Why are the stat bonuses on the sheet not standard? There’s no chart in the book.

16 thoughts on “Why are the stat bonuses on the sheet not standard? There’s no chart in the book.”

1. It’s actually kind of clever. Each of the stats shows the boundaries of the modifier: 8-=-1, 9-12=+0, 13-15=+1, 16-17=+2, and 18=+3.

2. This isn’t a typo? I thought it used the standard range.

3. Nope, it’s closer to OD&D in that respect, I believe.

4. There’s a table in the book in the “character creation” section. Page 49.

5. That’s how BECMI D&D handled it, yeah. It didn’t become “standard range” until 3e.

6. Found it. Thanks.

7. Ouch. 9 sucks.

8. 9 is much, much better than 8. With a score of 8, your average roll, and indeed the majority of rolls, fail.

9. An 8 stat is great for XP generation; I’ve had a couple characters with an 8 dex, and they were the center of attention through failing DD and the GM doing a harm move at least once each session.

10. Well yeah but mostly you want to get 7-9. It lets you succeed while still generating story complications. If you only care about leveling, and so attempt to constantly fail, you still have to deal with the failures.

11. I don’t understand. Standard in what sense?

12. Joseph Le May Yeah, I know i want some 7-9s. But marking XP is still exciting.

13. Fo sho! And they mean “standard” in the sense of d&d3e+ having the formula be easier to remember, B=(a-10) / 2 (round down).

14. Also, that formula wouldn’t work for the Apocalypse Engine bc +4 is too high a bonus for anything to fail other than snake eyes. Also, less than -1, and shit gets dire fast.

15. Joseph Le May Exactly right, +4 breaks everything. Besides, I like to think about it this way: While 3e (and 4e) is all formulaic and based around algebra, our DW is organic, not at all smooth, and has intentional rough edges. And on a Saturday afternoon,  I prefer my rough edges to my algebra.

16. Dan Noland I think “standard” here means “d20.” Which, nope, we are not the same as.

Comments are closed.