tTotMA: Why D&D Stats are Broke

[Sacrieur]

tTotMA: that Time of the Month Again

---

http://6d6fireball.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/tabletop-roleplaying.png
props to xkcd <3



So my Strength score the other day needed to borrow some cash fr-

*smack*

Okay, so terrible jokes aside, it is that part of the month again. Where we all get together with our halfling-flinging catapults and settle our disputes (no wizards allowed =P). The topic being my ranting of D&D stats, portraying my irrefutable opinions facts (*rolls bluff*). So now, let's show why D&D stats make excellent fubar pie.

Strength

http://prankcall.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/muscles-when-they-call-you-ugly-whip-their-ass-demotivational-poster.jpg

I really don't have too much of a complaint with this one, as it works fairly well in most aspects. In fact, I consider to the single best score of the six. I do, however, find a broken mechanic in the realm of carrying capacity. For some reason carrying capacity is calculated linearly until a score of 10, then calculated exponentially after 10.

This is terrible. Why? Because this happens:

http://www4b.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP228019f521h0fgab46bh00000gb7ih7gbe79c9f7?MSPSto reType=image/gif&s=33&w=300&h=176&cdf=Coordinates&cdf=Tooltips

This is modeled as http://www4d.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP403519f51d34bhf2hb9h00001feabb4059a3c25b?MSPSto reType=image/gif&s=56&w=62&h=20. As you can see, after about a strength score of 60, the carrying seems to shoot off like a kender within sight of a shiny coin. What does this mean? Well, that someone with 526 strength can lift the heaviest known mass in the Universe: the star R136a1, a whopping 265 solar masses.

Well, no one really gets 526 strength so what's the problem (save for my homebrew PrC Sakrier, which IS a problem). The problem is that the strength modifier is linear. A strength score of 526 is +263 to hit and damage. While the hit is certainly substantial (as well as for skill checks), the damage is terribly imbalanced. Considering this is the strength required to throw the heaviest mass in the Universe at someone, I feel as though this damage is woefully underpowered. Or carrying capacity is just plain overpowered.

You may argue that this is a problem with carrying capacity and not the strength score in and of itself. In any case, it proposes an interesting problem.


Dexterity

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-kitten-fell-off-chair.jpg

Here's where things get a bit convoluted. Unlike strength, dexterity has multiple functions. It seems to be coordination, perception, mobility, and reflexes.

The second, perception, conflicts heavily with wisdom, but nonetheless the ability to dodge something (AC bonus, reflex save, etc.) requires that you're able to reliably see and asses the danger of what it is you're evading. You don't dodge a great sword like you dodge a short sword. One could argue that dexterity does include a conscious effort to evaluate. Hilarity, however, ensues when you have a creature with 1 int and 1 wis get full dex bonus to AC, yet does not possess the abilities by which to even assess that there is a present threat. Additionally, a blind person gets full dex bonus to AC, despite being unable to see. In fact, a person who lacks /all/ senses still gets full dex bonus to AC IIRC.

My nitpicking aside, I don't have any real gripes with dexterity, and it functions fairly well.


Constitution

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/funny-pictures-cat-does-imitation-of-you.jpg

I possibly consider this the second best score, accurately representing what it should. Though why concentration is a con skill is beyond me. I suppose the powers above decided that con needed a skill, and they needed to give wizards some weakness. I would have an issue with how con is closely related to will-power, but WotC beat me to it and added the well received feat Steadfast Determination.


Intelligence

http://chunx2.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/elephants.jpg

Mental stats are where things really start breaking apart. For most purposes, it can be represented as IQ for comparison by taking your score and dividing by 10, but this gets a tad ridiculous since that means there are plenty of super-genius wizards walking around.

Intelligence, RAW, is how quickly you learn things. This, I have no large quarrel wi- Okay, nevermind. I do, but not necessarily with this mechanic, as it is perfectly fine with roleplaying. An interesting note, but nothing that I would apply to D&D for sake of sanity, is the widely accepted theory of multiple intelligences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences). While the details are fudged by coffee-addicted professors with academic egos the size of the moon, it is a general consensus that there are multiple intelligences.

Using myself as an example, I can demonstrate. I fall under the umbrellas of logical-mathematical and existential intelligence extremely well. So, while I may be around average in other categories, I am certainly well above average in logical and existential.

This can be remedied by roleplaying, and not by playing jack-of-all-trades, master of all. Any reasonable DM who had a player say, "See, I have an Int score of 20, so I'm a savant in everything!" would probably invoke rule zero to summon a Tarrasque and put and end to his bragging. Mechanically, this is exactly what Int represents by giving more skill points. Classes (especially wizards) fortunately help remedy this by having cross class abilities. Though feats like able-learner just blow everything up again in a giant mess of batman-wizards who can leap tall buildings in a single bound (as opposed to multiple bounds? I never really got that).

Intelligence also is supposed to represent memory and problem-solving. But, as mentioned above, what are you problem-solving exactly? And memory doesn't necessarily have to do with how easily you comprehend things. There are documented cases of people who can remember everything that happens in their lives as living camcorders (this would drive me insane), but it doesn't mean they can comprehend everything. By the same length picking up and memorizing a mathematical formula doesn't mean you can understand it. This particularly poses an issues since characters with low intelligence are automatically penalized by RAW equally for both memory and comprehension when it should not be the case.

That said, it really isn't too much of an issue, and DMs certainly do allow you to fix the problem on your own. Munchkins People view this as one of the most valuable stats, allowing enough cheese-making fun to make Wisconson green with envy.


Wisdom

http://www.humorhound.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/patient-bear-demotivational-poster.jpg

PERCEPTION! WITS! WILL-POWER! This stat does so many things, it's like superman on steroids. One thing I do have an issue with is wits vs. will-power vs. perception. These are all terribly different things, and this stat falls into the same rut intelligence does. An increase in this increases all of these across the board. While Steadfast Determination attempts to remedy the situation, there is still the other two to deal with.

Perecption. It's the ability to notice small details. It's also insight, which seems to be strange, since this breeches into dexterity's dodge bonus to AC. Somehow, as well, juggling or catching arrows does not require perception, which I always thought was odd, but I really don't have an issue with it.

Wits. Wits is the world's smallest violin in D&D, and it is almost always covered up by metagaming. But, in the PC's defense, it's hard not to be clever when you are, in fact, clever. Most PCs become witty bombs, capable of pulling off ridiculous stunts or in the game time, able to come up with complex strategies on the fly. How do wizards who have 10 wisdom somehow figure out and cast the exact and perfect solution to a problem in a mere six seconds... :smallconfused: I digress though, this is a roleplaying issue.


Charisma

http://www.hemmy.net/images/games/linkcosplay01.jpg

This is the single most hotly debated and broken stat in the game. Technically it falls under the area of "mental". As I've made clear in an earlier post, a charisma of 8 doesn't mean you're a butt-ugly, brusque, rude, and also an unlikable derision. Pick one out of those, and leave the rest at average, or even tip them in your favor... Or so I suggest.

Here's where things get really broken: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". We simply cannot agree on what is beautiful and what is not, and so the -2 to cha for half-orcs makes absolutely no sense in the viewpoint of an orc. With that I have nothing more to add.

Charisma is by far as broken as the truenamer, and the source of enough debates to make it seem like philosophy is a trivial matter.

[Amnestic]

Charisma

This is the single most hotly debated and broken stat in the game. Technically it falls under the area of "mental". As I've made clear in an earlier post, a charisma of 8 doesn't mean you're a butt-ugly, brusque, rude, and also an unlikable derision. Pick one out of those, and leave the rest at average, or even tip them in your favor... Or so I suggest.

Here's where things get really broken: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". We simply cannot agree on what is beautiful and what is not, and so the -2 to cha for half-orcs makes absolutely no sense in the viewpoint of an orc. With that I have nothing more to add.

Charisma is by far as broken as the truenamer, and the source of enough debates to make it seem like philosophy is a trivial matter.


"Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness."

Physical Attractiveness is just one aspect of charisma. A Half-Orc's -2 to Charisma may have nothing to do with physical attractiveness - though it may do. That is likely something to be adjudicated on a personal basis rather than a racial basis.

[Sacrieur]

Physical Attractiveness is just one aspect of charisma. A Half-Orc's -2 to Charisma may have nothing to do with physical attractiveness - though it may do. That is likely something to be adjudicated on a personal basis rather than a racial basis.

See, but that could be applied to /every/ aspect of charisma. I could find the most revolting and annoying person on the planet to be charming perhaps. Or someone could.

Can you see why I really didn't comment on it much? It's all up to opinion.

[Boci]

See, but that could be applied to /every/ aspect of charisma. I could find the most revolting and annoying person on the planet to be charming perhaps. Or someone could.

Quite a few dictators got elected in some way, few were physically attrative. For the opposite, just go to hollywood.

As for strength: I think your argument on strength would be stronger if you focused on scores ranging from 6-30. As it is, all you are really saying is that the strength mechanic cannot be extrapolated to infinity without problems.

Dexterity: Blind people lose dex to AC. As for a dumb creature, their dex bonus is their instinct to get out of the way of something flying towards them.

[Sacrieur]

Quite a few dictators got elected in some way, few were physically attrative. For the opposite, just go to hollywood.

Mechanically, it doesn't work that way. Charisma is just too ambiguous between appearance, actual likableness, and manipulation imo.



As for strength: I think your argument on strength would be stronger if you focused on scores ranging from 6-30. As it is, all you are really saying is that the strength mechanic cannot be extrapolated to infinity without problems.

It really doesn't have too many problems except when you extrapolate it to insanity. Which is why it is my favorite stat - it works as intended.

One thing I didn't mention was how your ability to swing harder led to a + to hit. This could be compensated because strength does determine how fast you can swing your weapon.

[Amnestic]

See, but that could be applied to /every/ aspect of charisma. I could find the most revolting and annoying person on the planet to be charming perhaps. Or someone could.

Can you see why I really didn't comment on it much? It's all up to opinion.

So in other words, people can have different views on the same person and have different likes and dislikes? Stop the presses! :smalltongue: But really, I'm not entirely sure how that ruins Charisma as a stat.

What you did comment on was the -2 Charisma on a Half-Orc. I gave what I thought was a reasonable explanation for how that could apply without it being crazy.

[Boci]

Mechanically, it doesn't work that way. Charisma is just too ambiguous between appearance, actual likableness, and manipulation imo.

Why are you disagreeing with me? How are you disagreeing with me? All I said was there are quite a few examples of wide ranges of what charisma is suppose to represent in real life indeviduals.

[Sacrieur]

So in other words, people can have different views on the same person and have different likes and dislikes? Stop the presses! :smalltongue: But really, I'm not entirely sure how that ruins Charisma as a stat.

What you did comment on was the -2 Charisma on a Half-Orc. I gave what I thought was a reasonable explanation for how that could apply without it being crazy.

It's my job to be crazy =D

Nah, but I get it. What really ruins charisma as a stat, imo, is the unclear difference between appearance, manipulation, and likableness. While you can certainly roleplay with this respect, there are those who will disagree and even rage if you attempt to play it that way. Not that it necessarily makes it a broken stat, but the fact that RAW makes no mention of how to distinguish it, and the fact that an 8 cha decreases all three of the abilities by -1, it is a mechanically broken stat.

Certainly you may rule zero a +bonus for appearance, but by RAW, it doesn't work that way.



Why are you disagreeing with me? How are you disagreeing with me? All I said was there are quite a few examples of wide ranges of what charisma is suppose to represent in real life indeviduals.

I don't even know myself. You should probably just ignore it t_t

[Nohwl]

See, but that could be applied to /every/ aspect of charisma. I could find the most revolting and annoying person on the planet to be charming perhaps. Or someone could.

Can you see why I really didn't comment on it much? It's all up to opinion.

so are you saying it's bad that the game assumes that these traits are unattractive and puts them all into the same category? i mean, i guess you could use more stats to more accurately model what charisma is supposed to be. it's only 4 more stats added if you divide the categories into force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. if this is the case, what skills do you think each one should have if it was split up?

[Sacrieur]

so are you saying it's bad that the game assumes that these traits are unattractive and puts them all into the same category? i mean, i guess you could use more stats to more accurately model what charisma is supposed to be. it's only 4 more stats added if you divide the categories into force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. if this is the case, what skills do you think each one should have if it was split up?

I have been hinting towards this. Personally I think the way Exalted or Vampire the Masquerade does things for attributes is superb, you have 9 stats:

Strength
Dexterity
Stamina

Charisma
Manipulation
Appearance

Perception
Intelligence
Wits

[Nohwl]

i only play 3.5 d&d, can you give a short explanation to all of those stats?

[Kalim]

One thing I didn't mention was how your ability to swing harder led to a + to hit. This could be compensated because strength does determine how fast you can swing your weapon.


AC isn't purely the ability to avoid damage, it also represents mitigation by your armor, tough hide, etc.

Higher strength makes it easier to penetrate such defenses with your weapon.

[The Cat Goddess]

Charisma...

The leader of Germany during WW2 (to avoid any possible offensive words) was highly charismatic. Most world leaders who met with him personally described him as such. Eva Braun described him as being "magnetic and charming". Arguably unattractive (even by his own words), he was still known as a bit of a ladies man and natural leader in his youth... long before ever forming a political party.

[Mutazoia]

The reason why D&D Stats are broke is because quantifying a real world intangible into a structured statistic in numerical form for an arbitrary game chart is next to impossible. You can only get so close before you have to start making stuff up as you go :smallsmile:

[Mutazoia]

Charisma...

The leader of Germany during WW2 (to avoid any possible offensive words) was highly charismatic. Most world leaders who met with him personally described him as such. Eva Braun described him as being "magnetic and charming". Arguably unattractive (even by his own words), he was still known as a bit of a ladies man and natural leader in his youth... long before ever forming a political party.

Ayup. How many "fat" "ugly" guys do you see with smoking hot chicks? Or how else would you explain Jessica & Rodger Rabbit :smallbiggrin:

[Mutazoia]

i only play 3.5 d&d, can you give a short explanation to all of those stats?

*THWAK* :smallbiggrin:

**edit**
thought you were being facetious, Gomen!

[Sacrieur]

i only play 3.5 d&d, can you give a short explanation to all of those stats?

Stamina: Constitution

Charisma: likableness, leadership, etc.
Manipulation: bluffing, lying, etc.
Appearance: how you look

Perception: insight, attention to detail, etc.
Intelligence: ability to learn things, memory, etc.
Wits: thinking on the fly, adaptability, reaction in pressured situations, etc.



AC isn't purely the ability to avoid damage, it also represents mitigation by your armor, tough hide, etc.

Higher strength makes it easier to penetrate such defenses with your weapon.

Say you have an elf with a dex of 22, he gets +6 to AC and the dodge feat, so he gets +7 to AC essentially because of his ability to dodge blows. Does it make sense that a person with tremendous strength alone should be able to hit him nearly every time with a 5% miss chance?

[Mutazoia]

Mechanically, it doesn't work that way. Charisma is just too ambiguous between appearance, actual likableness, and manipulation imo.

Well Charisma was never actually suppose to represent physical attractiveness. It was meant to represent personal charm and magnetism, your force of personality and the ability to project that force to influence others.

You could always be the stunningly hansom prince charming but be a total A-hole, or be Cyrano de Bergerac who wasn't attractive at all but could woo the ladies with the greatest of ease.

Charisma (traditional RAW) gauged how many followers you could have, and so was a measure of your ability to command. Anyone who has been in the military can tell you about the difference between their grizzled D.I. and the pretty boy desk officer that couldn't command led to sink.

[Mutazoia]

Say you have an elf with a dex of 22, he gets +6 to AC and the dodge feat, so he gets +7 to AC essentially because of his ability to dodge blows. Does it make sense that a person with tremendous strength alone should be able to hit him nearly every time with a 5% miss chance?

AC is more than a measure of armor and dex...it also factors in the fact that your parrying with your own weapon. Having done some real world fighting in the SCA I can honestly say that, yes, it does make sense. Some one significantly stronger than you can power through your blocks fairly easily. The elf try's for a parry and get's his sword driven back into him. I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me. And given that D&D characters are assumed to be standing in a 5' square, they don't "dodge" all that much, otherwise it would be called running like a little beyotch, and provoke AOPS.

[ClockShock]

I have been hinting towards this. Personally I think the way Exalted or Vampire the Masquerade does things for attributes is superb, you have 9 stats:

Strength
Dexterity
Stamina

Charisma
Manipulation
Appearance

Perception
Intelligence
Wits

More stats means there's more to go wrong - more conflict, more overlap, more uneven benefits (or less even benefits - but that didn't fit my pattern).

I always quite favoured Tri-Stat. Get some big generic stats to cover the basics, then tack on the extra bits that you're particularly interested in.

Also - your issues are predominently on the mental stats. Mental prowess is something that's harder to quantify (and more reliant on the player's own abilities when it comes to gaming - which i believe you hinted at somewhere)
Also, as i understand charisma does work how you want it to. Low charisma doesn't automatically mean ugly (or rude, or impersuasive, etc), but it does mean something gets in the way of your 'force of personality'.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder means you might want to alter things slightly if your game world is less than typical. If your world is Orc dominated then maybe it's humans that should have a charisma penalty.
See tri-stat for the average score then pick a flaw/boon idea.

[Quietus]

I have been hinting towards this. Personally I think the way Exalted or Vampire the Masquerade does things for attributes is superb, you have 9 stats:

Strength
Dexterity
Stamina

Charisma
Manipulation
Appearance

Perception
Intelligence
Wits

And to look at New World of Darkness, we have :

{table]|Mental|Physical|Social
Power|Intelligence|Strength|Presence
Finesse|Wits|Dexterity|Manipulation
Resistance|Resolve|Stamina|Composure[/table]

The mental/physical/social I think is pretty straightforward. On the other axis, we have...
Power :Your brute force ability. Intelligence is used to hammer on a problem till you solve it. Strength is your sheer physical force you can bring to bear. Presence is your ability to cow someone, to overpower them socially.
Finesse : These are more a measure of how nimble you are in the related area. Wits represents your ability to think quickly and adjust to a situation. Dexterity is your fine motor control. Manipulation tells you how good you are at getting someone to think the way you do.
Resistance : These are your ability to resist the above. Resolve is your will to see something through to the end. Stamina is your body's ability to keep pushing when it's tired, and to fight off poison/disease. Composure is your ability to keep a straight face when something surprises you or catches you off guard.

.. I really like how nWoD breaks them up. I think that gives an excellent spread of abilities, and appearance isn't tied into any of them. Appearance is a purely descriptive thing, unless you buy their "Striking looks" merit, which has its own separate benefits, adding dice to certain things ranging from social situations where you can leverage your appearance (say, seduction rolls), to being recognized on the street (made easier because you're memorable).

[Nohwl]

Stamina: Constitution

Charisma: likableness, leadership, etc.
Manipulation: bluffing, lying, etc.
Appearance: how you look

Perception: insight, attention to detail, etc.
Intelligence: ability to learn things, memory, etc.
Wits: thinking on the fly, adaptability, reaction in pressured situations, etc.



some of the skills in d&d seem to fall into more than one of those categories. for example, how is a skill like diplomacy or gather information handled? i could see diplomacy fitting under wits for reacting to what the other person says/does, appearance for how your first impression on the guy goes, and and charisma for how good you are at talking to people. what about use magic device?

dividing up the stats to represent more specific things is great, but i don't really see any easy categories for some skills to fall under. then i have the question of how useful each stat is compared to the other stats. in 3.5, charisma is a dump stat unless you're like a sorcerer. even as a wizard, you want a high con (unless you take faerie mysteries initiate) and you want a decent dex to hit with rays. do you just kind of pick 3 stats or so to keep high in exalted? how does exalted make all of the stats matter equally?

[Dralnu]

This is modeled as http://www4d.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP403519f51d34bhf2hb9h00001feabb4059a3c25b?MSPSto reType=image/gif&s=56&w=62&h=20. As you can see, after about a strength score of 60, the carrying seems to shoot off like a kender within sight of a shiny coin. What does this mean? Well, that someone with 526 strength can lift the heaviest known mass in the Universe: the star R136a1, a whopping 265 solar masses.

I don't think even statted deities that I've seen have 526 Strength. Why you care about over 500 Strength scenarios is beyond me.


Additionally, a blind person gets full dex bonus to AC, despite being unable to see. In fact, a person who lacks /all/ senses still gets full dex bonus to AC IIRC.

No.
(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded)



Though why concentration is a con skill is beyond me. I suppose the powers above decided that con needed a skill, and they needed to give wizards some weakness.

This is exactly why. They failed for the most part, but this was their logic. The only thing I agree with you here is that some skills could be better represented with a different existing stat.



You don't dodge a great sword like you dodge a short sword.

...

And memory doesn't necessarily have to do with how easily you comprehend things.

...

One thing I do have an issue with is wits vs. will-power vs. perception. These are all terribly different things, and this stat falls into the same rut intelligence does.

...

Here's where things get really broken: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". We simply cannot agree on what is beautiful and what is not, and so the -2 to cha for half-orcs makes absolutely no sense in the viewpoint of an orc. With that I have nothing more to add.

...

Charisma is by far as broken as the truenamer, and the source of enough debates to make it seem like philosophy is a trivial matter.

So you're basically complaining that all stats (except for Strength for some reason) are too vague. And you find this a bad thing. Unfortunately...

That's the entire point of the D&D stats. They're meant to be vague. They give general descriptions to attributes.

You could nitpick about every stat because there's no way to encompass everything. What about people who are quick and nimble but not good at hand dexterity actions such as using ropes? What about all those fat ugly comedians who nonetheless everyone loves? What about the guy with excellent memory and can speak 50 different languages but is utterly terrible in physics? What about the guy who has a really strong right arm but really weak left arm? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkIgXlE8bSo) And on and on. D&D is assuming you're measuring the individual's best characteristic in a general attribute. Thus, the funny and lovable fat ugly person has a high Charisma. This is not bad logic and works well in the game.

You basically want more stats. That's not a fault of D&D. That's just your personal preference. And your argument on Charisma is very faulty, but others have already pointed out why.

[stainboy]

Wisdom: The best way I can think of wisdom in D&D is as raw willpower. For a character with a strong philosophical outlook (like faith in a deity), it translates into dedication to one's philosophy. It's not common sense, because then Orcus wouldn't have any clerics. It's not life experience, because I can totally play a 17-year-old monk who's lived in a remote temple her whole life.

It does, however, make you more perceptive, because a character with a strong will is more likely to be disciplined enough to pay attention.


Concentration: Concentration is Con-based because just about every caster has a 14 Con. You can't tie it to Wisdom, because then you have to set DCs based on clerics getting +5 more to it than wizards do.

It doesn't make sense, but this mechanic is busted enough already. Just roll your eyes and move on.

[Draz74]

Aside from my own system, which made the decision a couple months ago to abandon ability scores completely (they can all be portrayed via roleplaying, skills, and other mechanical choices), the system I've liked best in this arena is Old School Hack.

It contains the following ability scores:

Brawn - self-explanatory
Cunning - anything involving both physical and social aspects. Generally covers sneaking, manipulation, etc.
Charm - anything purely social. Covers convincing people to do what you want.
Awareness - again pretty self-explanatory.
Conviction - anything involving pure stubbornness. In effect it more or less becomes characters' Will Save and also the roll used in most Save Or Die scenarios.
Daring - anything involving both physical and courageous aspects. Generally covers acrobatic stunts and athletic feats.

[Quietus]

I love how you make a system to do away with ability scores, Draz... then give a list of ability scores. :smalltongue:

[Mutazoia]

I love how you make a system to do away with ability scores, Draz... then give a list of ability scores. :smalltongue:

He said he made a system with out scores, then listed another system he liked and listed scores for that system :smalltongue:

[Draz74]

He said he made a system with out scores, then listed another system he liked and listed scores for that system :smalltongue:

Ding ding ding! Somebody passed Reading Comprehension. :smallcool:

[Mutazoia]

Ding ding ding! Somebody passed Reading Comprehension. :smallcool:

I'm a fart smeller! I gradimakated the sickths grayd

[MeeposFire]

The reason why D&D Stats are broke is because quantifying a real world intangible into a structured statistic in numerical form for an arbitrary game chart is next to impossible. You can only get so close before you have to start making stuff up as you go :smallsmile:

Well they do have ways of recreating the world via math and even to extrapolate how it works using numbers. That is not the problem. The problem is that it would not work for the creation of a fun game system. Making a fun game system that is also easy to use is very difficult and may be harder than the math used in the physics to describe the universe.

[Mutazoia]

Well they do have ways of recreating the world via math and even to extrapolate how it works using numbers. That is not the problem. The problem is that it would not work for the creation of a fun game system. Making a fun game system that is also easy to use is very difficult and may be harder than the math used in the physics to describe the universe.

*blink* I thought I just said that (though in not so many words) :smallbiggrin:

[Quietus]

Ding ding ding! Somebody passed Reading Comprehension. :smallcool:

Huh. Well. Do we have an emoticon for sheepish? I could probably use one right about now.

Excuse me while I clean this egg off my face, won't you?

[Larpus]

To be fair, part of the problem is that most (all?) D&D abilities can be broken into 2+, another part is how static the system is and finally the last part is how diminishing returns you get for character augmentations.

Explaining:

Most abilities can be broken into 2+
Str and Con are overall ok, though they still have the weird points such as carry weight and Concentration.

Dex is a bit worse as it is both physical prowess and ability to aim, meaning that a character with high Dex in D&D is both an accomplished athlete and a superb shooter.

Yes, both are close abilities, but not the same. A sharpshooter won't necessarily be a martial arts god and vice-versa, ability to shoot and ability to dodge should be two different stats.

The mental stats have already been discussed, though for me the worst offender is Wis. Seriously, what is Wis supposed to be? How wise the character is? So then I cannot make a careless Druid unless I want to suck?

Again, should be at least two stats, such as Wisdom and Faith or something, both converge to determine Will; while most of its skills should be stat-free or something (can't really think of any stat that could help me see or listen to things better).

Int could be divided into Memory and Logic or something and Cha can become Manipulation, Looks (as in, chance to be liked as well as actual looks) and Acting.

D&D has static mechanics
Meaning that some skills can be used with a single ability score and that ability alone. Worst offender to me is Intimidate, which is Cha.

Sure, you can act all tough and menacing and that indeed is Cha, however you can also intimidate someone physically (thus Str) and being rational (thus Int).

There are other (all?) examples, such as Craft which is listed as an Int skill, despite also needing Dex (as you can notice in the real world).

A similar problem is how class skills are "set in stone", despite some of them making little sense, though DMs can allow new skills for the class if it makes enough sense with the character's background and playstyle.

Diminishing results
Let's face it: your character will most probably suck unless you drown him in magical gear, simply 'cus you get way too few ability, skill and feat points to spend and most of the time they don't do much.

It's really expensive to increase 2 points in a score (8 out of 20 levels) and it only gets you a meager +1 on that score and related checks, which most times mean +5% or so.

Which is a similar reason why Str increases the to-hit chance, 'cus if it didn't, melee people would suck even more as they would either be unable to hit or hit and do fizzle damage.

One possible way to go around this particular point that I cooked up a bit is to cut Str and Dex contribution to to-hit chance by half and then either ignore the flat 10 to AC or make it 5 or so instead, making BAB (aka. how well you were trained to hit stuff) be much more important.

Feats are something that I personally think that melees should get much more of, simply 'cus they're what dictate their options in combat. Not only that, but tinker with some pre-reqs to make them available to more builds, doing so could help to balance melee vs magic.

To illustrate what I mean with the pre-reqs is how many feats are just a long list of tree-like feats or how many of those require rather ridiculous numbers in scores (usually 13) when a normal human is supposed to have all 08s and how 2 points are already quite an increase.

Skill points is sort of a different beast, mainly tied to the static problem above, but coupled with some skills being useless or too situational, to the point that most people don't get them simply because they have better stuff to do with their points.

Another point here is how some classes not meant to have high Int have 2+Int as the modifier which, especially in Cleric/Paladin case, is kinda stupid considering how they're supposed to have Knowledge (religion).


So yeah, those are the problems I see in the system, though I can totally understand why the designers did what they did, since it would be hell to balance 12+ ability scores and all that.

[Draz74]

Huh. Well. Do we have an emoticon for sheepish? I could probably use one right about now.

You could try either of these: :smallredface::smalleek:

Anyway. Since you sort of asked about my system in a roundabout way, here's how CRE8 replaces the need for the classic D&D stats:

In general, Skills and Saves are determined just by your character choices (level, skill ranks, special abilities, etc.), not modified by ability modifiers.

Strength

Brawn, which covers things like breaking doors or bending metal bars or encumbrance limits, is a Skill. Having a lot of ranks in this Skill also automatically gives you minor bonuses to your natural Armor and your melee damage.

Athletics is a Skill that covers jumping, climbing, and swimming. Honestly, I never really thought modifying these skills with your Strength mod was a great fit anyway.

Larger/smaller creatures, rather than gaining bonuses/penalties to a Strength score, just plain gain a size modifier to any relevant statistics (e.g. melee damage).

Dexterity

The word "dexterity" actually means how good your fine motor control (with your hands) is -- good for threading a needle, watchmaking, lockpicking, performing surgery. Maybe even for aiming a ranged weapon. Not for dodging an attack or reacting to an incoming trap or doing a fancy flip or balancing on a tightrope.

To this end, Dexterity is a Skill in CRE8, and only works for things that actually involve motor control.

Aspects of D&D Dexterity that have to do more with your physical quickness are handled just by how good your Reflex save is, in CRE8. Initiative checks are simply a Reflex save. With the right special abilities, you can also apply your Reflex save to dodging attacks.

Acrobatic stunts are also covered by the Athletics skill I mentioned earlier, though you can only use this skill for trickier gymnastics type stuff if you have the right training (Talents).

Stealth is also a legitimate Skill, independent of the others I've mentioned.

Constitution

Most places where D&D would use your Constitution modifier, CRE8 simply calls for a Fortitude save. Or just represents your getting tired by making you lose Vitality Points or Reserve Points.

Where D&D would call for a Concentration check, CRE8 simply calls for a Willpower Save. (Concentration being modified by Constitution never really made sense anyway.)

Intelligence

Where Intelligence represents being able to grok complex, large ideas (e.g. getting out of a Maze spell), or focus your attention carefully, CRE8 simply uses a Willpower save.

Where Intelligence was used to represent book learning abilities and keenness of memory, CRE8 uses the Knowledge Skill. This skill can only be used towards knowing more specialized things if you have the appropriate Lore Talent to bolster it, so it doesn't become an uber I-know-everything skill for every character who puts ranks into it.

Where Intelligence represented craftiness with objects, such as Craft or Disable Device, it gets subsumed into the Gadgetry Skill.

Where Intelligence represented quick thinking, it's probably best represented by a Reflex save.

Where Intelligence represented being bright and clever in general (such as gaining more skill points, perhaps?), CRE8 says "just roleplay it ... or build a skills-focused character."

Intelligence got used for so many things, I'm sure I'm still missing a few ... :smalltongue:

Wisdom

Where Wisdom represented willpower, CRE8 just uses a Willpower Save. (Actually, I guess modifying Will saves was pretty much the only time D&D Wisdom did that anyway.)

Where Wisdom represented awareness, CRE8 just uses the Perception Skill.

Where Wisdom represented insight and empathy into other beings' thoughts and emotions (such as when it modified the Sense Motive skill), CRE8 uses a Wisdom Skill. (This skill in CRE8 is used for long-term social checks, such as diplomatic checks made over a long period of time to earn true loyalty from an NPC.)

Where Wisdom represented attunement to the will of the gods (e.g. bonus spells for divine casters), CRE8 offers special abilities for divine caster types to gain bonuses based on their Wisdom or Perception skills or whatever other statistics are appropriate to their particular religion.

Where Wisdom represented common sense (such as modifying Profession skills), CRE8 says "just roleplay it."

Charisma

Where Charisma represented willpower (or "force of personality" -- I don't see a difference, personally), CRE8 just uses a Willpower Save.

Where Charisma represented personal "presence," CRE8 says, "Just roleplay it. Or figure that high-level characters have more presence. Or take a special ability that lets you do something like radiate an aura."

Where Charisma represented leadership abilities, CRE8 uses the Wisdom Skill.

Where Charisma represented glibness and skill in social interactions, CRE8 mostly uses the Charisma Skill -- this is for fast-talking someone, whether or not what you're telling them happens to be true. (I'd also like to rename this skill, but here's what it's called in the current draft.)

Where Charisma represented physical attractiveness, CRE8 says "just roleplay it. Unless you're exceptionally hideously ugly or desperately gorgeous, on a near-supernatural level. Then we'll have special abilities you can take to represent those extremes."

[Solaris]

Charisma

http://www.hemmy.net/images/games/linkcosplay01.jpg

This is the single most hotly debated and broken stat in the game. Technically it falls under the area of "mental". As I've made clear in an earlier post, a charisma of 8 doesn't mean you're a butt-ugly, brusque, rude, and also an unlikable derision. Pick one out of those, and leave the rest at average, or even tip them in your favor... Or so I suggest.

Here's where things get really broken: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". We simply cannot agree on what is beautiful and what is not, and so the -2 to cha for half-orcs makes absolutely no sense in the viewpoint of an orc. With that I have nothing more to add.

Charisma is by far as broken as the truenamer, and the source of enough debates to make it seem like philosophy is a trivial matter.

In the PHB, it states this:
Half-Orc Racial Traits
+2 Strength, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma: Half-orcs are strong, but their orc lineage makes them dull and crude.

Orcs (and half-orcs) don't have low Charisma scores because they're ugly. They have Charisma penalties because they're rude, uncouth, and foul-tempered. In short, because they're generally unpleasant people to be around. I might extrapolate further that the general reason orcs don't have large tribes is because they really can't stand to be around each other (whereas dwarves may not like being around anyone else, but they suffer through it and suck it up 'cause they're dwarves and happiness is for other people).

[Sacrieur]

In the PHB, it states this:
Half-Orc Racial Traits
+2 Strength, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma: Half-orcs are strong, but their orc lineage makes them dull and crude.

Orcs (and half-orcs) don't have low Charisma scores because they're ugly. They have Charisma penalties because they're rude, uncouth, and foul-tempered. In short, because they're generally unpleasant people to be around. I might extrapolate further that the general reason orcs don't have large tribes is because they really can't stand to be around each other (whereas dwarves may not like being around anyone else, but they suffer through it and suck it up 'cause they're dwarves and happiness is for other people).

I wasn't referring to merely appearance. Mannerisms vary from culture to culture. That said, if Orcs act rude it is from a human vantage point. They're really acting as dictated by their culture.

[Larpus]

In the PHB, it states this:
Half-Orc Racial Traits
+2 Strength, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma: Half-orcs are strong, but their orc lineage makes them dull and crude.

Orcs (and half-orcs) don't have low Charisma scores because they're ugly. They have Charisma penalties because they're rude, uncouth, and foul-tempered. In short, because they're generally unpleasant people to be around. I might extrapolate further that the general reason orcs don't have large tribes is because they really can't stand to be around each other (whereas dwarves may not like being around anyone else, but they suffer through it and suck it up 'cause they're dwarves and happiness is for other people).
Doesn't really explain much tho.

I mean, it would make sense as a penalty to Diplomacy or something, but not Charisma as a whole...at least as far as I can see being rude doesn't make it harder for one to lie or intimidate others.

[stainboy]

...or affect your fitness to be a sorcerer or warlock.

[joe]

A low Charisma doesn't necessarily have to be someone who is rude, it could be someone who is really plain, or ugly, or just really awkward. When I think of a low charisma, I generally equate it to social awkwardness more than anything else. Orcs and half-orcs, by the standards of most other races, I imagine are generally pretty awkward. That's how I would perceive their penalty.

I also strongly argue against intimidation being any stat other than Charisma for the same reason. If a guy is large, but makes an ass of himself while trying to threaten you, it's generally regarded far less seriously than if a man of average build looks at you with intense eyes and makes a calm comment about how he's going to knife you and your family.

I saw earlier that someone mentioned that they favor the Tri-Stat system. I think that I can safely say I most favor this system as well. What kind of character puts a lot of points into Strength and nothing into Constitution? It makes as much sense as anything else to link them together under a single physical stat.

[Larpus]

A low Charisma doesn't necessarily have to be someone who is rude, it could be someone who is really plain, or ugly, or just really awkward. When I think of a low charisma, I generally equate it to social awkwardness more than anything else. Orcs and half-orcs, by the standards of most other races, I imagine are generally pretty awkward. That's how I would perceive their penalty.

I also strongly argue against intimidation being any stat other than Charisma for the same reason. If a guy is large, but makes an ass of himself while trying to threaten you, it's generally regarded far less seriously than if a man of average build looks at you with intense eyes and makes a calm comment about how he's going to knife you and your family.

I saw earlier that someone mentioned that they favor the Tri-Stat system. I think that I can safely say I most favor this system as well. What kind of character puts a lot of points into Strength and nothing into Constitution? It makes as much sense as anything else to link them together under a single physical stat.
Still, as Stainboy noted, a hit on Charisma affects more than just social interactions, so from a mechanic standpoint it would both make more sense and be better if it was a penalty in most (all?) Charisma-based skills and flavor text mentioning how everyone from human-like cultures think that half-orcs look awkward and ugly or something.

Again, sure it makes sense that humans think of half-orcs as ugly or weird, but how can arcane energy "think" that?

On the Intimidate deal, still, from the mechanics, it means that a Jackson Burlyarms "the bear" gets you in a grapple or is pointing a very large and sharp axe your direction and is as intimidating as Harrison Weakfist saying "hi", while John MacHandsome gives you a twitch of their eyebrow and you're crapping bricks inside your pants, which is just ridiculous.

John is acting intimidating, which is why he's using Charisma, while Jackson is not acting, he's stating what he will do to you if you don't comply, sure, it might not be in the most menacing way, but the danger is still there and very real or you never lowered your head to someone who looked considerably stronger than you in your whole life even if the guy didn't say a thing? So unless you lack self-preservation, Jackson looking stronger does make him more intimidating.

Thus, I favor different ways with different abilities of using Intimidate and other skills as well.

[stainboy]

Still, as Stainboy noted, a hit on Charisma affects more than just social interactions,

And beyond that, Charisma doesn't even primarily affect social interactions. You influence NPCs by rolling Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate. What class you are and how many skill points you have to spare has more impact on that than your Charisma score.

The thing Charisma does that people care about is innate spellcasting. Sorcerer, Bard, Warlock, Warmage, DCs for SLAs, Use Magic Device. It would be nice if races' Charisma modifiers reflected how likely they were to be innately magical, so you wouldn't get oddities like tieflings being bad warlocks.

[Larpus]

And beyond that, Charisma doesn't even primarily affect social interactions. You influence NPCs by rolling Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate. What class you are and how many skill points you have to spare has more impact on that than your Charisma score.

The thing Charisma does that people care about is innate spellcasting. Sorcerer, Bard, Warlock, Warmage, DCs for SLAs, Use Magic Device. It would be nice if races' Charisma modifiers reflected how likely they were to be innately magical, so you wouldn't get oddities like tieflings being bad warlocks.
Nice way to put it.

Another option, in case the ability decrease is due to some sort of balancing factor for when you're making raw ability checks, then you can give a bonus to skills commanded by that score that make no sense to take a dip, in the case at hand would mean that half-orcs still get a -2 Cha, but get a +1 on all Cha skills but Diplomacy, Perform and Disguise and also count as having 2 more Cha for effects of spellcasting slots, spell DCs and etc.

[Animefunkmaster]

For starters, I always assume that after level 6, realism and balance takes a back seat. After level 15 the rules and rational thought take a back seat. I am also in favor of players playing with their own knowledge and not penalizing them for low charisma, int, unless they choose to play that way.

Strength:
While noting the difference in carrying capacity and strength score is notable, your arbitrarily high strength score example is far beyond foolish, since in order to obtain such scores you are already forgoing any chance of balance or realism. You also solved your own problem stating it is the discrepancy of carrying capacity.

Dexterity:
While I can see the implications, dexterity does not affect your perception. Your example is flawed in that no such creature exists. A blind person does not get full dexterity bonus to AC, in fact the condition blind states that you lose your dexterity bonus to AC in addition to other penalties.

Constitution:
We are in agreement on concentration and its relationship to will.

Intellegence:
Your dislike of it is in what the dnd community uses to gauge their own int score and that int is too simple? This is a game we are talking about. The only problem with being a savant in everything is that knowing information is tied to a knowledge skill (which is trained only). To be a savant in everything requires at least 1 rank in each knowledge skill and a high enough score to beat out those who have max ranks.

Wisdom
If intelligence is learning things, wisdom is putting it into action. In the grand scheme of things this doesn’t do as much as other stats. High int characters will have more skill ranks in perception, con is a save and hp, dexterity is save and ac, str is easy melee damage (which the designers seemed to put more importance on). So, without a wisdom based caster, this becomes far less valuable than you give it credit.

Charisma
My personal fix for this catch all stat is to simply rename it. Charisma is SOUL. Sorcerers/favored soul can cast with it because there soul is charged with arcane/divine energies. A Cleric/Paladin’s SOUL is connected to its deity and allows direct channeling into smites or turns (also makes sense with iaijutsu). In the game world you become more beautiful as you have a higher/purer soul, while specific species have their own beauty standards. Interaction or persuasiveness is also based on soul. The problem is now that all souls aren’t created equal, but it’s a game and I feel like that’s a reasonable way to think about charisma.

[stainboy]

Intellegence:
Your dislike of it is in what the dnd community uses to gauge their own int score and that int is too simple? This is a game we are talking about. The only problem with being a savant in everything is that knowing information is tied to a knowledge skill (which is trained only). To be a savant in everything requires at least 1 rank in each knowledge skill and a high enough score to beat out those who have max ranks.


D&D doesn't need to model savants with just Intelligence score. I'd have a high int if I was a D&D character, but I couldn't learn Icelandic in a week. I couldn't learn Icelandic in a week with +2 Artisan's Tools, I couldn't learn Icelandic in a week with a musician singing the whole time, I couldn't learn Icelandic in a week with an army of Noam Chomsky clones making Aid Another checks at me.

So Daniel Tammet (who did learn Icelandic in a week) doesn't just have a higher Learn Icelandic modifier than I do. He has a special ability to let him make the roll at all.

If you had to build this in D&D I'd call it a template or psionics or both. (Edit: try to read this in a way that doesn't sound like I'm saying savants in real life are either not human or some kind of wizard.)

[Otomodachi]

[CENTER]tTotMA: that Time of the Month Again

... Though feats like able-learner just blow everything up again in a giant mess of batman-wizards who can leap tall buildings in a single bound (as opposed to multiple bounds? I never really got that). ...


I think that is supposed to refer to the fact that he does it from a standing start, not a running one, which is much more impressive.

[Sacrieur]

I think that is supposed to refer to the fact that he does it from a standing start, not a running one, which is much more impressive.

Hardly, vertical and horizontal velocities are separate. Taking a running start won't increase your vertical leap.

[Otomodachi]

Well, I hate to use allegory but I did high jump in high school and in my experience it is much easier to do that when you have a moving start than when just standing still.

[Sacrieur]

Well, I hate to use allegory but I did high jump in high school and in my experience it is much easier to do that when you have a moving start than when just standing still.

Me too, but such is purely psychological.

[CIDE]

I'd have to disagree with the assessment from earlier about Strength > Dex. It's all about technique. A proper technique (and I've seen this many times in my life time of martial arts training) can allow even a 100 lb girl deflect the blow from a 300 lb body building man.

Yes, that even applies to the proper usage of weapons too.

But I wouldn't expect a stats system like this to get everything correct.

ALSO! The Charisma thing is DEFINITELY a killer to my Troll character. Sure, he's ugly as sin but he's a speaker (You'd think being a Cleric he should be). BUT I end up getting screwed because everyone else in my party somehow has 20+ charisma at level 4 leaving me in the dust scratching my head.

[Treblain]

My biggest problem with the stats is Constitution. Casters are supposed to be fragile, but all their low HD means is that they have more incentive to put points in CON. Since casters are SAD otherwise, this leads to all spellcasters being tougher than the MAD warriors. Try explaining that through a simulationist view.

Casters having high Constitution is clearly not what the designers intended. As with many issues, they were probably still operating on outdated concepts from earlier editions, like "roll 3d6 for stats, in that order". New players who play wizards don't focus on CON, because they think they're supposed to be squishy wizards who hide behind the fighters.

[Snowbluff]

This OP is so obnoxious I don't know where to begin...

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Thread necromancy.