Ability score bonuses and penalties

[MithrilKnight]

I could use some advice from folks who can think broadly about consequences of a house rule I'm considering (mostly just to ease some confusion for our gaming group that also still does a lot of 3e gaming.)

Would there be any harm to adopting the 3e ability score bonuses and penalties to C&C?
3e

2-3 -4

4-5 -3

6-7 -2

8-9 -1

10-11 0

12-13 +1

14-15 +2

16-17 +3

18-19 +4
C&C

1 -4

2-3 -3

4-5 -2

6-8 -1

9-12 0

13-15 +1

16-17 +2

18-19 +3

Compared to C&C and older D&D versions, 3e ability score mods eliminated the big dead spot in the middle and created a slightly more generous progression of bonuses (and penalties) in the first tier away from 'average' scores. Conceptually, I sort of like that a 9 and a 12 mean different things in terms of bonuses/penalties. (So do my players.)

But do the more subtle bonuses and penalties in C&C have some type of important impact on the game? If I adopt the more generous bonus/penalty progression, am I missing some unforeseen consequence that will cause problems in C&C? Characters might have a slightly more powerful edge with good scores, but on the flip side, they'll have the potential for penalties with lower scores where they didn't before.

Your advice is appreciated!

[clavis123]

The 3E-style modifiers do not appear to be mathematically sound. On a 3d6, there is a roughly equal chance of rolling a 9, 10, 11, or 12. Therefore, those scores should represent the "average" person.

Everything in 3E is based on higher modifiers, and greater numbers overall, than C&C. A look at many monsters as they exist in the SRD, versus their presentations in Monsters & Treasures, will show that the SRD versions are much more powerful. A PC needs to have much higher modifiers, and a higher quantity of exceptional abilities scores, to survive in 3E than in C&C.
_________________
The Engine of Oracles: Creations For Gaming
http://engineoforacles.wordpress.com/

[MithrilKnight]

clavis123 wrote:
The 3E-style modifiers do not appear to be mathematically sound. On a 3d6, there is a roughly equal chance of rolling a 9, 10, 11, or 12. Therefore, those scores should represent the "average" person.

But are player characters average folks? That's obviously personal choice and there are certainly merits to starting average and there are merits to starting above average. (I like to allow players to roll 4d6 drop the low roll for attributes -- always have (and it's a 1e DMG option, so it's not new -- so they're decidedly above average.) And how you view that question certainly impacts how you feel about whether a 9 deserves -1 and a 12 deserves a +1; while you're only 1/2 percent less likely to roll a 9 or a 12 versus a 10 or 11.

Is the power creep of the 3e mods that significant that it would create issues with how C&C is structured?

[Mark Hall]

I don't see a particular problem with it, though it does down-grade certain monsters; for example, minotaurs currently have a 16 or 17 equivalent strength, they now have a 14-15.

[serleran]

One thing that C&C tried to emphasize was not the attribute score or value, but whether it was Prime or not. A +1 may seem like it is not a big deal, but in fact, it is a huge difference. Providing bonuses to lower scores and giving higher bonuses for bigger attribute values reemphasizes the attribute as "important" rather than "somewhat important." It does nothing otherwise.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I think that if you're going to adopt the 3.x modifiers, particularly for combat situations, you need to scale the monsters up. I've found HP values in C&C to be generally lower than what they are in 3.x, so the way the current system is set up is quite nicely balanced.

+1 to what serl said, btw.

[MithrilKnight]

serleran wrote:
One thing that C&C tried to emphasize was not the attribute score or value, but whether it was Prime or not. A +1 may seem like it is not a big deal, but in fact, it is a huge difference. Providing bonuses to lower scores and giving higher bonuses for bigger attribute values reemphasizes the attribute as "important" rather than "somewhat important." It does nothing otherwise.

Excellent point about the primes. I had somewhat forgotten about how that factored in (and I'm sure my players weren't considering that either. Like me, they were blinded by the 'dead spot' in the 9-12 range and how things advanced more slowly in the midrange compared to 3e. But that's not C&C's emphasis -- primes are.)

[Omote]

This exact topic will be covered in the upcoming CKG! The CKG will included alternate attribute bonus charts and the methodology behind them.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[GameOgre]

Beware the Power Creep! For he comes with not a thunder and blast but a whisper and silence.

For every + you give the party you must also add a + to the foes! Many before you have fallen to the Death of a Thousand cuts that is delt out by the well meaning slight buffs that the pc's are used to in other games.

_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

[Breakdaddy]

GameOgre wrote:
Beware the Power Creep!

WE MAKE HOLES IN TEETH!!!

Oh wait, that's the CAVITY creeps....

[Omote]

Man, breakdaddy is so on a boat...

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Keolander]

Hmmm....I guess I'm weird in that I used a modified 1E AD&D setup for ability score modifiers. The main thing I did was delete Exceptional Strength and Constitution bonuses so that people other than Fighting Men got some of the advantages of higher scores. I also moved, whole, the Wisdom Bonus Spells over to Intelligence so Wizards can have a few extra blasts per day at early levels.
_________________
Lord Lamorek Steelguard, Baron of Calx Mons Montis - The Castles & Crusades Society

[koralas]

MithrilKnight wrote:
But are player characters average folks? That's obviously personal choice and there are certainly merits to starting average and there are merits to starting above average. (I like to allow players to roll 4d6 drop the low roll for attributes -- always have (and it's a 1e DMG option, so it's not new -- so they're decidedly above average.) And how you view that question certainly impacts how you feel about whether a 9 deserves -1 and a 12 deserves a +1; while you're only 1/2 percent less likely to roll a 9 or a 12 versus a 10 or 11.

Is the power creep of the 3e mods that significant that it would create issues with how C&C is structured?

My take on this is...

Obviously, no PC's are above average. But they are above average for a reason, and generally, unless it is quite an exceptional individual, will be fairly average but for a couple of areas. Generally on a PC this means two, possibly a third above average ability score, this alone sets them above the average person which will normally fit that range, or have one ability elevated, like a farmer with a higher than average con because of his constant toils in the field.

The other area that really is what differentiates PC's from the average folk, their training and class levels. Most people are level-0 types, even that aforementioned farmer is level-0, most militia are level-0, and while some law-enforcement may have one or two levels, most are still level-0, and only the exceptional level up beyond 3rd. Note you can bump all these levels to level-1 types if you so desire, but still the continued progression of the PC's is what sets them apart.

So, 9-12 (being the most rolled scores on 3d6) is right on average, and gives some variation in what the normal i.e. "average" stat of the general populace would be.