tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7596935629076864315.post9152553551151817203..comments2023-10-29T06:30:40.249-07:00Comments on Homebrew Homunculus: Making the case for limited ability modifiers in OSRHomebrew Homunculushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17345963093533356907noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7596935629076864315.post-26158632577258880202021-06-08T07:30:29.824-07:002021-06-08T07:30:29.824-07:00Thank you for the elaborate response! And apologie...Thank you for the elaborate response! And apologies for coming around to it after so much time.<br /><br />In my current D&D hack, I handle "ability checks" on a d6, 5+ succeeds. My ability modifiers follow Delta's rationalised sequence from OED (so a normal character never has a higher mod than 2). That all works fine. <br /><br />I really only run into trouble when I also want to provide a bonus to certain classes on such checks. For example, in the open doors example, I give fighters a +1 for every three levels they have. A high STR fighter at some point auto-succeeds, in such a case.<br /><br />Maybe that's fine and I shouldn't worry about it. I like the fixed target number of 5 for these rolls. And capping bonuses at +3 seems lame. So does saying bonuses don't stack. Maybe I am once again overthinking things.kaeruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03422660661902905607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7596935629076864315.post-83539703507834403172021-02-06T06:53:56.865-08:002021-02-06T06:53:56.865-08:00@kaeru:
I probably wouldn't tweak mods if I ...@kaeru: <br /><br />I probably wouldn't tweak mods if I was using a d20 for everything. Removing negative modifiers isn't really required if not using a low base chance like 1-in-6 or 2-in-10. And having modifiers as high as +3 is not a problem for the d20's large range. It's when using dice with a small range of results, like a d6 or 2d6, that a +3 can become problematic.<br /><br />This is why Stars/Worlds Without Number, having a 2d6 skill system, changes ability modifiers to only go from -2 to +2.<br /><br />Similarly, Dyson's 2d6 Thief rule uses "Initiative bonus from Dexterity" to modify the roll, rather than the full Dex mod: https://dysonlogos.blog/2009/08/01/d6-and-2d6-thiefin-for-basic-dungeons-dragons/<br /><br />The B/X Initiative bonus from Dexterity goes from -2 to +2, just like the SWN/WWN ability modifiers. Reference from OSE SRD: https://oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/srd/index.php/Ability_Scores<br /><br />The other thing about the d20 is that you can use the 5% chance of an automatic success as a stop-gap for any cases where the roll can become impossible. For example, if a Thief was rolling a 3-in-20 Find Traps check with their -3 INT modifier, it would become a 0-in-20 chance. But using a "natural 20 = auto-success" rule makes sure that there's always a 5% chance, regardless of modifiers.<br /><br />That option isn't really available on the d6. I mean, technically, you could say that a roll of 1 on the die is a critical success. Or, as Moldvay puts it on page B21: "The number needed ... can never be less than 1 nor greater than 1-5". So it's as if the d6 had a 16.7% chance of critically hitting. But that just flattens all the negative modifiers to one! It's exactly the same as saying that you have a 2-in-6 chance except there are no STR modifiers below -1. Which is, effectively, what OSE does, by expressing in a table what B/X expresses in text. (See the SRD link above for the table.)<br /><br />So already in B/X, we have many different modifiers: the standard -3...+3 for attacks/AC/saves/HP (mostly things rolled on a d20), -1...+3 for Open Doors (rolled on a d6), -2...+2 on reactions (rolled on 2d6) and on individual initiative (a 1d6 contest), and 0...+3 for languages (where a negative number would be meaningless)...<br /><br />Your options are: (1) using a large die and large modifiers, (2) using small dice and small modifiers, (3) using a variety of modifiers and other special stipulations to handle multiple dice, and (4) or using modifiers small enough for your smallest die type, and simply accepting their lowered impact on the largest die.<br /><br />(1) is what the d20 System does with its universal modifiers.<br />(2) is some kind of pure 1d6 system that would be very hard to pull off without losing a lot of compatibility with the OSR.<br />(3) is B/X. LotFP is an offshoot that replaces some d100 rolls with d6 skills and removes some modifiers (CHA for Reactions), without adding any new modifiers.<br />(4) is what SWN/WWN does by having universal modifiers capped at +2 - even for d20 attack rolls and saves, reducing the impact that ability scores have on combat.<br /><br />Personally, I'm now leaning more towards the last option. Negative modifiers are fun to include; I think they can give characters different flavour. But I don't have any particular need for characters with -3/+3 modifiers. Worlds Without Number seems like an interesting ruleset, bearing in mind that it is a larger departure from B/X than LotFP and such, completely discarding the Open Doors type resolution.<br />Homebrew Homunculushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17345963093533356907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7596935629076864315.post-73558854835255611912020-09-27T23:55:19.725-07:002020-09-27T23:55:19.725-07:00I’m intrigued. Would you use this with a resolutio...I’m intrigued. Would you use this with a resolution mechanic like you proposed in your d20 thief skill post, or with the more traditional d6-based one?kaeruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03422660661902905607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7596935629076864315.post-36556416326151843982019-05-15T16:39:47.066-07:002019-05-15T16:39:47.066-07:00I've been thinking a lot about this myself, al...I've been thinking a lot about this myself, also in relation to how (my) players are prone to misunderstand negative modifiers. Like: if 0 is normal, -1 isn't a big deal. But since it is negative it becomes a penalty, and therefore I find that my players perceive the difference between 0 and -1 as much larger than between 1 and 2.<br /><br />So it was really helpful to read your thoughts on the matter.Olav Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14151758541523612837noreply@blogger.com