Most wouldn't consider this the goal of role-playing: to generate the most "powerful" character possible. Many intelligent people are loath to play anything less then "optimal." In this respect, the race a character chooses to play is often considered one of the most important aspects of character creation. As we are aware, just about every race created (with very notable exceptions) carry a +2/-2 Ability Score modification. It is my intention to discuss, at length, the effects of a +2 Ability Score Mod. (ASM) and the effects on the game these have. It is my belief that the ability scores are actually very balanced, assuming the game takes social as well as martial consideration in mind, and enforces all of the rules.
At this point, I would like to post the Ability Scores, and the effects of their modification. When granting a +2 to a score, certain benefits are introduced, some Scale as one increases in level. Some are Static, and never increase once given.
Semi-Comprehensive Detailing of a +2 Modifier to Abilities.
+2 Str.
The modifier to hit isn't a static or one time increase, but, rather initializes every time a character makes a roll to attack and every time a character hits an opponent. The more a character finds himself a round using strength as a modifier, the more a bonus to Str. becomes.
How does this not apply to other uses beside combat? And, "the more character gets attacked the more useful dex becomes" is just as valid. One could argue that dexterity AC modifier is scaling, because at high levels opponents have more attacks.
While it's true that the +1 bonus scales on the iterative attack level, it is more then a 5% out of a 100% chance to hit. +1 Also represents a certain percentage of a total BaB bonus and total Attack Bonus. This is easy to compute, but to compare, a 1 in 20 is 5%, a 1 in 15 is 6.6%, and 1 in 10 is 10%. As you perceive, the lower the attack bonus, the greater that +1 becomes. This is most relevant in classes that have less then full iterative attacks, but intent to melee. Clerics and certain Rogues benefit from this greatly. Classes that intend to have a full or nearly full BaB find that a bonus to Str. helps eek out every percentage point, which counts.
This is true, but irrelevant. If wizard improves his AB from +1 to +2, is is a 100% increase. If fighter, at the same levels, increases his AB from +5 to +6, it is only a 20% increase. The point is this: against AC of 11, both are exactly (well, not really, but let us not bother with critical hits) as useful. And, thus far, both of us have forgotten the d20 roll involved.
The percentages as used matter not.
Over 20 levels, this is the approx. of 20 skill points.
(1 Skill Point per level)
23, but that's not the point.
Static
-snip-
+4 Skill Points at 1st level.
CASTING STAT
Those first level skill points are part of the normal progression. No need to be treated separately.
Casting stats scale. For example, 18 int gives 1 extra spell of levels 1 to 4, and 2 bonus cantrips if you use them. At first level, not all of these spells are relevant. As an added bonus, higher int grants higher level spells. You'll hear more if Polaris comes here, I'm sure.
How does this not apply to other uses beside combat? And, "the more character gets attacked the more useful dex becomes" is just as valid. One could argue that dexterity AC modifier is scaling, because at high levels opponents have more attacks.
I'm not sure what you mean by "How does this not apply to other uses beside combat?"
Also, my assertion isn't that BaB is scaling so much that use scales. You could note the number of uses over a period of rounds, but the number of times you use the effect per round does scale. And yes, the uses of a +1 Dex. Bonus scales depending on the number of times you're attacked, though you AC does not scale.
It is true, though, that the more times you're attacked, the more often that +1 will come in handy. Thusly, the more time you attack, the more often +1 to hit/damage becomes useful. Is this relevant? It depends on the situation.
This is true, but irrelevant. If wizard improves his AB from +1 to +2, is is a 100% increase. If fighter, at the same levels, increases his AB from +5 to +6, it is only a 20% increase. The point is this: against AC of 11, both are exactly (well, not really, but let us not bother with critical hits) as useful. And, thus far, both of us have forgotten the d20 roll involved.
The percentages as used matter not.
It doesn't matter if it's irrelevant. Also, the percentages as used depict the magnitude of change from one state to another, which varies depending on your BaB. A character with a full BaB is more likely to hit then a character with a half BaB. At the point when a 1/2 BaB makes an attack, a +1 bonus to hit provides a much more important boost then it does to a Full BaB who is more likely to hit. A 1/2 BaB should not be making a melee attack, usually, but that is still true.
23, but that's not the point.Those first level skill points are part of the normal progression. No need to be treated separately.
Noted.
Casting stats scale. For example, 18 int gives 1 extra spell of levels 1 to 4, and 2 bonus cantrips if you use them. At first level, not all of these spells are relevant. As an added bonus, higher int grants higher level spells. You'll hear more if Polaris comes here, I'm sure.
Casting stats do scale. You'll notice I didn't add anything regarding casting stats yet, but I intend to.
All spells are always relevant, though. It might be argued that spells scale exponentially, which may require another category (Exponential Scaling). It might also be argued that the scaling of spell power is not, in fact, exponential but linear, and the +1 DC bump is Static. I would argue something in between, which I will explain shortly. I fully expect Polaris' input.
Here the percents are actually useful. Just to inform you, the average of d4 is 2,5. Adding +1 improves this by 1/2,5 which equals 40%. Your numbers are true for the first level, though. The other percents:
d6 --> ~29%
d8 --> ~22%
d10 --> ~18%
d12 --> ~15%
Your percentages are noted. I expect to change them soon, as I check my numbers.
I suggest not adding special (non-general) class abilities. Too much a mess, and it can provoke source arguments.
Your objection is noted. I feel that core class uses for Stat Modifications might be considered balance uses. I'll quantify that better when I revise it next. Thanks for your note.
For reference, do the same thing with rogue who wants to be a jack of all trades-type thief/assassin, capable of sneaking, acrobatics, talking and dealing with traps with equal ease. +2 int grants our rogue 23 skill points. +2 charisma is competitive if the rogue intends to put the points into 23 skills. Perform (mime) anyone?
That's an important note, and I'll do so. Int. is substantially more important for a class that has socialization skills as core skills (as opposed to cross-class) as he can afford to maximize these skills.
A Rogue gets a lot of skills anyhow though, and may be able to maximize these skills anyhow, at which point a Charisma bonus allows these skills to go above max ranks. It's not that Charisma is competitive as much as synergistic, though in this case Intelligence pulls more weight.
Unfortunately, characters work in party. (That is the balance assumption.) Only one member of said party needs to have good social skills. Constitution and intelligence are of great use to everyone, but charisma isn't. Why? Aiding in social situations, if allowed, doesn't grant that much bonus, and diplomacy, for example, is far too easy to maximize into ridiculous numbers.
Personally, I think that charisma and strength have too narrow uses. Spells and items that make movement skills irrelevant are far too cheap and low in level. So, only melee characters really need strength. Only social characters only need charisma. Everyone can use skill points to great effect regardless of class (yes, even fighters) by enhancing their character concept with right skills, and qualifying to PrCs. Everyone needs hit points, AC, and saves. Spot, listen, sense motive, and survival are all very useful skills to practically all characters. All other stats have sizeable universal benefits.
I primarily agree with this assessment. The uses of diplomacy in a party depend on the DM's running, though - though the party is indeed meant to work as a team, making specialization more useful in that case. My personal DMing style emphasizes both team and individual worth and a PC with very poor diplomatic skills (say, no Dip ranks + Low Chr.) would find himself likely punished by society to some degree despite his friends help. However, I do recognize that most DM's have a different play style, and only one PC ever needs to talk to anyone besides party members.
Chr. is hampered because despite its obviousness to many as an applicable Stat, it is difficult to rate likeability/looks (just look at all the threads asking what Chr. is) and force of personality is split between Chr. and Wis. Likewise, Str. is hampered because it's only good for things that involve muscle power. If you're going to be doing that a lot, it's invaluable (there are a lot of problems that can be solved by pushing/pulling/grappling and punching). However, magic can deal with a lot of these (if you've got the spells) so we're left wondering if it's as usefull as a spell stat. (Our esteemed Polaris would argue not).
In any case, looks like I got to the whole post. I'll attempt to make any required changes ASAP. Thanks for your time and feedback! :D
Even paradigm static things like +1 to diplomacy seem problematic. Suppose a 1st level bard might be able to influence the village mayor, but a 15th level bard has the ranks in diplomacy to influence the king. A +1 to either pushes their odds of success a little better, but in the high level bard’s case he’s getting much more out of success. Weapon Focus (again much maligned as not scaling well) gives a +5% chance for a first level fighter to successfully deliver (say) 9pts of damage, or a +5% chance of a twentieth level fighter to deliver (say) 30pts of damage. The average damage added by the feat is much better for the high level fighter, but this apparently isn’t what people have in mind when talking about ‘scaling’.
There will be consistent ways to categorize bonuses. How you want to do that will depend on what conceptual work you want ‘scaling’ to do. It isn’t currently clear from your examples what that is though.
-Stephen
p.s. I like the idea that all stats should be useful, and agree that as is all stats are. Charisma as a dump stat is a bit ludicrous, I call for social skill checks as a DM all the time, also my NPCs aren't particularly kind about only talking to the 'faceman' if there is one.
The difference between a Static modifier being used to generate results of a greater magnitude and a Scaling modifier is inherent in the system. For example, +1 HP Per Level scales, because every level it generates additional hit points every level. +1 Concentration does not. There are times when rolling Concentration is more important then others, but the bonus remains +1. Thus, despite the bonus becoming more important in some situations then others, it never scales.
I'd like to clarify my assertion that +1 to Hit is a Scaling Modifier as well, because as we all can see, in reality a character only gains a +1 to Hit once and never again. However, this +1 is actually Scaling and not Static because as a character advances in levels, he gains Iterative Attacks. Each attack multiplies that +1 to Hit by the number of attacks creating a number of bonuses.
This makes it different from other noted Scaling Modifiers because bonuses don't stack on top of each other. It is, instead, +1 used multiple times. Its importance is arguable (and depends on the AC of the target, I suppose), though that's not really the point unless you happen to be arguing the power level of the stat (which may come up).
This is different from Dex's +1 AC bonus. Why? Because the nature of a character's increase in levels is what I am using to adjudicate if an adjustment is Scaling or Static, and you do not gain additional modifiers to AC as you increase in level based on a +2 Dex. bump. However - this is not to say that this modifier isn't potent or that this modifier isn't capable of being used multiple times, thus creating the illusion of a Scaling Mod. However, its use is not dependent on the Characters level, rather it is dependent on the number of times attacked in a round. Thus it is Static.
This makes matters a little gray around the edges in our allocation of value based on Static and Scaling modifiers, but my point in creating the terms was to create a different way to look at them. I hope this helps things, tell me your thoughts, if you have them.
Why didn't you describe wis, dex and int? Many character builds find dex and int to be the most important (or a high priority) of abilities and you left them out!
I don't understand. I posted what they do, do you want me to describe their importance and why?
However, its use is not dependent on the Characters level, rather it is dependent on the number of times attacked in a round. Thus it is Static.
I think the point was, for STR attack bonus, that its use is not dependant on the character's level, rather it is dependent on the number of times your character attacks in a round. Thus it is Static.
Granted, as you gain in levels your number of opportunities to attack increases (some more than others)... but it is also true [if you are playing a balanced game] that the opportunities to get attacked will follow a very similar increase in frequency (in fact, regardless of your class). Thus, the AC bonus is just as scalable as the Attack Bonus.
Also, the simple addition of the combat reflexes feat means that Dex stacks extras attacks on a potential 1-1 basis... and just as that is dependant on others provoking AoO, getting any extra attacks based on levels is dependant on there being something within reach to hit. It's all dependant on situation... even iterative attacks.
My take on all that is attack +1 shouldn't be considered more/less stacking than AC +1, neither should.
Couple of other notes:
- If you're going to make special mention of ranged touch attacks... you should make special mention of melee touch attacks.
- The CASTING STATS should probably be noted the same way as any other "Class Special".
- STR: Grapple Checks +1
- INT: Bardic Knowledge +1
- CHA: Turn/Rebuke
- WIS: Monk StunFist Save DC +1 [though some monks take imp.grapple]
- WIS: Monk QuiverPalm Save DC +1
- CHA: Paladin Smite tohit +1
- CHA: Paladin LayHands +1*level points healing
I don't understand. I posted what they do, do you want me to describe their importance and why?
Yeah kinda, if you did it for str con and cha you should do it for all the of them just to balance out the article.