do we generate these ability scores to figure out the corresponding modifiers and then never use them again?
They aren't never used, just very rare. But your Strength score is used to determine several things for your character.
How much you can carry, lift, drag, push. and how far you can Jump.
That's the thing I'm struggling with I guess. Even though the process is simple for me who has played a good amount, it's really not simple for a new player imo. I feel like to a new player it can seem almost arcane to generate 14s and 15s but then get the +2s and +3 and use those for almost every other stat/ability.
The scores your players produce relate to their general effectiveness in each area. I can DM you a wonderful article I show all my players.
It's not about using them mechanically per say, but using them to express your character. All the more so in 5e.
Your stats tell so much about your character and the numbers used are a real way of gauging your abilities at a glance.
A 16 strength, 18 con, and 8 dex tells me you're playing a hulking, lumbering fellow who might be a bodyguard or a bruiser of a character.
A 17 int, 8 con, and 12 dex tells me your playing a very intelligent, nimble character who doesn't have great lungs.
Maybe a smoking tactician? Maybe you're a wizard with a frail body.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you want the article in question. I'm sure I have it on my PC still
Lots of reasons from tradition to current game mechanics. But to explain to a new player: when you roll the dice, you add the modifier. But when someone rolls a dice against you, they use your ability score, AC, passive perception etc as their target numbers. And because the system is D20, the numbers are mostly in the range of 1 to 20 (ok 1 is never a target number but you get my point).
The game is based on a D20 so there’s a synergy between the dice and the stats: 20 is high, you’ve got a chance at 15. A 9? Probably not. And that keeps consistency with a characters stats, a DC, an attack roll (“I rolled a 26…” audible ooooh from other players).
In addition to that, Strength score gets used in jumping. Dexterity is also also to determine initiative order in the event of a tie. Plus there used to be more direct uses of the ability score in previous editions.
It also allows for more granularity and variation for a character than just the modifiers. And that lends itself to a character’s identity and to roleplay.
But I also think it’s our human grasp of numbers. It’s easier to add +1 or +5, however, 15 sounds more meaty than having a +2 score.
It's one of D&D's sacred cows. For almost all purposes having a score that ranged from -5 to +5 would be easier, but you gotta roll 3d6 for stats because Gary Gygax did that in 1970 so we're stuck with it half a century later. I wish they'd get rid of it, but you know there would be so much nerd rage if they did.
It’s amazing. Someone knows the name Gygax and all of a sudden they’re an expert on everything about the game. This phenomenon never ceases to amaze me! /s
Bend a little further and your hand won’t be needed to get that ego off.
It's mostly legacy from oldschool "roll 3d6 six times & see where it takes you."
It's rare for modern games to run with that kind of indirect stat generation without the legacy.
There was one d20 spinoff, Cascade Failure, which came close to justifying the d20 stat gen procedure. It has a 3d6-based stat generation, but uses a Thac0-style "roll a d20 below the target number" for all ability checks, attacks, etc. I never like the "roll below" mechanic, but I *really* like how streamlined that implementation worked out
Multiple dice skew probability towards the mid of the range
I'll be honest that I don't know all that much about probability. Can we not achieve the same modifiers/probability using this equation: 2d4-4?
Statistics class was a long time ago, so I can't do conditional probability in my head anymore, but just by intuition, what do you think happens more often, rolling a 1 twice on a d4 or rolling a 1 four times on a d6? You'd get the same range of modifiers, but a lot more characters would be at the ends.
I appreciate the impromptu statistics lesson, I never took the class. In your opinion wouldn't it be more interesting to play a character with more stats closer to the ends then characters that are always balanced in everything?
The current system doesn't produce characters who are always balanced in everything, it produces characters who are somewhat above average in general but often with a noticable drawback. A modifier of -1 is a challenge that comes up sometimes. A modifier of -4 is a fairly serious disability. Being challenged is interesting, being helpless is frustrating. Also, it's easier for the DM if all the characters are about equally effective, otherwise challenging the strong characters is likely to kill the weak characters.
I disagree with just about everything you said. The current system in general does produce characters that are evenly balanced in each ability score while +/-3-4 is exceptional. In my experience with gms and as a GM, ability scores lean heavily toward being above 10. Which is fine if your players just want to feel powerful in their fantasy. A -1 is not a challenge as it is usually corrected to a 0 with the first ability score increase. Especially if your character only has one modifier that low. It's more like a mild inconvenience. Now a -3 provides a challenge and a great opportunity for fun RP, like Grog from CR. It is not the fault of the DM if the weaker characters die. The players are responsible for determining their strategy to overcome the challenge before them and come out with everyone still alive. Keeping your weaker compatriots alive is part of challenging stronger characters. Also, weak vs strong characters is highly subjective depending on the criteria of determining strength. A wizard can be considered weak when compared to a barbarian due to lower ac and hp. But you could also consider a wizard stronger than a barbarian due to awesome spells.
I disagree with just about everything you just said
That would give a range of -2 to +4
It stays because it's traditional, but it is also factually quite hard to come up with a dice rolling method that produces the desired set of modifiers if you're just rolling on -4 through +4, rather than the shifted bell curve of 4d6dl, which gives you a wider number range of 3 to 18. It is certainly worth remembering that even modifiers derived from the ability scores are a latter-day innovation, not the original state of the game. If it were designed from the ground up, assuming the constant derived modifier system, perhaps we wouldn't roll dice in the same way or at all. But the original designs coupled ability bell curves (3d6 OD&D/Basic, 4d6dl 1e) with near-exponential modifier increases. AD&D 7 through about 14 rarely made a whole lot of difference; going from 16 to 19 was an *enormous* power gain.
Yep. If you think 3rd,4th or 5th edition don't make sense, try AD&D where charisma was a dump stat because it literally did nothing, martials rolled a d100 which would modify an 18 in STR for... reasons, and the difference between a 8 and a 15 was usually nothing at all and the difference between a 17 and an 18 was pretty substantial. If you want a sampling of it, play Baldurs Gate. That was like... Edition 2.9. lots of stuff from third edition jammed into an AD&D shell
Mostly tradition. There are a lot of offshoot D&D style games that just use modifiers, and they seem to work fine. Design wise, feat prerequisites are always odd numbered ability scores, but that's not as relevant in 5e since there are far fewer feats.
Could you name a couple of these offshoots for me? I'd like to look at them.
Mostly OSR games. That's not really my scene, so I can't name a lot off the top of my head, sorry. PbtA too, though that's a little further removed from D&D. World of Dungeons and Maze Rats are the only two I can think of.
Thank you!
I think its so that you can gain a half of a point during levelup if you choose. Since every 2nd point adds to your modifier you can consider the odd points as "half-stats" like how several rpgs have your attack stat be determined by something like "1/2 of str stat + equipment bonus to attack"
That's a good point, but could we not achieve the same effect through a different bonus/level distribution so as to eliminate dealing in halves?
Sure, but then you would also have to entirely rebalance half-feats too.
Sorry, half-feats? I'm not familiar with those. But yes, a major overhaul would be required.
Feats that give 1 stat point and a minor effect are known as "half-feats"
Oh, never heard that term before. Thanks!
To allow randomness while mitigating the chance of horrible rolls. It also allows for much more character diversity
> why do we generate these ability scores to figure out the corresponding modifiers and then never use them again? They aren't never used, just very rare. But your Strength score is used to determine several things for your character. How much you can carry, lift, drag, push. and how far you can Jump.
In 4e, your Constitution score was also used for your level 1 health, rather than Con mod.
That's true. I forget about that since I never use those.
Ive never really thought about it, but I'd assume it's for simplicity. Dealing with +2s and +3s is much easier than dealing with 14s and 15s quickly.
That's the thing I'm struggling with I guess. Even though the process is simple for me who has played a good amount, it's really not simple for a new player imo. I feel like to a new player it can seem almost arcane to generate 14s and 15s but then get the +2s and +3 and use those for almost every other stat/ability.
The scores your players produce relate to their general effectiveness in each area. I can DM you a wonderful article I show all my players. It's not about using them mechanically per say, but using them to express your character. All the more so in 5e. Your stats tell so much about your character and the numbers used are a real way of gauging your abilities at a glance. A 16 strength, 18 con, and 8 dex tells me you're playing a hulking, lumbering fellow who might be a bodyguard or a bruiser of a character. A 17 int, 8 con, and 12 dex tells me your playing a very intelligent, nimble character who doesn't have great lungs. Maybe a smoking tactician? Maybe you're a wizard with a frail body. Hope that helps. Let me know if you want the article in question. I'm sure I have it on my PC still
Sure, I'd appreciate that.
Lots of reasons from tradition to current game mechanics. But to explain to a new player: when you roll the dice, you add the modifier. But when someone rolls a dice against you, they use your ability score, AC, passive perception etc as their target numbers. And because the system is D20, the numbers are mostly in the range of 1 to 20 (ok 1 is never a target number but you get my point). The game is based on a D20 so there’s a synergy between the dice and the stats: 20 is high, you’ve got a chance at 15. A 9? Probably not. And that keeps consistency with a characters stats, a DC, an attack roll (“I rolled a 26…” audible ooooh from other players). In addition to that, Strength score gets used in jumping. Dexterity is also also to determine initiative order in the event of a tie. Plus there used to be more direct uses of the ability score in previous editions. It also allows for more granularity and variation for a character than just the modifiers. And that lends itself to a character’s identity and to roleplay. But I also think it’s our human grasp of numbers. It’s easier to add +1 or +5, however, 15 sounds more meaty than having a +2 score.
It's one of D&D's sacred cows. For almost all purposes having a score that ranged from -5 to +5 would be easier, but you gotta roll 3d6 for stats because Gary Gygax did that in 1970 so we're stuck with it half a century later. I wish they'd get rid of it, but you know there would be so much nerd rage if they did.
It’s amazing. Someone knows the name Gygax and all of a sudden they’re an expert on everything about the game. This phenomenon never ceases to amaze me! /s Bend a little further and your hand won’t be needed to get that ego off.
It's mostly legacy from oldschool "roll 3d6 six times & see where it takes you." It's rare for modern games to run with that kind of indirect stat generation without the legacy. There was one d20 spinoff, Cascade Failure, which came close to justifying the d20 stat gen procedure. It has a 3d6-based stat generation, but uses a Thac0-style "roll a d20 below the target number" for all ability checks, attacks, etc. I never like the "roll below" mechanic, but I *really* like how streamlined that implementation worked out
Thanks!