PDA

View Full Version : Equalizing Ability Scores



PairO'Dice Lost
2009-05-06, 02:42 AM
Anyone who's heard the term "dump stat" knows that not all ability scores were created equal. Most every wizard is a wimp, fighters are stupid, and the vast majority of heroes are ugly, yet almost everyone is quick, healthy, and perceptive. In working on my own 3e remake (like just about everyone else here is), I've been trying to balance out the abilities, so not all wizards will dump Strength and not everyone wants to dump Charisma, and some characters might conceivably drop Dexterity or Constitution without feeling guilty.

Here's what I have as a rough draft of what ability scores can do to make them more desirable (basically 3e stuff with one or two minor changes) and the rationale for it:

Strength
Melee attack and damage rolls
Ranged weapon increments (ranged weapon users currently have very little reason to go for Strength unless using composite bows, which limits your options)
Reduce arcane spell failure (a reason for arcanists to take Strength, plus it gets rid of the 3 bazillion "lower spell failure" items and abilities)
Carrying capacity
Dexterity
Ranged attack rolls
AC
Reflex saves
Constitution
Fort saves
HP
Ability to be resurrected (trying to cut down on the "death as a revolving door" syndrome)
Intelligence
Skill points
Wisdom
Initiative (reflexes are great to help you react, but perception helps you act meaningfully)
Will saves
Charisma
Leadership (reinstating a version of 1e/2e followers to standardize and tone down Leadership)

I haven't counted things like "Charisma is for social skills" because ranks usually outweight ability modifiers for skills later on.

So what ideas can anyone think of that would make the mental abilities more useful, or prevent obvious dump abilities for particular classes? Any thoughts are appreciated.

AgentPaper
2009-05-06, 02:48 AM
Well, there will always be dump stats as long as there is an ability score system. This is good: the other option is for it to not matter a whit what your scores are, because no matter what you choose you'll be the same. That said, I would support making your choice of abilities modify how your class is played. For example, an intelligent wizard might be great at dictating the battlefield, whereas a strength-based wizard might be great at just blowing the living bajesus out of things. For that to work, though, you'd have to make some rather major modifications to things.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-05-06, 03:11 AM
Well, there will always be dump stats as long as there is an ability score system. This is good: the other option is for it to not matter a whit what your scores are, because no matter what you choose you'll be the same.

It's not so much that you'd always be the same; I simply want there to be a reason to have a good score and a drawback to having a bad score. Currently, wizards have no reason for a good strength, for instance; they only really need it for carrying capacity, and bags of holding make that irrelevant. Likewise, a wizard with a low constitution is almost unheard-of, because it spells certain doom. I simply want there to be a reason why you'd find strong wizards and sickly wizards; as it is, characterization is sacrificed for mechanical effectiveness.


That said, I would support making your choice of abilities modify how your class is played. For example, an intelligent wizard might be great at dictating the battlefield, whereas a strength-based wizard might be great at just blowing the living bajesus out of things. For that to work, though, you'd have to make some rather major modifications to things.

I don't know if I'd want to go that far; the 4e paradigm of "paladins hit things really hard because they have a strong personality" and "bench-pressing things lets my swordmage teleport" doesn't really appeal to me. It's a lot easier to change around physical scores for martial classes and mental scores for casting classes and still have things make sense...but that's the whole problem, that casters don't need Strength and martial types don't need Int or Cha.

Godskook
2009-05-06, 03:16 AM
1.Dump stats, to a degree make for more flavorful characters. Nobody is perfect, and people who are above average in every way technically are. Having to dump Cha, to reflect one's oafishness or Str, to reflect a more academic person is ok to a degree because it makes the people more real.

2.Instead of overhauling the skills, redefine challenges. Wizards don't value strength because they have so many spells, and have fighters around for that. A wizard simply doesn't need strength. If, on the other hand, you got rid of bags of holding, and pushed fights past a wizard's spell capacity, I bet you the wizard would start wishing for a positive strength modifier.

3.There really needs to be skills that a fighter would want bad enough to have int score for. Something like 'Swordplay' or the like. Adding ranks to it improved, among other things, one's combat capability. Then, all of a sudden, we have fighters who are actually smarter than rocks.

AgentPaper
2009-05-06, 03:18 AM
I don't know if I'd want to go that far; the 4e paradigm of "paladins hit things really hard because they have a strong personality" and "bench-pressing things lets my swordmage teleport" doesn't really appeal to me. It's a lot easier to change around physical scores for martial classes and mental scores for casting classes and still have things make sense...but that's the whole problem, that casters don't need Strength and martial types don't need Int or Cha.

That's not really what I'm recommending, though. Instead, do something like letting wizards use their strength to do extra damage with their touch-spells. For example something like adding Str mod times spell level, though this might require re-balancing touch spells. A high con score would allow a wizard to cast in armor, and Cha would help him get apprentices, who would be less numerous but more powerful than a fighter gets. I'm thinking something like one every X level, to a maximum of the wizard's cha bonus.

For fighters, allow them to trade their BaB for things, for example they could trade BaB for AC, up to a maximum of their Int bonus. They could also trade damage and BaB on a 2:1 basis, either to damage with Power Attack, or to +hit up to a maximum of their dex bonus.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-05-07, 12:34 AM
1.Dump stats, to a degree make for more flavorful characters. Nobody is perfect, and people who are above average in every way technically are. Having to dump Cha, to reflect one's oafishness or Str, to reflect a more academic person is ok to a degree because it makes the people more real.

I have no problems with the concept of dump stats; I don't like that everyone has the same dump stats. Cha and Str are the first to get dumped, Dex and Con the last.


3.There really needs to be skills that a fighter would want bad enough to have int score for. Something like 'Swordplay' or the like. Adding ranks to it improved, among other things, one's combat capability. Then, all of a sudden, we have fighters who are actually smarter than rocks.

Now that's an interesting idea. What kinds of skills would a fighter want, and how would they be made without essentially replacing BAB, AC, etc. (which is further from the core of D&D than I want to go)?


That's not really what I'm recommending, though. Instead, do something like letting wizards use their strength to do extra damage with their touch-spells. For example something like adding Str mod times spell level, though this might require re-balancing touch spells. A high con score would allow a wizard to cast in armor, and Cha would help him get apprentices, who would be less numerous but more powerful than a fighter gets. I'm thinking something like one every X level, to a maximum of the wizard's cha bonus.

For fighters, allow them to trade their BaB for things, for example they could trade BaB for AC, up to a maximum of their Int bonus. They could also trade damage and BaB on a 2:1 basis, either to damage with Power Attack, or to +hit up to a maximum of their dex bonus.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. That's another idea--who cares what the base effects of ability scores are if your class gives you reason to use all six, basically. That could work; I can see a few trouble issues where it would be hard to incorporate an ability, but that shouldn't be too hard to get around.

Ashtagon
2009-05-07, 01:24 AM
Strength: Melee attack and damage rolls, Ranged weapon increments (ranged weapon users currently have very little reason to go for Strength unless using composite bows, which limits your options), Reduce arcane spell failure (a reason for arcanists to take Strength, plus it gets rid of the 3 bazillion "lower spell failure" items and abilities), Carrying capacity

Ranged weapon increments I'm a little unsure about, but it could work (ranged weapons need a serious redesign anyway, but that's another thread). The arcane spell failure depends on your world's justification for causing spell failure. The default 3e assumption is that armour makes it harder to move. My preferred interpretation is that the materials disrupt the flow of magical energy, which changes the paradigm entirely.

Dexterity: Ranged attack rolls, AC, Reflex saves

All cool.

Constitution: Fort saves, HP, Ability to be resurrected (trying to cut down on the "death as a revolving door" syndrome)

All cool. Personally, I prefer to just outright ban resurrection, although I allow action points to be spent to avoid an outright death (you might be unconscious, out for the count, and in need of serious aid, but not actually dead).

Intelligence: Skill points

Cool.

Wisdom: Initiative (reflexes are great to help you react, but perception helps you act meaningfully), Will saves

I had been planning on Wis for surprise rounds and Dex for initiative, but this works well too. Perhaps allow characters the choice of either ability score?

Charisma: Leadership (reinstating a version of 1e/2e followers to standardize and tone down Leadership)

Very yes. I was threading a DF thread on how low-level characters survived in OD&D. Those that tried stand-up fights routinely died in drives. Those that fought smarter, or better yet, said "let's you and him fight while I watch and take notes" levelled up like crazy.

----

Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 4e's Str or Con (player chooses) should be valid for the Fort save (characters who max one tend to max the other too, so it won't unbalance things anyway).

I'd also say the same thing for Wis/Cha for Will saves. The Dex/Int for Reflex saves seems harder to justify, but I can't see a compelling reason not to have it when the other ability scores do.

For Charisma, I let it affect the character's action points. Basically, characters get 5 + Cha mod action points, and each day they make a (level/2 + Cha mod) check against DC 15 to recover APs (each full 5 points the DC is beaten by recovers an additional point; the maths works out to effectively the same amount as the Unearthed Arcana AP rules).

Godskook
2009-05-07, 02:03 AM
Now that's an interesting idea. What kinds of skills would a fighter want, and how would they be made without essentially replacing BAB, AC, etc. (which is further from the core of D&D than I want to go)?

Grapple(Merge with escape artist?)
Swordplay(Or weapon-skill, whatever)
|->Parry
|->Disarm
|->Sunder
|->Feint
Terrain-fighting
Weapon throwing

Grapple could replace BAB in current grappling equations with little change to the rules. This suddenly makes 'wrestlers' who are really good at neutralizing non-grapple-friendly foes. This makes sense. Why should my 165lbs 10th level wizard who has never wrestled before be able to break a grapple check by franky mchuge, the 7th level Barbarian wrestler who put 10 ranks in grapple. As the rules stand now, there's not really a such thing as a 'wrestler' character.

Flavor and balance to taste.

I've known a lot of 'dumb' jocks who weren't dumb. Knowledge skills were just cross class for them. On the other hand, I've known football players who didn't even bother to put ranks in Knowledge: Football(Seriously, the guy didn't even know that the 50 yard line was 'half' way down the field).

Juggernaut1981
2009-05-07, 02:07 AM
Wis + Dex = Initiative is an idea I've always liked. Why should the cleric have no idea that combat is happening, despite being able to spot a flea on an elephant at 4 miles??? Instead, add them both together. Wisdom = knowing something is about to happen, Dex = being able to react to that happening.

I think you can get some distance out of the Skills system and maybe the Feats. Any effect you can create that will encourage players to spend ability points in a "new stat" tends to even out the "Maxi-Min" characters.

From a GM/DM perspective, just hammering home that "Your character has an IQ equivalent to a doorstop, they would not have understood that short lecture on particle physics given by the wizard. Sure they have a good wisdom and can point and yell "Big Rock" but you aren't going to be able to tell me that the rock is probably of an igneous variety and instead of attempting a manual excavation method utilising shock by snap chilling after extreme heat would be better." Ditto goes for the Perceptive as a Shoe Wizard... just hammer home their stats into their actual play. "You think you spot a barn up ahead, or it could be a Tarrasque, maybe a ship on dry ground, or... want to make any Knowledge checks right about now???"

My former players used to get the peevs when I'd enforce their character's own inherent stupidity/lack of perception. They'd also get irritated when the highly perceptive farmer says "He's a bad one" but when they talk to him about the eating habits of cows he says "Well, they eat that green grass but they won't touch the stuff over there... don't know why cause it tastes good to me". And so on. Stopping people dump-stating mental stats is about making the world react to them and making them play to the stat they have.

Stopping people dump-stating physical stats is all about half-killing them in amusing ways. Cleric dump-stats Dex?? Make him walk over a lot of rubble and fall and not get hurt, but the rest of the party waits at the top for a while until the cleric removes their armour, feeds it up on a rope and then slowly scrabbles up the rock-slope. Wizard dump-stats Str? Put the wizard down a hole, or make them climb ropes, etc, etc, etc. There are ways as a GM to make a situation horribly painful for the party (and the player) because of their Dump-stat... EXPLOIT it.

Tempest Fennac
2009-05-07, 03:04 AM
Just out of curiosity, what sort of changes would you make to dead-raising magic? I tend not to like the idea of system shock due to how the spell is specifically designed to bring someone back to life, so the idea of this potentially faining because of the corpse's health before their died seems odd to me. I tend to think that making people RP mental stats is a good idea as far as getting them to try to avoid dumping the stats goes (as far as Cha goes, I may have NPCs react less favourably to people with low Cha in my games if the player doesn't have their low Cha character act in an annoying or shy fashion).

Ouranos
2009-05-07, 08:39 AM
I've always been one to play to my stats, and I almost always play a melee. I LOVED my barbarian. He had a trait I found called giantism, made him a large sized human. Strength: ALOT, base was 26. Dex was only 10. Con was 22 I think, maybe 20. Int: 6. Wisdom 12. Cha of 7.

How was he played? He was big, didn't bathe, thought farting was funny, and everytime an NPC explained a problem with more words then "kill that guy" he sat and scratched his head. He understood how to fight only pretty much, anything past that was beyond him. he was dumb enough to always call the drow we had in our group as "elfy-girl" because he didn't understand the difference between elf races :)

tyckspoon
2009-05-07, 01:32 PM
From a GM/DM perspective, just hammering home that "Your character has an IQ equivalent to a doorstop, they would not have understood that short lecture on particle physics given by the wizard. Sure they have a good wisdom and can point and yell "Big Rock" but you aren't going to be able to tell me that the rock is probably of an igneous variety and instead of attempting a manual excavation method utilising shock by snap chilling after extreme heat would be better." Ditto goes for the Perceptive as a Shoe Wizard... just hammer home their stats into their actual play. "You think you spot a barn up ahead, or it could be a Tarrasque, maybe a ship on dry ground, or... want to make any Knowledge checks right about now???"


This would require a stat of.. like, 4. Considering your normal dump stat is 8 (6 with a racial penalty), I think that's far too extreme. Unless you're treating an averagely good stat (say, 14) as being just as good as a 6 is bad, in which case you're at least being consistent.

Another_Poet
2009-05-07, 02:31 PM
Love the changes!

An idea on Constitution...

Maybe you could tie Con score to how powerful of an unead the person can become?

For instance, if they have a Con score of 10 and their corpse is used as an undead, they become a scrub zombie. With a Con score of 18 they might become a death knight.

This would only work if the rules make it clear that PCs are not meant to be undead (nor evil) and that all undead are evil. That's a little old-fashioned but you're already drawing some ideas from earlier editions so it might fit.

It would certainly be an interesting side-effect to having a high Con score. A nice flipside to the "resurection chance" rule.

Juggernaut1981
2009-05-07, 08:49 PM
You're forgetting what the "baseline is".

10 = average adventurer (i.e. better than your average peasant)
8 = average peasant
<4 = animal for Int, nearly catatonic for Cha and borderline psychotic for Wis

Most fantasy-setting peasants can't read and write. They haven't been educated, they may be capable crafts-people and farmers but they aren't known for intelligence.

If you have an 8 for Intelligence, then you're a bit dim by adventuring standards. By "modern" standards, you'd be the cliched cleaning-lady/garbage-man/security guard. You're a bit thick. Plenty of other people are smarter than you.

If you have an Intelligence of less than 4, then you are freaking dense. Some really smart animals are your intellectual equals.

Someone with a Charisma of less than 8 is less charming than your average run-of-the-mill peasant. They would have issues in society. They would say inappropriate things. It would be a serious effort for them to act in a socially appropriate way and have other people like them. If you have a Charisma of probably 6 or less, then you are the genuine social outcast... not even the "loser gamer geeks with the personality skills of a starved tiger" will socialise with you.

And so on. Most run of the mill office workers probably have a D&D strength of 8 to 10.

So yes, if you are dump-statting something down to 6, I'm going to make you behave in character as if that stat is significantly low. You get a mental stat to 3 or less... you have animal level mental ability - your brain is the same as a DOG. So yeah, Feral Half-Orc Barbarian with a Charisma of around 6 gets on best in society by keeping their mouth closed and staying outside the tavern with the horses... The wizard with a Wisdom of 8 or worse really does just no see things and will ask "Oh are you upset?" when someone is crying their eyes out. The fighter with Intelligence 8 or worse will probably only be able to put on their armour because of HABIT. The rogue with 8 or worse strength will be able to carry a load equivalent to an office worker...

Put it into perspective and dump-statting something to 8 or worse should be a noticable change. "I'm sorry but your dialogue on the precise linguistic derivation of antidisestablishmentarianism seem to be too derivative" will be one of the MANY things that goes over your head...

If people are dump-statting and not suffering for it, then you're not being a good DM/GM and making them wear the consequences of their choices.

Zeful
2009-05-07, 09:47 PM
You're forgetting what the "baseline is".

10 = average adventurer (i.e. better than your average peasant)
8 = average peasant
<4 = animal for Int, nearly catatonic for Cha and borderline psychotic for Wis Um, no 10 is the human average. That is the average once you include adventurers so 10 is actually pretty bad. And less than three is animal intelligence. 3 is a severe learning disability to the point of being unable to understandably comunicate. Int 3 isn't "Thog smash" it's "Cucucachu"

Further making players pay for dump stats can work against you, as your effectivally telling them they can't play their character they way they want to. Creating things that make certain characters better than their dumped counterparts however allows you to point this kind of thing out.

Juggernaut1981
2009-05-07, 11:25 PM
Um, no 10 is the human average. That is the average once you include adventurers so 10 is actually pretty bad. And less than three is animal intelligence. 3 is a severe learning disability to the point of being unable to understandably comunicate. Int 3 isn't "Thog smash" it's "Cucucachu"

Further making players pay for dump stats can work against you, as your effectivally telling them they can't play their character they way they want to. Creating things that make certain characters better than their dumped counterparts however allows you to point this kind of thing out.

#1 The PHB is written considering adventurers, so "human" in that book considers an "average adventurer human". Why else would the point-buy system begin with 8 as the default if it was not the "unofficial baseline" of the population?

#2 I don't prevent players taking dump stats. I've built characters myself with dump stats, specifically because I wanted a challenge in character-playing. What I attempt to "weed out" is dump-statting as a form of "power-gaming". If you are going to Maxi-Min your PC so that your Psion can explode a Beholder from 7 miles... then rest assured I am going to make sure your Psions <8 Strength is also going to occur in the world.
I have said at a table "Your character doesn't get what is going on, they don't have the Intelligence to solve this situation. You need to start talking in Character or not talking at all". It's about making people roleplay EVERY aspect of their character rather than "ignoring the bad bits and playing up the good bits". If your players keep on trying to play a "Genius with Int 4" or "The All-seeing God of the Universe with Wis 6" then the GM/DM needs to lift their game and push the players into lifting their game as "roleplayers".

Draz74
2009-05-07, 11:34 PM
And less than three is animal intelligence. 3 is a severe learning disability to the point of being unable to understandably comunicate. Int 3 isn't "Thog smash" it's "Cucucachu"

I've never seen any book that says this. I was definitely under the impression that 3 INT should still be able to communicate, understandably if not well.

"uh ... thog ... uh ... smash!" seems like about 3 INT to me (where the "uh"s represent having to think to remember the word).

Ashtagon
2009-05-08, 12:15 AM
#1 The PHB is written considering adventurers, so "human" in that book considers an "average adventurer human". Why else would the point-buy system begin with 8 as the default if it was not the "unofficial baseline" of the population?


That's probably in there to make sure players don't choose to play really badly-stat-dumped characters, by making it mechanically impossible to do so.

Before power-gaming became the vogue, D&D used to say each stat was a straight 3d6, no adjustments. That makes 10.5 the human average.

Another_Poet
2009-05-08, 02:01 PM
Before power-gaming became the vogue, D&D used to say each stat was a straight 3d6, no adjustments. That makes 10.5 the human average.

Exactly.

Typical humans are presumed to have 10 in every stat, or an average of 10 across their stats.

Typical adventurers using traditional 3d6 rolls have 10.5 in every stat (i.e. an equal chance of 10 or 11 in any stat) or an average of 10.5 across their stats. Thus they are "above average."

Point buy counts 8 as the baseline because any lower than that would produce hard-to-play characters. You can get points back by lowering your scores below 8 but having any/many stats with -2 modifiers or worse quickly makes the character unviable. Using 8 as the baseline is simply a mechanic to maintain balance and avoid glass PCs. It is unrelated to the flavour text which explains that 10 is the normal human stat and adventurers are above average.

ap

Stormthorn
2009-05-08, 02:15 PM
I've never seen any book that says this. I was definitely under the impression that 3 INT should still be able to communicate, understandably if not well.

"uh ... thog ... uh ... smash!" seems like about 3 INT to me (where the "uh"s represent having to think to remember the word).

I dont think an Int 3 would ever go adventuring. Thats Profound Mental Retardation level of mental disability. An IQ less than 25. Its only slightly above that of your average animal.


I wish Charisma had more use. I always feel that since it measures your raw force of personality it would be the default Will save.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-05-08, 07:07 PM
Man, I'm away from my laptop for one day and this thread takes off!


Ranged weapon increments I'm a little unsure about, but it could work (ranged weapons need a serious redesign anyway, but that's another thread).

There was a thread on EnWorld that discussed increasing the size of the range increment for a weapon based on your Strength modifier; I'm not sure how exactly it would be implemented yet, since there are three or four ideas still floating around, but I think it would be a good addition


The arcane spell failure depends on your world's justification for causing spell failure. The default 3e assumption is that armour makes it harder to move. My preferred interpretation is that the materials disrupt the flow of magical energy, which changes the paradigm entirely.

I'm going with the default interpretation, since "arcane magic needs more precise gestures" is one of the few interpretations I've seen which wouldn't also apply to divine casters.


Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 4e's Str or Con (player chooses) should be valid for the Fort save (characters who max one tend to max the other too, so it won't unbalance things anyway).

I'd also say the same thing for Wis/Cha for Will saves. The Dex/Int for Reflex saves seems harder to justify, but I can't see a compelling reason not to have it when the other ability scores do.

I don't particularly like letting players choose which to use, because all that means is that you get to choose your dump stat. You're a sorcerer and want a good Will save? Your Cha is already high; you don't need Will. You're a rogue who wants a good Reflex save? You have a high Dex and plenty of skill points, so you can drop the 10 in Int and put your 14 somewhere else.


For Charisma, I let it affect the character's action points. Basically, characters get 5 + Cha mod action points, and each day they make a (level/2 + Cha mod) check against DC 15 to recover APs (each full 5 points the DC is beaten by recovers an additional point; the maths works out to effectively the same amount as the Unearthed Arcana AP rules).

I've seen people link Cha to action points before; I've considered it, but action points aren't quite my style.


Grapple(Merge with escape artist?)
Swordplay(Or weapon-skill, whatever)
|->Parry
|->Disarm
|->Sunder
|->Feint
Terrain-fighting
Weapon throwing

So basically anything that's not a flat-out attack would use Weapon Skill instead? Iiiiinteresting. I'll cogitate on that one for a bit.



Re: Equalizing Ability Scores
Just out of curiosity, what sort of changes would you make to dead-raising magic? I tend not to like the idea of system shock due to how the spell is specifically designed to bring someone back to life, so the idea of this potentially faining because of the corpse's health before their died seems odd to me. I tend to think that making people RP mental stats is a good idea as far as getting them to try to avoid dumping the stats goes (as far as Cha goes, I may have NPCs react less favourably to people with low Cha in my games if the player doesn't have their low Cha character act in an annoying or shy fashion).

Well, I wanted to bring back a sort of system shock (whether "Roll above X to come back" or "You can only be rezzed Y times") for two reasons. First, it gets rid of the "revolving-door afterlife" problem--you can't just keep getting rezzed for no penalty when you die at higher levels, so death still holds a threat.

Second, it makes more sense in-game if it doesn't always work; with the current rules, there's no reason to assassinate anyone in power (since they'll have an ally get them rezzed) and lots of political plots can be derailed simply by bringing important people back. Saying that they all want to stay in the afterlife, while pretty much every adventurer ever wants to come back gets a bit old after a while.

----------------------------------

Regarding the role-playing penalties for low mental scores:

That's certainly possible, and that's what I currently do, but I'd prefer there to be more mechanical stuff tied to the mental scores. As it is, dumping Str, Dex, or Con provides purely mechanical penalties--you can't hit the monster, you can't dodge the fireball, you can't survive a fall. It's kind of hard to RP bulging muscles.

On the flip side, Int, Wis, and Cha are (except for caster classes) mostly used when RPing, so (A) penalties are somewhat arbitrarily enforced ("I don't think an Int 8 character would get this." "Then what would they 'get'?" "...") and (B) when there's a skills monkey, scout, and party face in the group, you don't really need Int, Wis, or Cha, respectively, in most situations--you sit back and let the smart guy or the talky guy do the work.

Zeful
2009-05-08, 11:03 PM
#1 The PHB is written considering adventurers, so "human" in that book considers an "average adventurer human". Why else would the point-buy system begin with 8 as the default if it was not the "unofficial baseline" of the population?The PHb is written considering players, but that's a hairline distinction. Further, point buy is optional in 3.5, and not representative of anything. When they explain the purpose of attributes they state in the "average ability score" tables that humans have an average of ten in any stat. They make no distinctions between adventurers and peasants.


#2 I don't prevent players taking dump stats. I've built characters myself with dump stats, specifically because I wanted a challenge in character-playing. What I attempt to "weed out" is dump-statting as a form of "power-gaming". If you are going to Maxi-Min your PC so that your Psion can explode a Beholder from 7 miles... then rest assured I am going to make sure your Psions <8 Strength is also going to occur in the world.
I have said at a table "Your character doesn't get what is going on, they don't have the Intelligence to solve this situation. You need to start talking in Character or not talking at all". It's about making people roleplay EVERY aspect of their character rather than "ignoring the bad bits and playing up the good bits". If your players keep on trying to play a "Genius with Int 4" or "The All-seeing God of the Universe with Wis 6" then the GM/DM needs to lift their game and push the players into lifting their game as "roleplayers".
And you'd be surprised how many players take offense to the DM telling them how their character acts. Several threads in the Roleplaying Games forum have advised players to leave DMs for things like this.

Ashtagon
2009-05-09, 01:31 AM
4e says either X or Y affects save Z.

What exactly is wrong with saying both X and Y affect save Z?

The only obvious flaw I can think of is that it could make for an unbeatable save once stats get pumped up high enough. That could be mitigated by halving the size of the modifier, similar to how only half the Str bonus applies to light weapons.

Zeful
2009-05-09, 02:57 AM
4e says either X or Y affects save Z.

What exactly is wrong with saying both X and Y affect save Z?

The only obvious flaw I can think of is that it could make for an unbeatable save once stats get pumped up high enough. That could be mitigated by halving the size of the modifier, similar to how only half the Str bonus applies to light weapons.

If you add the half of both, your going to have much smaller saving throws. making magic much more powerful.

Godskook
2009-05-09, 03:09 AM
So basically anything that's not a flat-out attack would use Weapon Skill instead? Iiiiinteresting. I'll cogitate on that one for a bit.

Glad you like it.


4e says either X or Y affects save Z.

What exactly is wrong with saying both X and Y affect save Z?

The only obvious flaw I can think of is that it could make for an unbeatable save once stats get pumped up high enough. That could be mitigated by halving the size of the modifier, similar to how only half the Str bonus applies to light weapons.

The simple problem is balance. Adding 2 bonuses to a save opens up a lot more buffs that can be used to increase saves. Halving the modifiers makes buffing a bad save harder than it currently is, since spells like Owl's Wisdom are only half as effective as they should be. That's a lot of re-balancing.

Also, things can become overly generic when substituting ability scores(or combining them) becomes a standard choice, rather than the effect of training.

ericgrau
2009-05-09, 10:39 AM
Given the typical lifestyle of an adventurer, it makes sense for most of them to be healthy and nimble. In campaigns more full of intrigue and aristocracy, they won't be the main stats. And some stats are better for some classes than others. I'm fine with that.

The one stat that never made any sense to me is charisma. This should play a major role in role playing games, when instead it gets shafted. Even in skill checks - the one time where it might matter - ranks and spells or magic items play a greater role. Perhaps DMs should require flat charisma checks (no skill ranks) and/or DM fiat similar to what's described in the charm person spell to persuade someone in an appropriate role playing situation. i.e., high cha does not equal puppet master, and this still doesn't replace bluffing and diplomacy. Kind of an Elan or James Bond type method to success where everybody's your buddy and random women fall for you and help you. That'd heavily bump up its importance in campaigns with role playing, while still leaving it as a dump stat in campaigns without much role playing.

Draz74
2009-05-10, 01:58 PM
What exactly is wrong with saying both X and Y affect save Z?

The only obvious flaw I can think of is that it could make for an unbeatable save once stats get pumped up high enough. That could be mitigated by halving the size of the modifier, similar to how only half the Str bonus applies to light weapons.

But then you have someone with a great ability score never really getting to use it, only half of it. It's workable, but I'd find it frustrating.

Applying both scores fully definitely leads to munchkin problems, though, where the Diplomancer (or whatever) can get his skill checks way too high by optimizing both of the applicable ability scores ... yuck.

One solution I've seen is to apply "both the biggest bonus and the biggest penalty" to a roll. So if Intimidate is based on both Strength and Charisma, for example, you add your Strength or Charisma bonus to your Intimidate check ... but, if the other score has a penalty, then you also apply that penalty to the check. To some extent, this just means "dump stats" become 10's instead of 8's, but it's an idea.

The solution I'm leaning toward in my own homebrewing is just to make easy-to-attain special abilities that let you swap a check's dependency to a new statistic. You want Jump to be based on Dex instead of Strength? Fine, there's a Talent that makes that change for you, and it doesn't cost much to pick up. Oh, but it also has a prerequisite of 11 Strength, so you can't pull off stunning acrobatics without some reasonable muscles.

When you get down to it, though, I think the real key to equalizing ability scores is to make new mental scores that make a little more sense ...

My own system currently uses Intellect, Wit, and Perception as your three mental scores. (By the way, spellcasters by default have different aspects of their spellcasting modified by all three; no more SAD casters.)

Intellect is like 3e Intelligence, but also totally different. It has nothing to do with how clever or "quick" you are; it is about how complex of thoughts you can handle, and also about the raw strength of will you can pull out when you need to. It governs Willpower saves, so non-casters have a reason not to dump it.

Perception is like 3e Wisdom, but with a little more emphasis on its interpersonal applications (a la Sense Motive). It also drops the "willpower and common sense" aspect that "Wisdom" supposedly had (but rarely represented); common sense does not need to be represented mechanically, and willpower falls more under Intellect.

Wit is speed and cleverness of thought, and ability to think on one's feet. It modifies initiative, and also gives you bonus "skill trick" talents at character creation, so no one wants to dump it. It's also, by default, the score that takes the place of Charisma the most often in skill checks (e.g. Bluff).

Not having a Charisma score is a challenge, but I think it's workable. "Force of personality" can be roleplayed, and needs no mechanical representation. "Persuasiveness" is represented by Wit, in combination with various skills. "Personal magnetism" is usually just roleplayed, but in extreme cases (like a paladin's ability to radiate auras that have mechanical effects), can be represented by special abilities, which will often have a minimum Perception as a prerequisite. "Ability to lead" will simply become a skill. "Physical attractiveness" can be simply roleplayed, or represented by special abilities in extreme cases.

I've recently seen a similar but independent system; I don't like it quite as well as my own, but I still commend it for being a workable improvement on the standard Int/Wis/Cha system.

Intelligence: not changed from 3e, except in the rare cases where 3e treated INT as the "fast thinking" stat. Intelligence again has nothing to do with being "quick."

Wit: The "thinking on your feet" stat, the one that modifies Initiative and deals with being "quick." Also adopts the "physical awareness of surroundings" aspect that Wisdom carried in 3e, but not the other aspects of WIS.

Charisma: Pretty much the same as 3e. Also modifies Will saves.

lesser_minion
2009-05-10, 03:23 PM
You could try tying two or more ability scores to things and then make the character use the weakest, but that would probably be absolutely horrible. It could be more realistic for certain elements of gameplay, however.

As for changing ability scores, I quite like that idea. I'm thinking of doing that one myself.

Draz74
2009-05-10, 08:24 PM
As for changing ability scores, I quite like that idea. I'm thinking of doing that one myself.

Which one, mine? Sweet. :smallcool:

Juggernaut1981
2009-05-10, 10:06 PM
And you'd be surprised how many players take offense to the DM telling them how their character acts. Several threads in the Roleplaying Games forum have advised players to leave DMs for things like this.

One of the things that is done worst amongst roleplayers, is actually roleplaying the character rather than drawing up some numbers to act as a puppet for themself.

If your character has a low intelligence, you are supposed to play them that way. If you arent, it is the GM/DMs role to ensure that the players do. The DM/GM is often not just there to make the monsters run around but they are also often there to help players become better players - a teaching role. I have organised conventions, I have seen the worst power-gaming cheese ever... repeatedly handed up as if making a character that breaks combat is equivalent to good roleplaying.
Newsflash: Good roleplaying has NOTHING to do with making optimised builds. Optimised builds is something else.

So I think, as a GM/DM you are perfectly within your bounds to suggest to a player who has a character with a pathetically low Int/Wis/Cha (since these are the usual Dump-Stat candidates for anything but a "Straight non-cleric spellcaster") that the following is probably true:
Low Int: Your character doesn't understand that idea
Low Wis: Your character doesn't really get what is going on
Low Cha: Your character believes that Hygiene is a greeting to someone named Gene/Jean and that making friends is done by wrestling them instead of using your sword.

So yes, the fighter with Int <8 who suddenly claims to understand D&D's equivalent of Quantum Mechanics will be instructed by me that his Characters Intelligence is too low for that to be true - Roleplay more accurately.

It's harder to do than saying "Oh look my wizard has reached his heavy encumberance and can't move at all because he is carrying 4 scrolls, two potions and a spellbook"... but guess what, just cause there isn't a table saying "Int 4 = socks are a complex device for you" doesn't mean that isn't the in-game reality either.

In my mind it all centres on one idea: People roleplaying better; not roll-playing.

lesser_minion
2009-05-11, 03:52 AM
Which one, mine? Sweet. :smallcool:

Well, I was going to come up with one on my own, but your idea isn't bad.

I was thinking of something along the lines of:

Instinct - intuition, insight and also ability to understand surroundings. Affects initiative, AC and reflex saves unless dexterity is quicker (dodging an attack is limited by both your ability to see it coming and your ability to move quickly) Determination - force of will, strength of personality, but also leadership and personality. Affects will saves, hit points and a few other useful goodies. Reason - logic, intellect, and ability to figure things out. Affects skill points and spellcasting. And will saves if lower than Determination (because an inability to reason your way out of something can be as much a weakness in your mental defences as a lack of resolve).

Draz74
2009-05-11, 10:47 AM
Well, I was going to come up with one on my own, but your idea isn't bad.

I was thinking of something along the lines of:

Instinct - intuition, insight and also ability to understand surroundings. Affects initiative, AC and reflex saves unless dexterity is quicker (dodging an attack is limited by both your ability to see it coming and your ability to move quickly) Determination - force of will, strength of personality, but also leadership and personality. Affects will saves, hit points and a few other useful goodies. Reason - logic, intellect, and ability to figure things out. Affects skill points and spellcasting. And will saves if lower than Determination (because an inability to reason your way out of something can be as much a weakness in your mental defences as a lack of resolve).





OK, I can appreciate that. It's actually pretty much the same three scores as the second option I posted, only renamed; but the things you're applying these scores to are very interesting in some cases (esp. Hit Points falling under the Charisma-like score).

lesser_minion
2009-05-11, 11:08 AM
Basically, if you have Determination 18 and a Colossal++ giant rips one of your arms out, you respond by tearing their abdominal cavity open with your teeth.

And if your mortal enemy stabs you in the gut, causing you to fall backwards against a doorway seemingly out of the fight, your response is:

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Stormthorn
2009-05-11, 05:58 PM
How about we add another ability score:

Awesomness: Allows you to reroll once per 24 hours per point of bonus. Keep the higher of the two scores. A penalty to awesomness is added to your critical MISS range. A score of 6 with a -2 penalty means you criticaly fail on a roll of 1-3.