There shouldn't be negative modifiers

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

There shouldn't be negative modifiers

Post by Username17 »

When you have a Strength score, it shouldn't be a penalty. Ever.

When you "negate someone's Dex Bonus" - this should always be worse than not negating it. When you multiply a modifier by 1.5, that shouldn't ever make it go down.

That means that the bonus for zero should be +0, not -5.

The difference would be largely trivial - but it's just bad design for there to be negative strength bonuses at all.

-Username17
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: There shouldn't be negative modifiers

Post by RandomCasualty »

Yeah, I agree with you for the most part.

Most stats would be fairly easy. The dex and strength thing would balance out. You'd have to modify max dex bonuses on armor, but that's about it. You'd just end up with more inflated AC scores, but the bonuses to hit would match so it wouldn't make any difference numerically.

The effect on hit points however would be rather bad. Higher strength bonuses means you're doing more damage, which should theoretically be absorbed by con... unfortunately this also has the side effect of making hit dice extremely trivial. When you've got a base +5 to hit points for 10 con, whether your rolling a d4 or a d8 ceases to matter much, and I'm not really sure how you'd fix that.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: There shouldn't be negative modifiers

Post by Username17 »

When you've got a base +5 to hit points for 10 con, whether your rolling a d4 or a d8 ceases to matter much, and I'm not really sure how you'd fix that.


That's no different from the current situation, and in case you haven't noticed - your hit die doesn't really matter in the face of Constitution modifiers.

The difference between a "-2" and a "+5" is 7 just like the difference between a "+3" and a "+10" would be. Adding a static modifier to both changes nothing except make the degree to which the difference between "2.5" and "6.5" averages on the dice are really small more obvious.

Let's face it, negative modifiers on Hit Dice work even less well.

Consider the way most people apply hit dice and Con changes:

Step 1.: Roll hit die.
Step 2.: Modify it up or down by your Con Modifier, minimum of 1.
Step 3.: When your Con Modifier changes by 1, increase or decrease your hit points by 1 point per level, to a minimum of 1 point per die.

Anybody see the problem?

Let's say a wizard is going to gain a level, but is suffering from some permanent Constitution damage, bringing his Constitution to 1, which gives him a -5 modifier and only 1 hit point per level. So he gains a level, and of course he rolls a die, but the the value is entirely inconsequential as he gains exactly 1 hit point.

Tired of the situation, the Wizard gets his condition restored all the way up to a Con of 10 (or maybe he just polymorphs, whatever). Suddenly, his Con Modifier just went up by 5 - to a total modifier of zero. So his hit points go from 1 point per level to 6 points per level. On d4s, with a modifier of zero.

Under the present situation poison will, in the long run, make you stronger, because the penalties can keep accumulating past the point where they make any difference and when you go the other way they are bonuses regardless of whether the penalties were making any difference or not.

Now, when this happens, DMs normally hold their heads for a moment and punt, giving the character the number of hit points they would have had provided that their con modifier had never been low. At least, to the best of the DM's ability to figure that out.

But it's not always possible. Let's take the example of two 5th level wizards, both of whom now have a Con of 10. The first wizard always had a Con of 10, and he has a precisely average number of hit points: 14. The second Wizard had a Con of 9, and raised it to 10 at 4th level, and he rolled the same numbers on all his hit dice. Does he have the same number of hit points?

Probably not. While it is entirely possible to generate 14 hit points by rolling a collection of 2s, 3s, and 4s (2,2,3,3; 2,2,2,4; or of course their 10 combinatorial equivalents), it is more likely that this average result was achieved by rolling some rather more extreme numbers. That is, if there were any 1s rolled along the way, the character who started with a Con of 9 now has more hit points. His 1 result and his 2 result are the same, both before and after raising his Con modifier.

So if the first Wizard rolled 1,2,3,4 - or some similar number scheme - he's got 14 hit points at 5th level. If the second Wizard rolled exactly the same numbers, he now has 15 hit points. He gained, at each level: 3,1,1,2,3 hit points, and then he gained five for the increased Con Modifier.

So the die would actually be more important in the absolute sense if there were no negative stat modifiers - the die would never be overridden by the Con Negative Minimum rule that allows the crafty and the frail to bypass the rolls of the dice entirely.

-Username17
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: There shouldn't be negative modifiers

Post by RandomCasualty »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1083042344[/unixtime]]That's no different from the current situation, and in case you haven't noticed - your hit die doesn't really matter in the face of Constitution modifiers.

The difference between a "-2" and a "+5" is 7 just like the difference between a "+3" and a "+10" would be. Adding a static modifier to both changes nothing except make the degree to which the difference between "2.5" and "6.5" averages on the dice are really small more obvious.


Well, the larger the modifiers are, the less the hit dice matters. When you've got a +5 from con, a d10 hit dice contributes a little over 50% of your hit points on average. When that bonus becomes a +10, it's now more like 33% of your hit points. Though the absolute difference in hit points remains the same, the relative difference between a d4 hit dice character and a d10 hit dice character narrows quite a bit more.

So as con bonuses get bigger and bigger, the hit dice becomes less and less relevant.
Sma
Master
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: There shouldn't be negative modifiers

Post by Sma »

While the Hit Die does add a realatively smaller amount to your HP total, due to everyone doing more damage the difference is all that you´d care about, so the size of the hit die becomes important again.
Not as important as it was, but that´s due to everyone hitting harder. And because of the way two-handed damage is calculated TH fighters will be even stronger than they were before.
Mole_2
1st Level
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: There shouldn't be negative modifiers

Post by Mole_2 »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1083042344[/unixtime]]
Consider the way most people apply hit dice and Con changes:

Step 1.: Roll hit die.
Step 2.: Modify it up or down by your Con Modifier, minimum of 1.
Step 3.: When your Con Modifier changes by 1, increase or decrease your hit points by 1 point per level, to a minimum of 1 point per die.

Anybody see the problem?

-Username17


This problem only arises if you don't keep a record of each hit dice roll result for each level.

I suspect the rules can only work sensibly if you keep such a record. Also stops permanent level loss/restoration being problemmatic too.

Shame they didn't say to do so in the RAW....


Post Reply