PDA

View Full Version : System Idea: Flexible Attributes



Easy_Lee
2015-06-05, 01:04 PM
This is an idea which I got from Magic Myrmidon and the Legend game system. It was further refined by this post, which highlights an issue I have with the current stat system and racial stat bonuses: limited player choice and encouraged race selection.



What I'd actually like to see instead of blowing away attribute bonuses is for a way to make classes viable at having another primary stat. Much like how you can build a dex fighter or a strength fighter and they are comparable but have different strength/weaknesses. Just with the ability to do it with more stats on more classes.

Like if you could make a int based fighter and because of subclass choices you unique options that made you optimal as a fighter but distinct from a classic strength based fighter.

That way you have the Half-orc fighter that mauls people with brute force and the gnome fighter that uses tricks and outwits people but can't match his brute strength.

The idea is to create a system where each player can choose his class' primary statistics.

Goals and Assumptions
This system should fix the problem that some races are better at certain classes than other races are. It should allow more flexibility for players, allowing one to make a smart warrior, a strong monk, a thuggish rogue, or similar.

This system assumes that no attribute is better than any other, and thus that changing which attributes a class excels in should not affect balance.

Flexible Attributes
This optional system can be chosen by the DM. Each player may choose their class' two primary attributes.

Players choose one attribute which controls attack rolls with weapons, one which controls AC, and one which controls supernatural abilities (spell casting and similar) if applicable. These are the player's attack attribute (AA), defense attribute (DA), and supernatural attribute (SA). These do not affect requirements for armor, whether a weapon qualifies as finesse, or similar, and do not change the attributes associated with each skill. The following rules apply:

At least two attributes must be selected in total, but the same attribute can be used twice. For example, one might select Wisdom as the attack and defense attribute, and Intellect as the supernatural attribute.
If a player has an unarmored AC ability which uses two attributes, such as monks and barbarians have, then this now uses the two chosen attributes.
You may only choose an SA if you have supernatural abilities.
CON limitation: constitution cannot be chosen unless the class is already proficient in CON saving throws (barbarians, sorcerers, fighters), and can only be used for DA. This is because CON controls HP and concentration, and would be too obvious of a choice for caster DA and SA. That said, the existing classes with this proficiency should not be nerfed.
The DM must approve choices.
*Optional: Only mental attributes (INT, CHA, or WIS) can be used for SA.
*Optional: DA now controls HP progression and concentration checks, CON limitation removed.
*Optional: rogues and fighters may choose the same attribute for DA and AA even if they have no SA. This is because rogues and fighters can already do this with DEX. The CON limitation still applies.

Upon choosing two attributes, the player character gains the following benefits.

AA will be used in place of strength or dexterity for weapon attack and damage rolls made by this character, regardless of weapon used.
For unarmored AC, light armor, and medium armor, DA replaces dexterity.
For supernatural abilities, such as spell DCs/attacks and spells known/prepared, the wisdom portion of a monk's unarmored AC and that monk's stunning fist DC, Paladin auras, and similar, SA replaces the current attribute.
Optional: The player's class' two saving throw proficiencies change to the selected attributes. If three attributes were chosen, the player picks two of them.1

Examples
John wants to play a strong, smart monk. He selects STR for AA and INT for DA and SA. His unarmored AC becomes 10+INT+STR. His stunning fist DC is 8+prof+INT. His unarmed attacks deal Martial Arts Die + STR.

Jane wants to play a wise, tough sorcerer. She chooses WIS for AA and SA and CON for DA. Her mage armor AC is 13+CON. Her spell attacks use prof+WIS for their to-hit bonus and 8+prof+WIS for their DC.

Abrahim wants to play a charismatic, dashing fighter. He chooses DEX for his DA and CHA for his AA. He has no supernatural abilities, so he doesn't choose an SA. His attacks deal weapon die + CHA damage. His medium armor AC is armor + up to two points of DEX, same as usual. At level 3, he decides to take Eldritch Knight. He now declares CHA as his SA, and uses it for spell attacks and DCs.

Advantages
No race is better than others at a specific class. Race choice is no longer limited (or encouraged) by class choice. Skill selection is no longer encouraged or discouraged by class choice.

1Since not all saves come up equally often in the MM, it may not be balanced to allow players to choose their own. DMs may take action, ensuring that all saves come up equally often. For less proactive DMs, this rule should not be used.
Feedback much appreciated.

JNAProductions
2015-06-05, 01:32 PM
I love it. I love it!

I am going to use the bleeping-bleep out of this.

I love it!

whibla
2015-06-05, 01:37 PM
Very interesting.

It does seem to boost Gish types (specifically Eldritch Knight in your example) though, by making them less MAD.

I'm not sure if this was intentional, or merely a side effect.

VoxRationis
2015-06-05, 01:39 PM
I feel that the ability scores should have additional meaning besides skills, unless you're going to also make a very robust skill system to go along with this. Otherwise, there's little point in actually calling them STR and DEX and whatnot instead of just DA, AA, and SA.

Also, it mentions "whether a weapon counts as finesse or not," implying that finesse is still a meaningful characteristic, but later says that "AA will be used in place of strength or dexterity for weapon attack and damage rolls, regardless of weapon used," obviating the main definition of "finesse."

pwykersotz
2015-06-05, 01:42 PM
It's not a system I'm likely to use anytime soon, but I like it a lot. It reduces perceived MAD and for a tiny bit of extra effort, allows a class to be substantially more customizable. I like your Con stipulations, those are very well dealt with.

I think it's solid enough to playtest. Very nice. :smallsmile:

DireSickFish
2015-06-05, 01:42 PM
Glad my post got you thinking. Seems like this could work to alleviate the issues a lot of people have with racial bonuses without taking away a races unique strengths.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-05, 01:57 PM
I was aware of the EK buff, though I'm unsure what (if anything) should be done about it. It could save EKs about 4 to 6 stat points, and do the same for other medium armor Gish types.


I feel that the ability scores should have additional meaning besides skills, unless you're going to also make a very robust skill system to go along with this. Otherwise, there's little point in actually calling them STR and DEX and whatnot instead of just DA, AA, and SA.

Also, it mentions "whether a weapon counts as finesse or not," implying that finesse is still a meaningful characteristic, but later says that "AA will be used in place of strength or dexterity for weapon attack and damage rolls, regardless of weapon used," obviating the main definition of "finesse."

I do like the idea of more skills, although the current system is fairly comprehensive if not varied (every skill has lots of applications). Finesse was meant to remain meaningful for rogue SA and similar, but not attacks. A gnomish fighter swinging a longsword with DEX was what I imagined.

JNAProductions
2015-06-05, 02:03 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't even bother with that. A Greatsword Rogue is only +2 damage per turn over a Rapier Rogue, and they already have Reach with a Whip.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-05, 02:05 PM
I love this system. I really, REALLY hope I can convince any DMs I have to use this. It makes character concepts easier to fulfill. Thanks very much for putting the effort in for this! And for mentioning me with it. Makes me feel pretty good to be associated with this. :)

I also particularly like that you included the optional rule where HP is determined by DA, and the Con stipulation is removed. In fact, the inclusion of optional rules within an optional rule is something I really like. Good on you for that.

Confused about this part, though:


Skill selection is no longer limited by class choice.

Do you just mean that classes can more freely choose attributes associated with the skills you want, or am I missing something?

Kurald Galain
2015-06-05, 02:08 PM
I feel that the ability scores should have additional meaning besides skills, unless you're going to also make a very robust skill system to go along with this. Otherwise, there's little point in actually calling them STR and DEX and whatnot instead of just DA, AA, and SA.

Yes, that.

Basically, your system makes all characters mechanically identical, just with different fluff (and class features, of course). While that's certainly balanced, you might as well just drop the rules entirely and use freeform instead.

TheTeaMustFlow
2015-06-05, 02:13 PM
Very nice, reminds me of Legend. (I really need to persuade someone to run that sometime)

Easy_Lee
2015-06-05, 02:36 PM
Do you just mean that classes can more freely choose attributes associated with the skills you want, or am I missing something?

Basically that, yes. Right now, a fighter with high social scores or a monk with a strong athletics score are not particularly likely. I aimed to allow classed to choose their stats and, thus, which skills they can focus without extreme MADness.

Mcdt2
2015-06-05, 02:46 PM
I like it, although I feel you should really make a way for the different ability scores to be more relevant, even when they aren't your AA/DA/SA. Either make the skill system much more comprehensive, or steal another page from Legend and make the stats have unique attributes as well (such as how your damage is there is your KOM (or AA, in this system) plus 1/2 your Strength)



Very nice, reminds me of Legend. (I really need to persuade someone to run that sometime)

I've been meaning to get together a game of Legend, and finally get a chance to actually play it for an extended period of time. I have a campaign in mind that would involve two groups of players controlling separate parties and affecting the world for the other, but I haven't really fleshed it out and it would be tricky to run. Alternately, I've been considering running a conversion of Red Hand of Doom, and I've mostly got that set up. Anyhow, don't want to derail this thread any, so if you or anyone else is interested, feel free to PM me.

JNAProductions
2015-06-05, 02:52 PM
Str-Half mod to damage rolls
Dex-Half mod to AC (up to +1 in Medium Armor, does not apply for Heavy Armor)
Con-Half mod to physical saves
Int-Half mod to attack rolls
Wis-Half mod mental saves
Cha-Not sure what to have for this

Vogonjeltz
2015-06-05, 04:10 PM
No race is better than others at a specific class. Race choice is no longer limited (or encouraged) by class choice. Skill selection is no longer limited by class choice.

Thoughts?

Everyone would just choose to play a Mountain Dwarf which gets +4 attributes, which is qualitatively better than the Other dwarf that gets +3 attributes. Because they could select the same attribute twice, they could easily play a Fighter better than anyone (guaranteeing they have maximum str and con earlier) and have more feats as a result.

Thus the Mountain Dwarf would be the best Fighter possible under the proposed system, others need not apply. (easy max con, able to select con as defensive and supernatural trait, and easy max str).

Takewo
2015-06-05, 04:29 PM
Well, aye, but that's because the Mountain Dwarf ought to be removed completely from the game. +2 Strength and proficiency with light and medium armours? That's even worse/lazier than humans!

Wartex1
2015-06-05, 04:33 PM
Everyone would just choose to play a Mountain Dwarf which gets +4 attributes, which is qualitatively better than the Other dwarf that gets +3 attributes. Because they could select the same attribute twice, they could easily play a Fighter better than anyone (guaranteeing they have maximum str and con earlier) and have more feats as a result.

Thus the Mountain Dwarf would be the best Fighter possible under the proposed system, others need not apply. (easy max con, able to select con as defensive and supernatural trait, and easy max str).

Actually, that wouldn't be a problem. Fighters tend to use Medium or Heavy armor. In this case, the defensive attribute still wouldn't help that much, since Heavy Armor doesn't apply the bonus and Medium caps at +2 (or +3 with the feat). Either way, you end up with an AC of 18, but one way used an ASI, while the other one didn't.

Wartex1
2015-06-05, 05:23 PM
The only problem with this that I see with this is that two of the stats that you choose become your saving throws. I think it should stick to the class's default saving throws. This way, you prevent someone having two good saves (WIS, CON, DEX) instead of only one.

Steampunkette
2015-06-05, 06:38 PM
I agree with Wartex. Keep the saves where they are. Letting people move those around gives players a much larger impact on oppositional balance against NPCs.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-05, 07:06 PM
The only problem with this that I see with this is that two of the stats that you choose become your saving throws. I think it should stick to the class's default saving throws. This way, you prevent someone having two good saves (WIS, CON, DEX) instead of only one.

I agree with Wartex. Keep the saves where they are. Letting people move those around gives players a much larger impact on oppositional balance against NPCs.

Little as I like it, it's certainly true that WoTC did not do a complete job balancing the saves. Some come up more often than others. Ideally, the DM is aware of that and makes modifications as needed, so all saves come up just as often. In practice, this may not be the case.

I will update the OP so that the saves bit is optional.

Wartex1
2015-06-05, 07:12 PM
Well, WotC did balance the saves. But they did so by having primary and secondary saves.

Steampunkette
2015-06-05, 07:12 PM
Other option: NPCs and Monsters get the same treatment and can play with their stats and saves. Tons more work for the DM but it could maintain oppositional balance if guidelines are followed.

Mjolnirbear
2015-06-05, 11:07 PM
Str-Half mod to damage rolls
Dex-Half mod to AC (up to +1 in Medium Armor, does not apply for Heavy Armor)
Con-Half mod to physical saves
Int-Half mod to attack rolls
Wis-Half mod mental saves
Cha-Not sure what to have for this

Strength--half mod to physical damage rolls
Charisma--half mod to supernatural damage rolls.

Actually I would do this:

STR--1/2 bonus to phys. dmg rolls
Dex-- 1/2 bonus to phys. attack rolls
Con--1/2 bonus to phys saves.
Int--1/2 bonus to supernatural attacks
Wis-- 1/2 to mental saves
Cha-- 1/2 to supernatural damage

Mjolnirbear
2015-06-05, 11:17 PM
In addition to the above:

Strength controls carry capacity
Dex adds 1/2 bonus to reactions
Con controls concentration
Int adds 1/2 bonus to # of skills
Wis adds bonus to initiative (alertness)
Cha adds 1/2 bonus to spells known or spells prepared

Or something like that?

Wartex1
2015-06-05, 11:22 PM
I don't like giving each stat its bonuses other than skills/checks in this system because it causes it to fail what it was trying to do. If STR gives an extra bonus to damage, then Fighters are still going to pump STR for that extra damage or DEX for that bonus to hit.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-06, 12:24 AM
I get that, wartex. In my experience with Legend, though, people don't really pump strength all that often for the damage, just because the payoff is pretty low. You have to invest quite a bit before you get any benefit for a +1 to damage. 14 is rather large in 5e's point buy, for example.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure adding secondary effects to the scores is really necessary in 5e, because of the way saves work. Also the way skills work. Due to bounded accuracy, having a big number in a stat will do a decent amount in terms of secondary benefits of scores.

Steampunkette
2015-06-06, 02:37 AM
This system kind of hearkens back to one of the things I liked about 4e. Wizards using Int to Bend Bars and Lift Gates with magic that was not important enough to describe as a spell.

SouthpawSoldier
2015-06-06, 02:47 AM
Yet another subscription to an Easy_Lee thread added to my list.

I dig this. I liked what I read in Legend, and I love the idea of playing a functional INT fighter.

ronlugge
2015-06-06, 10:06 PM
Question:

From a flavor point of view, how do you justify someone swinging a greataxe or greatsword around using intelligence as an attack attribute?

If the 'attack attribute' only applied to finesse (and potentially ranged) weapons, I'd be a lot more comfortable, but with 'great' or 'heavy' weapons, the idea that strength isn't the primary stat weirds me out.

Steampunkette
2015-06-06, 10:31 PM
Eldritch Knight. Strength of 8, Intelligence of 20. Swinging a Greataxe.

No hands on the greataxe, using telekinetic force to sweep it around in a dangerous manner while making arcane gestures with both hands to control it's weight.

ronlugge
2015-06-06, 10:40 PM
In other words, it's up to the player to come up with a good justification for using an 'odd' stat like dex or wisdom to do something like that.

Works for me.

mephnick
2015-06-06, 11:23 PM
Basically, your system makes all characters mechanically identical, just with different fluff (and class features, of course).

Agreed. Not for me, but a good thought exercise regardless.

VoxRationis
2015-06-06, 11:31 PM
Eldritch Knight. Strength of 8, Intelligence of 20. Swinging a Greataxe.

No hands on the greataxe, using telekinetic force to sweep it around in a dangerous manner while making arcane gestures with both hands to control it's weight.

That's great (for an Eldritch Knight, anyway; we might have problems for other sorts of fighters), but can they use those telekinetic abilities for purposes other than swinging a greataxe? If not, we have an immersion problem.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-06, 11:53 PM
Question:

From a flavor point of view, how do you justify someone swinging a greataxe or greatsword around using intelligence as an attack attribute?

If the 'attack attribute' only applied to finesse (and potentially ranged) weapons, I'd be a lot more comfortable, but with 'great' or 'heavy' weapons, the idea that strength isn't the primary stat weirds me out.

You could imagine it as a supernatural force, as Steam said. Or, you could recognize that swinging those two particular weapons, at least in real life, doesn't actually depend that much on one's strength. Blades cut by being pushed or dragged along a surface, while axes chop by being swung at the right angle and into the right place. Strength doesn't need to have much to do with either, and would make more sense if you merely needed a minimum score to use specific weapons. Having one's intelligence and experience be the deciding factors in a fight actually makes a lot of real world sense.

Or you could see it as a fighting style. Strong fighters are raging frenzies, while intelligent fighters are patient and calculating. Charismatic fighters make lots of taunts and flourishes, while wise fighters predict their opponent's moves ahead of time. And dexterous fighters are just too quick.

Or you could just see it as a necessary thing, to allow balance between the 8 foot goliath and 3 foot gnome.

Lots of explanations will work here.

Steampunkette
2015-06-07, 01:13 AM
That's great (for an Eldritch Knight, anyway; we might have problems for other sorts of fighters), but can they use those telekinetic abilities for purposes other than swinging a greataxe? If not, we have an immersion problem.

Cantrips exist for a reason. Call it a cantrip.

A very narrowly defined cantrip that allows him to telekinetically move weapons and is part of the "Ready Weapon" action.

Immersion restored.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-07, 02:03 AM
Just tossing it out there: One of my favorite explanations of Int attack/defense is the Sherlock Holmes "plan out the attack, then execute" from the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock movies.

VoxRationis
2015-06-07, 03:03 AM
You could imagine it as a supernatural force, as Steam said. Or, you could recognize that swinging those two particular weapons, at least in real life, doesn't actually depend that much on one's strength. Blades cut by being pushed or dragged along a surface, while axes chop by being swung at the right angle and into the right place. Strength doesn't need to have much to do with either, and would make more sense if you merely needed a minimum score to use specific weapons. Having one's intelligence and experience be the deciding factors in a fight actually makes a lot of real world sense.

Or you could see it as a fighting style. Strong fighters are raging frenzies, while intelligent fighters are patient and calculating. Charismatic fighters make lots of taunts and flourishes, while wise fighters predict their opponent's moves ahead of time. And dexterous fighters are just too quick.

Or you could just see it as a necessary thing, to allow balance between the 8 foot goliath and 3 foot gnome.

Lots of explanations will work here.

Poppycock. Show a waifish pop singer and an athlete how to hold a sword and give it to them; I have no doubt the pop singer's "flourishes" will be of no avail to them. A 4-6' piece of metal with much of its weight at extension demands a certain force to use properly.

And Steam? You can't just have everything be a cantrip, not in a system that includes numerous abilities and situations that intersect with magic but not with normal weapon use. Does using this cantrip set off Mage Slayer? Does the fighter (who, if he's not an EK, apparently learned at the army barracks how to hold a weapon with telekinetic force, but not any other bit of magic that might be useful to a recruit on the march) still get his Int bonus in an antimagic field? What happens if someone pegs him with dispel magic?

There are lots of ways that a well-designed system could have the other ability scores contribute to combat in meaningful ways (and this is a valid goal), but if it does so at the expense of disregarding the actual physical ability to use the weapons in question, it ceases to become a well-designed system.

Steampunkette
2015-06-07, 03:17 AM
In other words you dislike the system and intend to tear apart any lore explanation for any use of it because your idea of realism trumps anyone else's imaginative fantasy?

Sure it'll work for you, but it's not an argument that's going to matter much to anyone else who wants the imaginative fantasy.

If you've got a crunch reason that it won't work that's fine and I'll try to figure out a way to balance the rules out. But if you're just going to spend your time asking for the exact specifications on how Superman can fly and refuse to accept that he can without them I'm just not gonna bother.

As for dispel magic/antimagic field I just can't muster up an entire "give a darn" for you. It's a narrative element for style. An abstraction like HP or AC to describe a game-mechanic which is designed to reduce MAD and Concept-Locking.

Kurald Galain
2015-06-07, 04:58 AM
That's great (for an Eldritch Knight, anyway; we might have problems for other sorts of fighters), but can they use those telekinetic abilities for purposes other than swinging a greataxe? If not, we have an immersion problem.

Well, yes. The nice part of a system like this is that it's always pretty easy to make up a description for anything. The downside is that such descriptions tend to either contradict what the mechanic actually does, or contradict other parts of the world.

For example, suppose you have a magical sword that's enchanted to chop off people's heads (thus killing them). And then you wield this against a creature without a head. Now there are two approaches.

Well, it probably chops up something else or whatever, but the creature is dead anyway. After all, the sword's mechanics are balanced towards killing stuff, and it wouldn't be fair if that didn't work.
Tough luck, you can't chop off the head of a creature that doesn't have one, so in this fight your sword's enchantment doesn't work. Try something else.


These two are pretty much mutually exclusive. Fans of the first tend to misunderstand the second; fans of the second tend to dislike the first.

pwykersotz
2015-06-07, 10:35 AM
Or you could see it as a fighting style. Strong fighters are raging frenzies, while intelligent fighters are patient and calculating. Charismatic fighters make lots of taunts and flourishes, while wise fighters predict their opponent's moves ahead of time. And dexterous fighters are just too quick.

Or you could just see it as a necessary thing, to allow balance between the 8 foot goliath and 3 foot gnome.

Lots of explanations will work here.

This is a fun thought exercise. :smallsmile:

This flexible system and the ideas behind it lead pretty easily into creating a "fighting style system" for the game. First, assume that instead of being locked in, you can choose your attribute for attack. Maybe round-by-round, maybe it takes a couple rounds or a minute, or a short/long rest. That attribute could be matched against the defender's defense attribute used to create either resistance or vulnerability. Insert a couple ways to analyze another's fighting style, and you've got a pretty simplistic system that you can build upon.

You could use a rock-paper-scissors style or you could just have ability checks rolled using the score as the DC with advantage if your fighting style is strong. All sorts of ways exist to do this. One idea:

Strength beats Charisma
Dexterity beats Wisdom
Constitution beats Intelligence
Intelligence beats Strength
Wisdom beats Constitution
Charisma beats Dexterity

Fun to think about. :smallsmile:

Takewo
2015-06-07, 11:01 AM
Poppycock. Show a waifish pop singer and an athlete how to hold a sword and give it to them; I have no doubt the pop singer's "flourishes" will be of no avail to them. A 4-6' piece of metal with much of its weight at extension demands a certain force to use properly.

Quoted straight from http://www.thearma.org/essays/Longsword_Differs_From_Modern_Fencing.html#.VXRpQY Vj0jg (which is an organisation that studies medieval weaponry and fencing):


Longswords were never usually more than 3 or 4 pounds.

And elsewhere they have an article talking about two handed swords in general (by the way, just so you guys know, a longsword is basically a two handed sword, whatever the WotC want us to believe) where is says that the weight is percectly balanced at the point where hilt and blade meet. Swords, especially two handed swords, were expensive weapons and required a good artisan to make them properly.

Oh yeah, and neither the athlete nor the pop singer would be able to use the sword properly without proper training. But both would be able to hold it and make a blow.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-07, 11:30 AM
Poppycock. Show a waifish pop singer and an athlete how to hold a sword and give it to them; I have no doubt the pop singer's "flourishes" will be of no avail to them. A 4-6' piece of metal with much of its weight at extension demands a certain force to use properly.

There are lots of ways that a well-designed system could have the other ability scores contribute to combat in meaningful ways (and this is a valid goal), but if it does so at the expense of disregarding the actual physical ability to use the weapons in question, it ceases to become a well-designed system.

I think you're confusing physics as authors and movie directors understand it with real world physics. Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OIjpLSaYQ

The idea that swordsmen need to be strong while archers do not is backwards. A swordsman can pick up a sword and, if he's skilled, draw or push the 3-4 pound piece of metal across a vital part of his opponent and cause a wound. Even in full armor (which wasn't as heavy as hollywood directors and Crawford think it was), stabbing through that armor is more a factor of leverage and having the right weapons than strength, see half-swording. Also see the design of a rondel (http://www.weapons-universe.com/Cheap-Weapons/Pakistan-Medieval-Rondel-Dagge-7892.jpg) dagger, which would have been used to get through armor. Notice that it's long and thin, and has a nice disk on the back to hit with the other hand and force it through a gap in someone's armor.

Compare that to the amount of strength needed to actually draw an 80 pound bow. You gotta build up the forearm and back muscles to do it, which will take time, and the supporting muscles to steady the shot. That's what it takes to put a piddly little arrow through someone's padded mail armor. A weak person could handle a hunting bow, but not a war bow.

Real world fighting is much different from D&D fighting. In fact, D&D writers in general have a horrendous habit of messing up even basic things. Case in point, some of you may have had a go with City of Danger (http://heyevent.com/event/c2gxwhlab4o4ka/dd-expeditions-city-of-danger) by now. Sat in on a game for this one the other day. There's a part in that adventure where you're supposed to climb down a 150 foot hole. Climbing down the hole requires a DC 15 athletics check every 50 yards. Bear in mind that this was made for levels 1-2. Not bad enough? Having the presence of mind to bring 150 feet of rope only grants advantage. Your battle-hardened, athletic adventurers have to pass three DC 15 athletics checks to climb DOWN a rope. A rogue with 12 strength and athletics expertise is more likely than not to fail to climb down that rope without falling.

Does that seem weird to you? That's because D&D writers, in general, have about as much familiarity with real-world physics and athleticism as they have with picking up women at a bar.

JNAProductions
2015-06-07, 11:34 AM
On topic, I built Noximilleon (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=233300), a Strength and Constitution based Warlock. His Eldritch Blast is him physically hurling orbs of force, and his AC is just raw toughness. (Armor of Shadows will simply layer magic within his muscles, if I get that.)

VoxRationis
2015-06-07, 12:57 PM
I think you're confusing physics as authors and movie directors understand it with real world physics.

The idea that swordsmen need to be strong while archers do not is backwards. A swordsman can pick up a sword and, if he's skilled, draw or push the 3-4 pound piece of metal across a vital part of his opponent and cause a wound. Even in full armor (which wasn't as heavy as hollywood directors and Crawford think it was), stabbing through that armor is more a factor of leverage and having the right weapons than strength, see half-swording. Also see the design of a rondel (http://www.weapons-universe.com/Cheap-Weapons/Pakistan-Medieval-Rondel-Dagge-7892.jpg) dagger, which would have been used to get through armor. Notice that it's long and thin, and has a nice disk on the back to hit with the other hand and force it through a gap in someone's armor.

Compare that to the amount of strength needed to actually draw an 80 pound bow. You gotta build up the forearm and back muscles to do it, which will take time, and the supporting muscles to steady the shot. That's what it takes to put a piddly little arrow through someone's padded mail armor. A weak person could handle a hunting bow, but not a war bow.


I'm not arguing with you about the need for strength for bow use. I'm in complete agreement there. On a different thread bandying about the idea of ability score prerequisites for weapons, I was the one who pointed out that bows should have a Strength requisite, not crossbows (or at least, the crossbows should have much lower requirements). But it's silly to insist that one's athletic prowess is unrelated to swordfighting. Say you're going up against someone your match in every way, except stronger. This guy can put more force, more acceleration, behind every blow, making his swings faster and more difficult to parry (not impossible, since the parrying is unlikely to be head-on confrontation, but more difficult—you need to react faster and with more effort). You're unlikely to win this fight.
And since your system allows for ignoring Dexterity as well, all that stuff about "vital spots" and "leverage" are irrelevant. I could build my pop-singer fighter to have a crappy Dexterity as well—poor reflexes, maybe a case of the shakes from alcoholism, what have you—and under the system as you suggested it, that won't have a deleterious impact on his or her swordfighting. But obviously Dexterity is important—you just pointed out two examples of how it is. If J-Doe the swashbuckling pop singer can barely pick themselves off the ground in the morning and have no hand-eye coordination and crappy reflexes, all the good looks and singing is going to avail them naught in a fight.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-07, 01:11 PM
On topic, I built Noximilleon (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=233300), a Strength and Constitution based Warlock. His Eldritch Blast is him physically hurling orbs of force, and his AC is just raw toughness. (Armor of Shadows will simply layer magic within his muscles, if I get that.)

That's awesome. I particularly like the Armor of Shadows description. Nice refluffing work.

Steampunkette
2015-06-07, 01:18 PM
Remember: The Pop Singer in this example is trained with a longsword. They have proficiency, just like the strength fighter. They're just trained in a more flashy style designed to get your enemy to try to deflect an attack that isn't coming while you stab them where they aren't defended. If they're using Charisma to AC compared to Dexterity then you're looking at someone who doesn't bother to dodge, they just convince you to swing where they aren't. I.E. A Squirrel's big bushy tail being attacked by a predator instead of the meaty squirrel bit.

In other words, Charisma Fighters Feint while stabbing from another angle while Strength Fighters swing hard and Dexterity Fighters slip into openings. Intelligent Fighters overextend their enemies and Wisdom Fighters are aware of their surroundings and their enemy's footing.

As for the amount of force used: 4 pounds per square inch. That's all it takes to get through flesh. And it doesn't take much more force than that to get into Arterial Spray, which is swift death.

You just have to not get hit by the wide swinging arc of a longsword long enough to slip your own blade between ribs.

Thrudd
2015-06-07, 01:52 PM
This idea (flexible attributes) is not appropriate for D&D as the game is now. The whole point of attributes in this game is that they inform the player's choice of class, because each class depends on specific attributes.

There is no point in even having different attributes and classes if you can use any attribute to perform any task, and every class can be equally good at anything.

It actually reminds me of Feng Shui. In that game, there are lots of character archetypes with different flavors, but the basic mechanic boils down to a single numerical value used for both attack and defense. Some archetypes use guns for that value, some use martial arts, some use magic or supernatural creature powers. The only difference is how you describe the character's actions, mechanically they are all identical. This is a game about describing cool cinematic action scenes, there are no limits on what the character can do other than the pass/fail of the dice roll.

Resource management is a big element of D&D. The generation or selection of attribute values and character class is a part of that. Options for players are rightly limited, because part of the point of the game is making choices that have real impact on the character and the game. just picking a "flavor" that has no mechanical benefits or drawbacks compared to other choices is not really meaningful.

If you want D&D to be more like Feng Shui, or Fate, or some other cinematic game we can do that, but it really wouldn't be the same game anymore.

Steampunkette
2015-06-07, 02:05 PM
Changing the attributes around has no effect on resources. You're still limited by action economy, spell slots, uses per rest, ki points, or whatever other resources your class has. Using your Wisdom to make attack rolls or your constitution to determine your damage on an Axe Swing doesn't impact that. (See 4e's axes and hammers versus swords, daggers, and polearms)

If I create a fighter that uses Charisma for attack and damage rolls, what is, really, changing? My character will be less good at physical situations and better at social situations. She'll have a lowered carrying capacity as well. Better saves against mental effects and worse ones against physical effects.

And that's... basically all that changes. I'm still playing a fighter with Second Wind and Action Surges and 4 attacks a round. But I get to be the party face if there's no other high charisma character. How is that, in any way, a negative impact on the game?

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-07, 02:19 PM
What Steam said. Also, why do the attributes have to inform the player's choice of class? Back in 3.5, and even in 5e, I see plenty of people come to these forums asking to make a Charisma cleric or an Int fighter or a Strength warlock work. Unfortunately, those character concepts are rarely going to be very effective, because certain abilities are (unnecessarily, in my opinion) tied to specific attributes. There's clearly a common desire to make a character that has the abilities of a class, but with attributes that communicate a character that is different than most of the class.

As for the pointlessness of attributes if you can use anything for anything... well... you can't do that. Skills are still tied to attributes, and in a system with bounded accuracy, the bonuses from attributes are always going to be relevant. Simply having a good intelligence with a fighter means they'll know a decent amount of information, even without proficiency in knowledge skills. Although I may suggest making things even more open, and just letting classes choose any skills, as long as the number of trained skills is the same. And the saves are still going to come up, which means attributes are important for that. Finally, simple stuff like shoving over boulders or remembering stuff that is just a "strength check" or "intelligence check" calls on the attributes, which still gives them meaning.

Kurald Galain
2015-06-07, 02:27 PM
If I create a fighter that uses Charisma for attack and damage rolls, what is, really, changing?

What is changing is that there's no longer a difference between strength and charisma.

Because everything that normally depends on strength can be reassigned to charisma and vice versa. This also means that most tables will have at least one person who will simply try to assign as much as possible to his highest score, regardless of how much sense that makes.

Thrudd
2015-06-07, 02:28 PM
Changing the attributes around has no effect on resources. You're still limited by action economy, spell slots, uses per rest, ki points, or whatever other resources your class has. Using your Wisdom to make attack rolls or your constitution to determine your damage on an Axe Swing doesn't impact that. (See 4e's axes and hammers versus swords, daggers, and polearms)

If I create a fighter that uses Charisma for attack and damage rolls, what is, really, changing? My character will be less good at physical situations and better at social situations. She'll have a lowered carrying capacity as well. Better saves against mental effects and worse ones against physical effects.

And that's... basically all that changes. I'm still playing a fighter with Second Wind and Action Surges and 4 attacks a round. But I get to be the party face if there's no other high charisma character. How is that, in any way, a negative impact on the game?

There is no point in having different attributes if any class can pick any attribute to fulfill any roll.

It makes more sense to assign static values for the attack, defense, and magic ability to each class or sub class, sort of like races do to attributes. Ability scores would be rolled or bought and apply only to skills and saving throws. Maybe each class has a choice of a couple combinations of attack, defense, and magic bonus.

Wartex1
2015-06-07, 02:31 PM
You're forgetting Saving Throws and Skills.

Steampunkette
2015-06-07, 02:35 PM
You're actually picking a specific subset of values for a specific subset of rolls.

All other rolls default to normal values, including saving throws and ability checks.

The stats still have meaning in the world and there are defacto functions (like strength for carrying capacity). Only the Attack, Defense, and Supernatural attributes change.

Spellcasting Stat in place of Int/Wis/Cha, Attack/Damage Stat in place of Str/Dex, and AC Stat in place of Dex.

Everything else is static and bears the same meanings as it always does.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-07, 02:37 PM
It makes more sense to assign static values for the attack, defense, and magic ability to each class or sub class, sort of like races do to attributes. Ability scores would be rolled or bought and apply only to skills and saving throws. Maybe each class has a choice of a couple combinations of attack, defense, and magic bonus.

In all honesty, I'd be fine with a proficiency-only system where the various attributes only apply to saves, skills, and things of that nature. I just don't like a system where one's ability to excel at a role depends heavily on race and innate stats (genetics). Training and experience should be the primary factors in the ability of fighter, the potency of a wizard's spells, the expertise of a rogue, and so on. Flexible Attributes are just an easy way to do that without a massive overhaul, since we can expect every player to excel in at least one or two attributes.

VoxRationis
2015-06-07, 04:47 PM
Attributes should inform a class choice because that's how things work. When people pick careers, they pick things that a) they enjoy, and b) they're good at. Now, obviously, in a lot of settings, people don't exactly pick careers owing to socioeconomic rigidity, but the numerous unfulfilled warriors who just want to be poets don't really get as far, so we don't generally play as them. But if you have choice, you go for something you are talented at.
Furthermore, with totally flexible ability scores, you then need to make sure the system has perfect class balance, because otherwise the question of "why isn't everyone a wizard" gets even worse. Anyone, no matter what they're talented at, can just grab whatever class is strongest as written.

JNAProductions
2015-06-07, 04:49 PM
Unless we assume that a Strength-based Wizard is, like most adventurers, exceptional. Most Wizards use Intelligence, but your specific adventurer is able to do what was thought impossible, through sheer dint of might.

VoxRationis
2015-06-07, 04:52 PM
Except that might is not guaranteed to actually be extraordinary enough. For that explanation to work, the character's Strength score would need to be well beyond that of other NPC fighters.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-07, 04:55 PM
Furthermore, with totally flexible ability scores, you then need to make sure the system has perfect class balance, because otherwise the question of "why isn't everyone a wizard" gets even worse. Anyone, no matter what they're talented at, can just grab whatever class is strongest as written.

I feel like that would be a much bigger problem than whatever stat system we use.

Steampunkette
2015-06-07, 05:02 PM
Except that might is not guaranteed to actually be extraordinary enough. For that explanation to work, the character's Strength score would need to be well beyond that of other NPC fighters.

Eh. Kind of.

If I play a Rogue with an Intelligence of 18 it doesn't mystically endow me with the ability to cast spells. I still have to learn how to do it.

Same thing goes with a Fighter with an 18 strength not being able to PUNCH REALITY INTO SPELL SHAPES. He didn't learn how to cast spells with FISTS.

Celcey
2015-06-07, 09:33 PM
Question:

From a flavor point of view, how do you justify someone swinging a greataxe or greatsword around using intelligence as an attack attribute?

If the 'attack attribute' only applied to finesse (and potentially ranged) weapons, I'd be a lot more comfortable, but with 'great' or 'heavy' weapons, the idea that strength isn't the primary stat weirds me out.

For Int, you're using your smarts to figure out your enemies weak spots; Wis you use your instincts as to how best to strike; Cha, your force of personality overwhelms them and allows you to make a good strike.

Sidenote: I solve the problem of some races being better than others by having the option to change what stats they get from a race. For example, if they wanted a gnomes that gave +2 Str and +1 Wis, then they can have it.

Thrudd
2015-06-08, 09:23 AM
So what this boils down to is saying "take your two highest ability scores, these are the scores you will use for attack, defense, and magic bonuses. Try to come up with descriptions of how your character uses those abilities to attack, defend, and use magic, if it isn't obvious."

The way I see it, the ability scores are more abstract than I think many people are assuming. The strength ability doesn't just describe your muscles, it is also meant to represent your natural talent for fighting, including all those factors which affect fighting. This is why I also don't like "finesse weapons". All weapons require finesse, the strength score should already describe the type of finesse and coordination which is required for weapon combat.

The other scores represent abilities that don't affect fighting, that's why they don't add to your attack and damage bonus.

If we divorce fighting from the strength ability, and use a less abstract definition of strength and other abilities, it makes more sense to just make it its own separate skill not affected by ability scores. Really, Fighting requires an aggregate of different abilities honed through training. Physical strength, agility, coordination and reflexes, toughness, awareness and tactics and strategy as well as aggressiveness and bravery. You can't be a good fighter without all of those things. However, the type of awareness is not the same sort that lets you perceive people's social intentions, the intelligence is not the same sort that helps you memorize facts or solve puzzles, the dexterity not the sort that helps you pick a lock, the personality not the kind that helps you make friends and influence people.

dream
2015-06-08, 09:28 AM
It's unfinished as a system. There needs to be limitations on what exactly can be done when (1) attacking (2) defending & (3) doing supernatural things. Otherwise, as VoxRationis, Mcdt2, Kurald Galain, & others have posted, all abilities become indistinguishable, destroying the game concept of class in the process.

Skill selection not being limited to class is what nerfed Rogues & there's no need for classes when Fighters attack with CHA & Bards cast spells using DEX. The fact that in D&D certain races are better as certain classes isn't a problem/flaw, it's a longstanding feature of the system. Elven mages, Halfling rogues, Dwarven fighters. There are other systems that don't do that, like GURPS or HERO.

Steam's post about giving monsters/NPCs the same capabilities & it being a ton more work for the DM/GM is very telling. It's added complexity to a system that was purposely designed to be an easier experience than what 3.5, 3.75/Pathfinder, and 4.0 have become. When one takes something simple and makes it complicated ......

This quote from DireSickFish,"....That way you have the Half-orc fighter that mauls people with brute force and the gnome fighter that uses tricks and outwits people but can't match his brute strength.",

this one from Easy_Lee,"...Or you could see it as a fighting style. Strong fighters are raging frenzies, while intelligent fighters are patient and calculating. Charismatic fighters make lots of taunts and flourishes, while wise fighters predict their opponent's moves ahead of time. And dexterous fighters are just too quick."

& this one from Steampunkette(cool handle BTW),"In other words, Charisma Fighters Feint while stabbing from another angle while Strength Fighters swing hard and Dexterity Fighters slip into openings. Intelligent Fighters overextend their enemies and Wisdom Fighters are aware of their surroundings and their enemy's footing."

These say a lot more about how you would role-play a character than statistical differences. Do you really need to change system mechanics in order to use tactics that are easily/better expressed as RP decisions?

This really seems like you're breaking D&D with counter-intuitive min-maxing in order to create a mechanical substitute for actual role-playing. Role-playing as in "my PC/Ragnor does THIS in THIS WAY". Instead of doing it simple, you want a fluffy mechanic that does it for you, like pushing a button on a video game controller. It's interesting, in the way that a Rube Goldberg machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine) is interesting.

This could be a marketable system once it's cleaned-up, though. Keep going,!

Easy_Lee
2015-06-08, 09:57 AM
@Dream I don't see class being tied to race as a feature. That's one of the no-no's of game design which video game companies learned long ago but which WotC hasn't figured out yet. If there's a reason why only wood elves and humans should have the correct stats for monks, why half orcs have the best champion fighter or barbarian boosts, or why mountain dwarves and half elves have extra stat points, I'd love to hear it. Else, I see it as needlessly limiting player choice.

Morty
2015-06-08, 10:01 AM
People seem to give attribute scores a lot more weight than they actually have.

Steampunkette
2015-06-08, 10:37 AM
Thank you, Dream. It's been my online username for some years, now, in basically every place I frequent!

And while it's nice to think of it as just RP, the game's system doesn't reflect that RP without changes.

Let's say I'm a normal dex fighter with a high charisma score under the game's current system. I need to pump Charisma exclusively for the purpose of being good at social skills. It has no effect on my combat ability whatsoever as there are no skill uses or weapons that use Charisma for attack and damage. To be good at combat I need to make Dex high, as well. Which means less Constitution and survivability.

Meanwhile, in a game where Charisma replaced Dex for Attack mods, I don't need to focus on Dexterity as much to be a good fighter while also being the party face through Charisma skills.

Now you mentioned it destroyed Class as a concept and I highly disagree. Being a Charisma Fighter doesn't give me sorceror spells or wild magic. And it won't allow me to regain pact magic spell slots after a short rest. Being a Strength Rogue won't give me Action Surge or 4 attacks per round. And being an Intelligent Bard won't give me a Rogue's Uncanny Dodge or a Wizard's School abilities.

The class functions remain the same, and separate, still denoting where classes begin and end fairly clearly. The only things that change are how the character is built (To Concept rather than To Statistics) and how that build interacts with the world (Skills, Carrying Capacity, Saving Throws). The actual combat balance is the same, whether you use your +3 charisma mod to attack and damage or your +3 strength mod to attack and damage.

Half Elf Fighter using Charisma to deal Damage with Panache and hitting social interactions as the party face? Sign me up!

VoxRationis
2015-06-08, 11:41 AM
@Dream I don't see class being tied to race as a feature. That's one of the no-no's of game design which video game companies learned long ago but which WotC hasn't figured out yet. If there's a reason why only wood elves and humans should have the correct stats for monks, why half orcs have the best champion fighter or barbarian boosts, or why mountain dwarves and half elves have extra stat points, I'd love to hear it. Else, I see it as needlessly limiting player choice.

Quite frankly, Easy Lee, you see everything as needlessly limiting player choice. Any kind of restriction, no matter how reasonable, gets derided as 'anti-fantasy.' The things which you mention above aren't even hard restrictions. They're just the most obviously complementary race/class combos. It makes sense for biologically distinct taxa to have different attribute scores. If a player wanted to play a polar bear, you wouldn't have them play with the same ability scores as a human, with the only ursine qualities being an active "hibernation" ability, would you?

DireSickFish
2015-06-08, 12:43 PM
Ideally we would have different subclasses or options built in to each class chassis to allow for use of other attributes in a distinct way. Like as a frenzy barbarain at high level you want to maximize the ability to cause fear at higher levels. Right now it's a terrible ability because it's the only one the Barbaian has that keys off of Charisma. But if you had the option at level3 to take a feature that allowed you to use your bonus action while in frenzy to have an ally within 5 feat of you make an attack roll with your charisma bonus to hit, or when you frenzied enemies had to make a will save vs your charisma modifier or lose there reaction. If you took those options you wouldn't be hitting as hard as a STR barbarain but you'd be viable as a leader type barbarian.

Paladin has this trade-off implemented well if you go the Oath of Devotion. You can be a STR pally or a DEX pally or a CHA pally and each one has a distinct flavor. Paladins not only have spell-casting keyed off CHA but also have there divine aura and Sacred Weapon keyed off it. So you become an aura buffer, with CC spells that have a good chance of sticking, with 1/short rest ability to become crazy accurate. They play differently and have different strengths than if you max your attack stat first and are all viable.

Easy_Lees system does what it sets out to do: it allows any race to play any class and all be equally viable without taking away from the races preference for stats.

His system is simple because it has to be, as he is changing the whole system to match his vision of verisimilitude and how class/race should be represented. The alternative of adding more options to every class would be a nightmare to implement and make sure everything is working together as intended. The barbarian feature for allowing extra attacks by allies makes a rogue party member much more powerful than other options and would need to be looked at.

I wouldn't personally use Easy_Lees setup here, but it's not overly unbalancing the game. Sure CON might be to good, and I actually like leaving saves uncoupled from defensive stat selection. It's not a bad system however, and might just need a little tweaking to be an answer for people that don't want to be burdened by race selection for a class.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-08, 01:18 PM
Quite frankly, Easy Lee, you see everything as needlessly limiting player choice. Any kind of restriction, no matter how reasonable, gets derided as 'anti-fantasy.' The things which you mention above aren't even hard restrictions. They're just the most obviously complementary race/class combos. It makes sense for biologically distinct taxa to have different attribute scores. If a player wanted to play a polar bear, you wouldn't have them play with the same ability scores as a human, with the only ursine qualities being an active "hibernation" ability, would you?

It's a design principle of mine, Vox. You don't limit the choices players can make without good reason. If a player wants to play a half orc monk, or a gnome fighter, you don't tell them they can't. Furthermore, you don't try to discourage those choices or encourage others, either. You let the players play what they want. If other words, design the game your players want, not the game you want. If you can't think of a good reason to limit a decision, one that makes your game better, then you don't limit that decision.

Kurald Galain
2015-06-08, 01:25 PM
It's a design principle of mine, Vox. You don't limit the choices players can make without good reason. If a player wants to play a half orc monk, or a gnome fighter, you don't tell them they can't.

The point is, if the half-orc monk ends up having the exact same (combat) stats as the gnome monk, then arguably you're not really playing a half-orc or a gnome any more. You're showing players that choices don't have consequences. Now that's a matter of taste, but some players find that a letdown.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-08, 01:53 PM
The point is, if the half-orc monk ends up having the exact same (combat) stats as the gnome monk, then arguably you're not really playing a half-orc or a gnome any more. You're showing players that choices don't have consequences. Now that's a matter of taste, but some players find that a letdown.

It is arguable, due to the fact that there are differences between races that do not include the stat choices. The half orc is still probably going to be a better choice than the gnome, because the half orc gets that 1/day stay alive ability, bonuses on crits, etc. Meanwhile, the gnome gets non-melee oriented stuff, like talking to animals, or making inventions. As such, playing a gnome monk will indeed be different than playing a half orc monk.

Also, for the record, Lee is (obviously) not alone in his desire to avoid limitations in player concepts. That's one of my highest priorities in game design as well. I still chafe against needing to be 10th level for a character concept to be effective, or when a class doesn't have a skill I want for my sailing dwarf wizard, or my weapon choice is basically made more me when I really thought it'd be cool to use a sickle instead of a greatsword.

I think the basic thing (for me, at least) is that none of the limitations for character concept are based on logical mechanical reasons. Sure, there might be fluff reasons. It'd make sense for half-orcs as a whole to be better at barbarians. But it is much easier to change fluff than it is to change mechanics (at least without having a butterfly effect on the system as a whole). It is also easier to justify restrictions based on fluff. But when fluff can be so easily shifted to get around those restrictions, why bother having them? "Oh, my greatsword is halfling sized, but he uses it in a manner that causes just as much devastation as a human using one. People tend to ignore the short guy running at them to cut their leg arteries". Piece of cake.

I admit maybe I should have used an example more related to Lee's system in the topic at hand, but I just spent far too long putting this post together, and I just wanna get it out there. :p

Ace Jackson
2015-06-08, 02:00 PM
The point is, if the half-orc monk ends up having the exact same (combat) stats as the gnome monk, then arguably you're not really playing a half-orc or a gnome any more. You're showing players that choices don't have consequences. Now that's a matter of taste, but some players find that a letdown.

If they have the same combat stats, even if they have the same stat picks for AA, DA, and SA as an elemental monk, they are still playing with very different characters physically, one is short, one is tall. The Orc might flavor his melee attacks as joint manipulations as he's tall enough to reach the arms of his enemy easily, the gnome might just hit below the belt, in the kidney, or whack a kneecap.

As elemental monks, one could focus on one element while the other is a jack of all trades. Or perhaps they tag team with opposite elemental focuses, or the same.

Alternatively, if they are open hand, maybe they play at a good cop, bad cop dynamic with the sanctuary like effect. There is more then enough variety.

Moreover, it seems this argument can be turned around just as easily. If the players are shown that the best choices are locked in with certain race/class combinations, and the characters will die if they can't compete, then the player is faced with many false choices, like a dwarf wizard, a dragonborn cleric, or a gnome druid. Really, a gnome druid would be fantastic, they can already speak with small wild creatures at will, there's so much potential there, but they don't have very inviting stats. Dex or con are good, but they're about equally good for everyone, while the int, your primary bonus, is only 'really' used by wizards.

The choices become non choices and they cease to matter, just on the side of RP as opposed to statistics.

Is one more important then the other, and if so in what way? Take a survey of seven tables of seven people each, and I'll wager that you find 49 different opinions expressed 49 different ways.

Shadow monk'd.

Takewo
2015-06-08, 02:24 PM
So what this boils down to is saying "take your two highest ability scores, these are the scores you will use for attack, defense, and magic bonuses. Try to come up with descriptions of how your character uses those abilities to attack, defend, and use magic, if it isn't obvious."

As opposed to the "decide what class you want to be, pick a race that boosts its two most important scores" that we have now.

VoxRationis
2015-06-08, 02:37 PM
It's a design principle of mine, Vox. You don't limit the choices players can make without good reason. If a player wants to play a half orc monk, or a gnome fighter, you don't tell them they can't. Furthermore, you don't try to discourage those choices or encourage others, either. You let the players play what they want. If other words, design the game your players want, not the game you want. If you can't think of a good reason to limit a decision, one that makes your game better, then you don't limit that decision.

See, without restrictions bounding what is and what is not plausible, there's no reason to even have a game—you're just children playing pretend, constantly one-upping each other with more and more ridiculous, exaggerated claims about the capabilities of the toys you're holding. These limits do make the game better, because they establish verisimilitude. No one is saying that you can't play a gnome fighter—a gnome fighter just does not play identically to a half-orc one. Which makes sense.

Ace Jackson
2015-06-08, 03:36 PM
See, without restrictions bounding what is and what is not plausible, there's no reason to even have a game—you're just children playing pretend, constantly one-upping each other with more and more ridiculous, exaggerated claims about the capabilities of the toys you're holding. These limits do make the game better, because they establish verisimilitude. No one is saying that you can't play a gnome fighter—a gnome fighter just does not play identically to a half-orc one. Which makes sense.

What ever suggested that a gnome fighter would play identically to a half-orc? This flexible atributes system changes only the relevant numbers, not all the crunch, the half-orc shrugs off a hit that reduces him to 0 hp once in a while, a gnome can talk with small wild beasts. Attacking from intelligence doesn't suddenly mean the gnome can shrug blows off as well. Nor would a half-orc valor bard war dancer automatically get to talk to squirrels.

Halflings are still lucky, dwarves still resist poisons, elves still have racial weapon prof, and either immunity or resistance to charms and sleep. They are distinct races (racial traits), with distinct individuals (differing skill selections and backgrounds), the most distinct of which are adventurers(subset of the above, with combat training in whatever style befits the player, the character, and/or the campaign. This layer being expanded in breadth with the proposed hombrew/houserule), whom you play the game as(the active pc as opposed to any backups you have), I think that still makes sense, and leaves plenty of distinct flavors of crunch and fluff.

Was the above simplified (classes come with skills as well after all)? Yes. Is it still relevant though? I'd say yes to that as well.

Steampunkette
2015-06-08, 05:46 PM
Gnomes and Half-orcs being better at one class or another doesn't create Verisimilitude. For that we'd have to HAVE Half-Orcs and Gnomes in reality and the game would need to most closely mirror reality.

What we have is a world wherein these beings are given a life before our minds eye. Where the ephemeral illusion of a world of magic and monsters exists.

But the idea that they have to have stats that make them better or worse at specific tasks, rather than being a racial stereotype for roleplaying and lore building purposes, is rooted in a 40 year old idea that doesn't -need- to be a cornerstone of gameplay.

As far as "Children playing with Dolls" you need to both back that attitude up a great deal and then look at what you're talking about. We're all just playing with a toy, here. This isn't something any more serious than a game. And what's more it's a game whose rules are up for interpretation.

VoxRationis
2015-06-09, 01:37 AM
As far as "Children playing with Dolls" you need to both back that attitude up a great deal and then look at what you're talking about. We're all just playing with a toy, here. This isn't something any more serious than a game. And what's more it's a game whose rules are up for interpretation.

It's more than a toy; it's a game. It has structure and rules which provide for a stable framework on which to build an internally-consistent narrative rooted in fair, sane play. Having rules tell you what you can and can't do allows actions within the game to be weighed against one another in a meaningful way. They make the game fun by making the path to one's in-game goal not a story of immediate fulfillment, in the same way that chess is a better game because you can't just say the pawn blows away the enemy king with a gun on the first turn of the game. They also help make each action meaningful because it can't be immediately countered; you can't say that the king escapes checkmate by pulling out a jetpack.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-09, 02:15 AM
It seems you're basically using hyperbole here, Vox. This system still provides some pretty clear and effective rules that fits in pretty dang well within the framework of the numerous other rules that make up 5th edition. We're not removing rules and devolving into kids playing with toys. We're modifying the rules that exist to better suit our design goals. I'd argue that this is actually more advanced than simply using the rules we're given.

VoxRationis
2015-06-09, 02:25 AM
Well, this line of rhetoric was a response to Easy Lee's espoused design philosophy ("don't limit player choices"), not the system itself per se.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-09, 02:37 AM
Ah. Fair enough. But refusing to limit player choice in character creation does not mean that there are no rules. I don't want to put words in Easy's mouth, but it seems that he is mainly referring to player choice in building a character concept. Not so much how the game itself is run. To avoid putting words in his mouth, I will just say that that's basically my philosophy: let players build whatever character they want to make (that has any way to fit into the setting), and make the restrictions and rules come in when you are actually playing the game. So, let people play gnome fighters and orc wizards. When the game is being played, that's when the rules should really come in. Spells with concrete effects, attacks that do concrete damage, abilities that do defined things, etc.

caden_varn
2015-06-09, 06:48 AM
A racial ability boost only adds +1 to the attack rolls/saving throw targets - that is not enough to make a half-orc monk or fighter noticeably different to the equivalent gnome. The non-attribute abilities and restrictions make a much bigger difference. This is especially true with rolled attributes - you have the potential for a gnome which is stronger than a half-orc after racial boosts if the gnome player rolls much better.
It DOES make a difference when players are picking races - the temptation to get that extra +1 is there, even it is not going to make a great difference in the game.

Morty
2015-06-09, 06:56 AM
Reading those discussions, you'd think everything in the system is dependent on ability scores and checks, and the one point more or less to such checks is a crucial matter to the system's workings.

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 07:07 AM
I'm with Myrmidon.

What we're dealing with is an idea rooted in 40 years of history without much consideration of challenge. It's possible it's lasted this long out of sheer momentum via grognards expecting things to remain, in large part, the same as they have been. Familiar Touchstones.

One should look at how much the game actually changes from the modification.

Players select AA, SA, and DA stats from the list. All skills and saves remain the same. All secondary and derivative functions (Initiative, extra HP, carrying capacity) remain the same. The maximum and minimum values remain the same. The expected Attack/Damage Bonuses remain the same. Expected Save DCs remain the same. Expected Armor Class remains the same.

The only thing that changes is the player's Tiefling is a better Fighter than the standard rule set and is more focused on interactive skills than climbing trees.

The amount of system interaction it creates is minimal. The amount of character variety it opens is fairly large. It makes for a nice tradeoff for those interested in using it.

Looking over it, I honestly hope it somehow gets provided to WotC to be added to a UA as a variant ruleset.

Vogonjeltz
2015-06-09, 07:18 AM
In other words you dislike the system and intend to tear apart any lore explanation for any use of it because your idea of realism trumps anyone else's imaginative fantasy?

I think the jarring part is that this system would make everyone equally good at doing everything. i.e. If you can substitute Intelligence for attack rolls...then someone with a 20 intelligence is going to be as good at hitting someone with a sword as using a spell? And a guy with 20 str will be able to attack with spells as well as the master wizard?

At that point, why even have ability scores?

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 07:46 AM
Your SA and AA can't be the same stat, per the rules in the OP.

So the Intelligent character's Supernatural Stat would need to be something else if they used Intelligence as AA.

So even if it was an Eldritch Knight she'd have Intelligence for Fighting and, say, Strength for Spellcasting. Or Charisma. Or Wisdom. But not Intelligence.

The three you choose determine how you enact your class abilities, but don't -grant- class abilities. A Wizard with Intelligence for Attack Stat and Charisma for Spellcasting still gets only 1 attack per round and probably shouldn't pump Int since their Charisma determines their spell saves and spell-attack modifier.

It makes every -race- good at what the class does, for the purposes of Stat Mods at least, but the Fighter is still going to be a better melee combatant than the Wizard. And the Wizard will cast spells while the Champion just swings pointy objects around. Blunt ones if he wants to be niche. The fact that the Wizard is using Strength to Punch Reality until it gives up spells like lunch money while the Champion is battle-dancing his way across the field with Charisma attacks doesn't impact that, outside of story.

Kurald Galain
2015-06-09, 09:28 AM
As opposed to the "decide what class you want to be, pick a race that boosts its two most important scores" that we have now.
But we don't have that now, because many players realize that being 5% worse at hitting stuff doesn't cripple your character in any way. In fact it's hardly even noticeable in gameplay unless you specifically look for it.


Reading those discussions, you'd think everything in the system is dependent on ability scores and checks, and the one point more or less to such checks is a crucial matter to the system's workings.
Yep :smallamused:

DireSickFish
2015-06-09, 09:29 AM
Reading those discussions, you'd think everything in the system is dependent on ability scores and checks, and the one point more or less to such checks is a crucial matter to the system's workings.

It is a crucial mater to optimization, that extra 5% to hit and saves and +1 damage is a big deal this edition. And that's only if you're playing a SAD class. Monk is being used as an example because as it depends heavily on both Dex and Wis making it one of the most MAD classes it is heavily penalized by not taking a race that boosts one or both of those stats.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-09, 10:21 AM
I don't think it matters how beneficial an extra +1 is. As a matter of principle, we shouldn't give it to some races and concepts but not others, IMO.

LordVonDerp
2015-06-09, 10:31 AM
Poppycock. Show a waifish pop singer and an athlete how to hold a sword and give it to them; I have no doubt the pop singer's "flourishes" will be of no avail to them. A 4-6' piece of metal with much of its weight at extension demands a certain force to use properly.


Not as much force as you might think.
Also, this
Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_d%27Aubigny

Easy_Lee
2015-06-09, 11:08 AM
Not as much force as you might think.
Also, this
Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_d%27Aubigny

Nice article.

And that's true. The reasons for keeping women out of war and off the battlefield have little to do with physical strength. Things like temperament (men are more violent), preventing complications (relationships, pregnancy in the middle of a war), and other practical concerns (if your women die then no one can have children, which is why women are more important to protect) are much bigger factors than physical fitness.

Takewo
2015-06-09, 11:17 AM
But we don't have that now, because many players realize that being 5% worse at hitting stuff doesn't cripple your character in any way. In fact it's hardly even noticeable in gameplay unless you specifically look for it.

Mate, your roleplaying experience must have been completely different from mine. Really. I can't count how many catfolk/elf/halfling rogues, dwarf/half-orc fighter/barbarians and aasimar clerics I have seen. Not only from experienced players who know how the game works, but also new players build their characters this way. It is, in fact, pretty intuitive: you want to be a fighter, you see that you will need strength to hit stuff, half-orcs are stronger, you go half-orc.

In fact, in my current table we are a drow bard, half-orc barbarian, genasi wizard, human druid (it still has +1 to Wisdom, and somehow he managed to get to 18 wisdom with the point buy system...) and a half-elf bard. And the table that plays next to us has a dwarf druid (+2 Con +1 Wis is pretty good for a druid, and again, no +2 Wis races), a halfling rogue, a human cleric and an alu-fiend (homebrew race, +2 Cha) sorcerer.

And I find it normal. We, humans, like doing what we do (at least, if it's something we like doing or vocational) as good as we can. If the character concept I'm thinking is of a sneaky guy, I'll pick a race that helps me with that concept.

Well, or maybe not. Maybe it's just that I have only found powergamers in my roleplaying life and I don't know what I am missing out there.

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 11:21 AM
See... that's just wrongheaded thinking.

Women can't go to war because pregnancy will be a combat concern: Is only a problem if men are on the battlefield, too, instead of at home tending the fields and raising kids.

If women die there's no one to have kids: It's not like husbands are interchangeable and wives are discrete elements, if the men die in the fighting who sires the children? The menfolk need to stay home so they can sire kids when the women get back!

The practical concerns of women going to war were kind of made up after the fact. Women went to war through a large portion of human existence. We just started erasing their achievements right around the time Hatshepsut's jerk of a kid Thutmose 3 decided to erase everything about her reign in the hope of destroying her eternal spirit by having her forgotten. Women weren't allowed to go to war in many societies because we were treated as objects to be bartered, possessed, and owned. It was an economic decision, not a practical one.

VoxRationis
2015-06-09, 11:34 AM
Nice article.

And that's true. The reasons for keeping women out of war and off the battlefield have little to do with physical strength. Things like temperament (men are more violent), preventing complications (relationships, pregnancy in the middle of a war), and other practical concerns (if your women die then no one can have children, which is why women are more important to protect) are much bigger factors than physical fitness.

A) The woman in question was fencing in the 17th century, likely with a smallsword; we were discussing longsword fighting.
B) Nothing I said was about women and fighting.
You are attempting to discredit my argument by drawing examples "contrary" to arguments I have not made, in contexts outside of what we were discussing.

Kurald Galain
2015-06-09, 11:34 AM
If women die there's no one to have kids: It's not like husbands are interchangeable and wives are discrete elements, if the men die in the fighting who sires the children? The menfolk need to stay home so they can sire kids when the women get back!
Well, the problem is that after some war a tribe has 5 men left and 100 women, it can still repopulate easily; whereas if it has 5 women left and 100 men, then it can't.

Although yes, both Greek and Norse mythology (for instance) have numerous woman warriors, and the stories treat that as normal.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-09, 11:42 AM
A) The woman in question was fencing in the 17th century, likely with a smallsword; we were discussing longsword fighting.
B) Nothing I said was about women and fighting.
You are attempting to discredit my argument by drawing examples "contrary" to arguments I have not made, in contexts outside of what we were discussing.

I wasn't even replying to you, actually. Though if you think that longsword fighting requires more strength than using a rapier, then that's also false. It actually requires less, because both weapons are of similar length but you can easily put two hands on the longsword.

VoxRationis
2015-06-09, 11:42 AM
Also, the Hatshepshut/Thutmose III affair was largely linked to the fact that for the first half of Thutmose' supposed reign, his mother was in fact calling the shots, and he needed to establish his authority in its own right when he came of age. And that was a long time before most other things one might discuss; it wasn't the beginning of a concerted misogynistic campaign.

Anyway, discussion of premodern gender roles and fighting is not germane to this thread's topic.

silveralen
2015-06-09, 11:51 AM
I absolutely hate this myself. It removes any uniqueness to class/race combinations. I might have a thuggish rogue, but he plays just like any other rogue. He is a thug in name only. That's very dull.

Some parts feel okay though. Removing things which restrict the classes arbitrarily seem fine (monk can use strength for unarmored defense for example, or removing the finesse requirement from sneak attack and only allowing one handed weapon instead). Even allowing classes more flexibility, so they at least can pick between two main attributes, seems good. Fighter, paladin, and ranger can all focus on str/dex for primary combat, so why not allow other classes a pick of two? You could have flashy showmen wizards who rely on personality (cha), or studious warlocks whose power is based on forbidden knowledge (int). Even a sorcerer casting of strength, since his magic is tied up with his physical form to a degree, might work.

I can get behind it to that degree because it adds variation without making character building trivial. But it would be so boring to just allow the anything goes approach.

Also, I can't be bothered to read the entire thread after seeing where it ended up, so if my point was already addressed feel free to quote it when you respond.

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 12:11 PM
Well, the problem is that after some war a tribe has 5 men left and 100 women, it can still repopulate easily; whereas if it has 5 women left and 100 men, then it can't.

Although yes, both Greek and Norse mythology (for instance) have numerous woman warriors, and the stories treat that as normal.

If some tribe has 5 men left and 100 women I really doubt every woman is going to consent to being impregnated by one of those five guys rather than bringing more men into the group from other groups. Which, thanks to the chattelry of women throughout history, would be a hell of a lot easier than you might think.

And even if they did, that'd lead to MASSIVE bottlenecking and inbreeding. You'd need at least 7 men to stave off Inbreeding for 2 generations, and each one would need to have at LEAST 1 child by each woman involved. And that's not getting into the vagaries of child mortality and the like...

While on paper it could look like 5 dudes and 100 women can repopulate, reality won't bear it out any more than 5 women and 100 men can.

That said, it isn't terribly good for the thread to slip off into this discussion. Of course, you should feel free to PM me if you'd like to talk about it more.

Easy_Lee
2015-06-09, 12:15 PM
If some tribe has 5 men left and 100 women I really doubt every woman is going to consent to being impregnated by one of those five guys rather than bringing more men into the group from other groups. Which, thanks to the chattelry of women throughout history, would be a hell of a lot easier than you might think.

I take issue to the idea that 50% of the world's population has routinely enslaved the other 50% throughout history. That insults both men and women when you think about it.

But yes, this is off-topic.

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 12:19 PM
Oh, no. Not routinely. Just often.

And only in specific cultures.

Though it got much more common in the 1500s-Today thanks to one of those cultures colonizing most of the world.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-09, 12:29 PM
I absolutely hate this myself. It removes any uniqueness to class/race combinations. I might have a thuggish rogue, but he plays just like any other rogue. He is a thug in name only. That's very dull.

Some parts feel okay though. Removing things which restrict the classes arbitrarily seem fine (monk can use strength for unarmored defense for example, or removing the finesse requirement from sneak attack and only allowing one handed weapon instead). Even allowing classes more flexibility, so they at least can pick between two main attributes, seems good. Fighter, paladin, and ranger can all focus on str/dex for primary combat, so why not allow other classes a pick of two? You could have flashy showmen wizards who rely on personality (cha), or studious warlocks whose power is based on forbidden knowledge (int). Even a sorcerer casting of strength, since his magic is tied up with his physical form to a degree, might work.

I can get behind it to that degree because it adds variation without making character building trivial. But it would be so boring to just allow the anything goes approach.

Also, I can't be bothered to read the entire thread after seeing where it ended up, so if my point was already addressed feel free to quote it when you respond.

I sort of did: "As for the pointlessness of attributes if you can use anything for anything... well... you can't do that. Skills are still tied to attributes, and in a system with bounded accuracy, the bonuses from attributes are always going to be relevant. Simply having a good intelligence with a fighter means they'll know a decent amount of information, even without proficiency in knowledge skills. Although I may suggest making things even more open, and just letting classes choose any skills, as long as the number of trained skills is the same. And the saves are still going to come up, which means attributes are important for that. Finally, simple stuff like shoving over boulders or remembering stuff that is just a "strength check" or "intelligence check" calls on the attributes, which still gives them meaning. "

Your thuggish rogue is still going to play differently than a sneaky rogue. First, you'll obviously be roleplaying differently, but now, you'll have the stats to back your actions up without needing to sacrifice other important stats. Second, skills are still tied to certain attributes, which means a thuggish rogue will be good at athletics, can carry a lot, etc. Third, uniqueness in class/race combinations still exist, since racial abilities are still a thing. A half orc has their 1/day stay at 1 HP, and auto proficiency in intimidate, while a gnome can still talk to animals or invent things.

I do appreciate that you can see at least some merit to the idea by letting classes choose at least a little bit, but if you're ok with that, it's hard for me to see why it should be restricted at all.

silveralen
2015-06-09, 12:51 PM
I sort of did: "As for the pointlessness of attributes if you can use anything for anything... well... you can't do that. Skills are still tied to attributes, and in a system with bounded accuracy, the bonuses from attributes are always going to be relevant. Simply having a good intelligence with a fighter means they'll know a decent amount of information, even without proficiency in knowledge skills. Although I may suggest making things even more open, and just letting classes choose any skills, as long as the number of trained skills is the same. And the saves are still going to come up, which means attributes are important for that. Finally, simple stuff like shoving over boulders or remembering stuff that is just a "strength check" or "intelligence check" calls on the attributes, which still gives them meaning. "

Your thuggish rogue is still going to play differently than a sneaky rogue. First, you'll obviously be roleplaying differently, but now, you'll have the stats to back your actions up without needing to sacrifice other important stats. Second, skills are still tied to certain attributes, which means a thuggish rogue will be good at athletics, can carry a lot, etc. Third, uniqueness in class/race combinations still exist, since racial abilities are still a thing. A half orc has their 1/day stay at 1 HP, and auto proficiency in intimidate, while a gnome can still talk to animals or invent things.

I do appreciate that you can see at least some merit to the idea by letting classes choose at least a little bit, but if you're ok with that, it's hard for me to see why it should be restricted at all.

Because I want there to be types so that you can play against type. Example" Half orc wizards are uncommon because they don't make great wizards. It doesn't mean you can't be a wizard, the difference is pretty marginal this edition, but there is a clear reason why half orc wizards aren't as widespread as human or elven. For the same reason, a half orc fighter or barbarian is much more common.

Finding interesting ways to combine certain attributes with certain classes can also be fun. A dexterity based barbarian for example suffers in some areas but is much better in others. It isn't typical, but it creates something far more unique. In the same way, a strength based rogue might benefit from multiclassing to get armor prof (barbarian being a great choice for example), or he might take a race like mountain dwarf to cover this. A hill dwarf monk will be tougher and have strong ki abilities, but not have as potent basic attacks.

In this system, the dex based barbarian lacks and difference from the strength barbarian and the strength rogue just has his muscles deflect blades instead. You actually cut down on the number of unique, interesting, and distinct concepts, making everything more generic.

If the racial abilities aren't big enough to make certain combinations suboptimal, they aren't big enough to matter and they don't add any distinction. Same with skills. If no racial combination is a bad choice, racial abilities might as well be removed they add nothing to the game, no optimization, nothing distinct enough to make a elf and dwarf actually feel or play differently. It'd be easier to just give everyone human racial benefits regardless of race. If they do still add enough, then nothing was really fixed. Because honestly, a +1 to attack or DC isn't that big this edition, not when you cap out at the same level. There are plenty of things a race might offer that offsets that already.

The difference in optimization and play is minor, you've either removed it entirely, so why have different abilities at all, or it still remains roughly the same level of minor and nothing was fixed. That's why I dislike this.

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 01:13 PM
The setting determines types to play against, already. Why have the system marginalize concept?

If I have a Half Elf Barbarian who uses her high charisma to be a leader of her tribe (Her father was an elf slave liberated along with goods during a raid but he left her with her mother and went back to his life elsewhere) and dish out damage in combat people will still assume she's not as strong/combat capable/whatever as a Half Orc Barbarian.

It's still against type, there's just no mechanical disadvantage for playing against type this way.

And then there's the whole female barbarian versus male barbarian. Everyone will assume she's weaker than he is, even if their stats are the same. Some DMs (and players) will even whine about how strong she is and how women should be weaker than men. Within the story women might be weaker on average, but ever since the AD&D gaff we accept that women shouldn't be penalized strength for the benefit of being treated like eye candy by the rest of the party. :P

Kurald Galain
2015-06-09, 01:17 PM
The setting determines types to play against, already. Why have the system marginalize concept?

It doesn't. A -1 penalty is nowhere near "marginalizing".

Xetheral
2015-06-09, 01:19 PM
@Dream I don't see class being tied to race as a feature. That's one of the no-no's of game design which video game companies learned long ago but which WotC hasn't figured out yet. If there's a reason why only wood elves and humans should have the correct stats for monks, why half orcs have the best champion fighter or barbarian boosts, or why mountain dwarves and half elves have extra stat points, I'd love to hear it. Else, I see it as needlessly limiting player choice.

It's not a no-no, it's simply a different style. (Also, plenty of video games have kept racial attribute bonuses.)

The purpose served by having certain races be better at certain classes is to permit the system to more intuitively model the consequences of a world where races have distinct physiologies. In the real world, having greater strength is an advantage in physical combat. Ergo, in a parallel world where some races tend to be stronger, those races would have an advantage in physical combat.


It is a crucial mater to optimization, that extra 5% to hit and saves and +1 damage is a big deal this edition. And that's only if you're playing a SAD class. Monk is being used as an example because as it depends heavily on both Dex and Wis making it one of the most MAD classes it is heavily penalized by not taking a race that boosts one or both of those stats.

So long as DMs restrict themselves to using enemies who can hit and miss the party and be hit and miss in return, a +1 bonus on a d20 roll has the exact same mechanical impact in any edition.

It is true that having fewer sources of +1 bonuses increases the opportunity cost of not taking those bonuses (due to a lack of substitute abilities) but the opportunity cost of selecting an ability has no bearing on its mechanical impact.

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 01:21 PM
It doesn't. A -1 penalty is nowhere near "marginalizing".

Fine. Penalizing. Though I was also referring to concept locking of "All fighters are either strong or fast and nothing else!" and "All Warlocks/Sorcerors are Charismatic!"

Ace Jackson
2015-06-09, 01:33 PM
Because I want there to be types so that you can play against type. Example" Half orc wizards are uncommon because they don't make great wizards. It doesn't mean you can't be a wizard, the difference is pretty marginal this edition, but there is a clear reason why half orc wizards aren't as widespread as human or elven. For the same reason, a half orc fighter or barbarian is much more common.

Finding interesting ways to combine certain attributes with certain classes can also be fun. A dexterity based barbarian for example suffers in some areas but is much better in others. It isn't typical, but it creates something far more unique. In the same way, a strength based rogue might benefit from multiclassing to get armor prof (barbarian being a great choice for example), or he might take a race like mountain dwarf to cover this. A hill dwarf monk will be tougher and have strong ki abilities, but not have as potent basic attacks.

In this system, the dex based barbarian lacks and difference from the strength barbarian and the strength rogue just has his muscles deflect blades instead. You actually cut down on the number of unique, interesting, and distinct concepts, making everything more generic.

If the racial abilities aren't big enough to make certain combinations suboptimal, they aren't big enough to matter and they don't add any distinction. Same with skills. If no racial combination is a bad choice, racial abilities might as well be removed they add nothing to the game, no optimization, nothing distinct enough to make a elf and dwarf actually feel or play differently. It'd be easier to just give everyone human racial benefits regardless of race. If they do still add enough, then nothing was really fixed. Because honestly, a +1 to attack or DC isn't that big this edition, not when you cap out at the same level. There are plenty of things a race might offer that offsets that already.

The difference in optimization and play is minor, you've either removed it entirely, so why have different abilities at all, or it still remains roughly the same level of minor and nothing was fixed. That's why I dislike this.

I follow your concern, but I'm not sure I follow the reasoning, playing against type, uphill, as an underdog, whatever anyone calls it, has an appeal. The thought of losing that appeal being distressful is understandable. However, I don't think it's really lost under this system. It can be, but to my understanding of it, that would be an exception, not the rule.

Adventurers do what they do for a living, they need to learn to make things happen for themselves, by themselves. A random elf in an elven village is not likely going to be a barbarian, the core stat system is not geared for it, and living among elves, there wasn't likely any reason to buck trends. Hence, I'd say that most NPCs would still use core, the flexible system attachment reinforcing the fact that adventurers are of a different stock. Anyone can farm/fish/fit in to their home community, not many have the will or ability to go out and face dragons.

If a Half-orc devotes his time to honing his ability to rob you blind and no one is around to see it, would the half-orc be one of the first suspected as a thief in town, and would the laughing tavern goers not be even more easily pick pocketed?

Shadow monk'd again.

To be more relevant to the point at hand. I agree with Steampunkette, penalizing, tropes, traditions, whatever you call it, there are stigmas, moreover, they are stigmas reinforced by the game's systems, and whether the reinforcement is large or small in effect, it exists. This idea, as far as I can see anyway, seeks to remove the mechanical reinforcement of the stigmas, nothing more, nothing less.

Personally, I haven't seen many compelling reasons not to do so.

DireSickFish
2015-06-09, 01:35 PM
The Strength/Dexterity trade-offs are kind of the best example of this kind of design in practice already. They already have other systems besides being the attack stat or "defense" stat to give them trade offs. As a 20 str or 20 dex both give you +5 to hit and +5 damage, right? But dex also gives you +5 initiative, and dexterity saves are far more common than strength saves so the +5 to those saves is more valuable.

This makes dex clearly "better" than strength, so other systems were built into place to offset this. Armor being the main concern, strength biased characters get +1 armor to dex based ones when wearing there best armor. Skills are a bit trickier as Athletics is a very useful skill but so is stealth and slight of hand. Strength has the ability to use two handed weapons which have higher damage output and is much more versatile int he weapons it can use so any magic weapon found is likely to be usable by them.

This creates a situation of unique trade offs. That's the problem with the Flexible attribute setup at the moment, it creates better stats for use in each of these 3 categories and if you uncouple everything from stats so you -don't- have better stats for each category then you may as well not have stats at all.

You do manage to make any class viable for any race regardless of stat boosts, so that's a success. It would just be very hard to emulate the Strength/Dexterity dichotomy across all 6 stats so that you -want- them all or 1 of them as highs as possible but making it that way costs you something else that the other stats give.

I don't think it's as simple as giving each stat 1 static derived bonus either.

Kurald Galain
2015-06-09, 01:40 PM
This creates a situation of unique trade offs. That's the problem with the Flexible attribute setup at the moment, it creates better stats for use in each of these 3 categories and if you uncouple everything from stats so you -don't- have better stats for each category then you may as well not have stats at all.
Precisely. Trade-offs are interesting. Making every combination of stats do effectively the same thing is not interesting (because then you might as well play without classes, levels, feats and so forth).

Easy_Lee
2015-06-09, 01:43 PM
The Strength/Dexterity trade-offs are kind of the best example of this kind of design in practice already. They already have other systems besides being the attack stat or "defense" stat to give them trade offs. As a 20 str or 20 dex both give you +5 to hit and +5 damage, right? But dex also gives you +5 initiative, and dexterity saves are far more common than strength saves so the +5 to those saves is more valuable.

This makes dex clearly "better" than strength, so other systems were built into place to offset this. Armor being the main concern, strength biased characters get +1 armor to dex based ones when wearing there best armor. Skills are a bit trickier as Athletics is a very useful skill but so is stealth and slight of hand. Strength has the ability to use two handed weapons which have higher damage output and is much more versatile int he weapons it can use so any magic weapon found is likely to be usable by them.

This creates a situation of unique trade offs. That's the problem with the Flexible attribute setup at the moment, it creates better stats for use in each of these 3 categories and if you uncouple everything from stats so you -don't- have better stats for each category then you may as well not have stats at all.


No it doesn't. My system doesn't change which attributes affect skills, does not change the fact that dexterity boosts initiative, and deliberately does not affect armor proficiency or qualifications. You still need strength to wear heavy armor, still need dexterity for your initiative, and still need each relevant attribute for each relevant skill.

And heavy armor is still relevant, because one can choose strength for attack, dexterity for defense, and then ignore dexterity because he's wearing heavy armor.

The only thing you mentioned as a balance concern that's now possible under my system is using a great weapon with something other than strength. I don't see this as a major concern, since the difference in damage is small.

Also, the fact that strength only has one skill is an advantage for strength. That one skill covers all strength skill checks, allowing users to branch out with their other skill selections.

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 01:45 PM
Precisely. Trade-offs are interesting. Making every combination of stats do effectively the same thing is not interesting (because then you might as well play without classes, levels, feats and so forth).

But it doesn't make them the same thing.

It allows 3 stats (Attack, Defense, Supernatural) to be shuffled around.

Skills are still tied to their stats. Carrying Capacity. Saving throws. HP Bonus. All of those things are still tied to their original stats.

The hyperbole is not helping anything, either.

Ace Jackson
2015-06-09, 01:50 PM
The Strength/Dexterity trade-offs are kind of the best example of this kind of design in practice already. They already have other systems besides being the attack stat or "defense" stat to give them trade offs. As a 20 str or 20 dex both give you +5 to hit and +5 damage, right? But dex also gives you +5 initiative, and dexterity saves are far more common than strength saves so the +5 to those saves is more valuable.

This makes dex clearly "better" than strength, so other systems were built into place to offset this. Armor being the main concern, strength biased characters get +1 armor to dex based ones when wearing there best armor. Skills are a bit trickier as Athletics is a very useful skill but so is stealth and slight of hand. Strength has the ability to use two handed weapons which have higher damage output and is much more versatile int he weapons it can use so any magic weapon found is likely to be usable by them.

This creates a situation of unique trade offs. That's the problem with the Flexible attribute setup at the moment, it creates better stats for use in each of these 3 categories and if you uncouple everything from stats so you -don't- have better stats for each category then you may as well not have stats at all.

You do manage to make any class viable for any race regardless of stat boosts, so that's a success. It would just be very hard to emulate the Strength/Dexterity dichotomy across all 6 stats so that you -want- them all or 1 of them as highs as possible but making it that way costs you something else that the other stats give.

I don't think it's as simple as giving each stat 1 static derived bonus either.


Precisely. Trade-offs are interesting. Making every combination of stats do effectively the same thing is not interesting (because then you might as well play without classes, levels, feats and so forth).

First off, this seems to be a slippery slope fallacy.

Second, you do have tradeoffs, Intelligence governs the greatest number skills in the game, but you still need a party strongman to open a heavy stone door in a dungeon. Charisma governs many social abilities, but there is never a guarantee of talking your way out every time, so having a bodyguard with the dex skills, such as slight of hand and acrobatics to intercept and even turn around assassination attempts is useful.

The arguments your posing might have merit on the single character campaign level, but most people play in a party, and just because everyone could pick to attack from intelligence doesn't mean that it will always work out well for them.

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 01:56 PM
All of this said, I totally want to make a ThiefRogue/GooWarlock, now, with a focus on intelligence for supernatural abilities who delves into ancient tombs to steal mystical secrets that should not be known!

I honestly never understood why Warlocks have to be Charismatic to begin with. It doesn't really make much sense, in the end. Did they need to be really good at negotiating a deal for power or something? Why not Intelligence to use their powers or Wisdom to keep their sanity/soul/etc?

Just an odd choice.

DireSickFish
2015-06-09, 02:03 PM
No it doesn't. My system doesn't change which attributes affect skills, does not change the fact that dexterity boosts initiative, and deliberately does not affect armor proficiency or qualifications. You still need strength to wear heavy armor, still need dexterity for your initiative, and still need each relevant attribute for each relevant skill.

And heavy armor is still relevant, because one can choose strength for attack, dexterity for defense, and then ignore dexterity because he's wearing heavy armor.

The only thing you mentioned as a balance concern that's now possible under my system is using a great weapon with something other than strength. I don't see this as a major concern, since the difference in damage is small.

Also, the fact that strength only has one skill is an advantage for strength. That one skill covers all strength skill checks, allowing users to branch out with their other skill selections.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The duality of Strength and Dexterity will still exist under your system because none of those underlying systems have been taken out or tampered with overmuch. I was just using them as an example of interesting choices and trade-offs.

I'm not really sure under the Flexible Attribute system what all of the different choices in primary stat will have on trade-offs vs other stats.

Constitution has clear advantages for being tied with saves to keep concentration spells going as well as hit-points. I think you noticed this though and have already taken a few steps to make sure it isn't always picked.

Wartex1
2015-06-09, 02:19 PM
All of this said, I totally want to make a ThiefRogue/GooWarlock, now, with a focus on intelligence for supernatural abilities who delves into ancient tombs to steal mystical secrets that should not be known!

I honestly never understood why Warlocks have to be Charismatic to begin with. It doesn't really make much sense, in the end. Did they need to be really good at negotiating a deal for power or something? Why not Intelligence to use their powers or Wisdom to keep their sanity/soul/etc?

Just an odd choice.

Charisma is also the strength of personality, which would be much closer to willpower than Wisdom. That's also why Sorcerers use it, since they exert their powers by force of will.

VoxRationis
2015-06-09, 02:19 PM
All of this said, I totally want to make a ThiefRogue/GooWarlock, now, with a focus on intelligence for supernatural abilities who delves into ancient tombs to steal mystical secrets that should not be known!

I honestly never understood why Warlocks have to be Charismatic to begin with. It doesn't really make much sense, in the end. Did they need to be really good at negotiating a deal for power or something? Why not Intelligence to use their powers or Wisdom to keep their sanity/soul/etc?

Just an odd choice.

Truthfully, magic that you get from a pact with someone else, be it clerical spells or warlock invocations, should be ability-independent. If you had actual talent of your own, you'd become a wizard.

LordVonDerp
2015-06-09, 02:24 PM
Nice article.

And that's true. The reasons for keeping women out of war and off the battlefield have little to do with physical strength. Things like temperament (men are more violent), preventing complications (relationships, pregnancy in the middle of a war), and other practical concerns (if your women die then no one can have children, which is why women are more important to protect) are much bigger factors than physical fitness.
??? What does any of that have to do with my post?

LordVonDerp
2015-06-09, 02:28 PM
A) The woman in question was fencing in the 17th century, likely with a smallsword; we were discussing longsword fighting.
B) Nothing I said was about women and fighting.
You are attempting to discredit my argument by drawing examples "contrary" to arguments I have not made, in contexts outside of what we were discussing.

A) 17th century fencing used a one handed rapier, a sword that requires far more strength to wield than a two handed longsword.

B). You said a waifish pop star would have trouble wielding a sword, I provided you with an example of one who was highly skilled with it.

Thrudd
2015-06-09, 02:32 PM
As opposed to the "decide what class you want to be, pick a race that boosts its two most important scores" that we have now.

I prefer "roll the dice, see what scores you get, and then pick a race and class that make the best out of them."

Actually, I prefer race as class, so there is really only one important choice to make at character creation. But that doesn't really work for this edition.

In general, I think abilities do too much as it is, the bonuses should be cut in half. 3-4 -2, 5-7 -1, 8-13 no bonus, 14-16 +1, 17-18 +2.

I would rather see combat divorced from any ability score and based only on class, instead of switching around the function of abilities, if anything needs to be done at all (which I am not convinced of).

If you want to be a charismatic fighter it's easy, put your highest scores in strength and charisma. So you only have average con and dex, that doesn't make it a failed character. Your fighting doesn't need to be based on your charisma, it makes no sense (I've read people's attempts to justify it, they are not convincing.)

Having int or wis or cha give you a bonus on a specific maneuver or with a feat is one thing, but there's no way it replaces your physical ability all the time.

What this whole idea feels like to me is giving players more power they don't need, opening up the system for more abuse, min/maxing, and "optimization".


Charisma is also the strength of personality, which would be much closer to willpower than Wisdom. That's also why Sorcerers use it, since they exert their powers by force of will.

This is the problem with these ability scores. They are using the same names they have been since 1974, but the terms don't actually make sense for how they are trying to interpret them now. What they used to mean was this:
Str is required to be a fighter
dex is required for thief
Int is for magic users
Wis is for clerics
Con is toughness and resilience, adds to hp and defines the chances of being resurrected
Cha is leadership and personality, defines number and morale of followers and adjusts reactions of social encounters.

Each race has their own minimum ability score requirements as well.

Spell casting was a function of your training as either a wizard or cleric and had little to do with your ability score, which only served to define whether or not you qualified for that profession.

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 03:04 PM
Charisma is also the strength of personality, which would be much closer to willpower than Wisdom. That's also why Sorcerers use it, since they exert their powers by force of will.

Truthfully, magic that you get from a pact with someone else, be it clerical spells or warlock invocations, should be ability-independent. If you had actual talent of your own, you'd become a wizard.

The question I'm posing is: Which ability?

One Warlock, Pact of the Tome, researches rituals independent of their patron after getting their book of shadows. They go into ancient tomes and pick what they like and copy it over. Shouldn't that one be Intelligence based casting?

Another Warlock, Great Old One Pact, has to constantly deal with the madness inducing effects of the Far Realm (Or darkness between the stars or Ogdru Jahad or whatever you want to use there). Their sanity is constantly being brought into question. Wouldn't that be Wisdom (to know the difference between hallucinations and reality)?

Charisma is your sense of self and force of leadership, sure. But why does being a Warlock more or less require you to be a better public speaker/musician/liar rather than someone who researched the names of ancient beings of power and the ways to appease them so they'd give you power for sacrifices or whatever?

If they're borrowing power, like a Cleric, it should be wisdom. If they're learning spells it should be intelligence. And if they're using their own power they should use charisma. But depending on the character's story and background/Patron it could be any one of those three (or a combination of two).

Defaulting to Charisma seems like a nonsensical choice, to me.

Knaight
2015-06-09, 03:24 PM
Charisma is your sense of self and force of leadership, sure. But why does being a Warlock more or less require you to be a better public speaker/musician/liar rather than someone who researched the names of ancient beings of power and the ways to appease them so they'd give you power for sacrifices or whatever?


Charisma is also force of personality, and effectively willpower. That's essentially where the problem lies - the attributes are bundled such that there are some really weird connections, and some things that are significantly less connected than one might expect. For instance, Strength and Constitution have nothing to do with eachother, though they generally would be expected to go together (and often end up being grouped together in other systems). Charisma's status as a mixed bag has already been covered, but then there's the weirdness of Wisdom representing both intuitive sense, experience, and physical senses. There's the use of one stat for both fine motor skills and gross motor skills, where the ability to aim and the ability to do acrobatics have approximately nothing to do with each other in real life.

Unfortunately, this is a bit tricky to fix. The attributes could be broken down a lot more, but almost nobody wants a 20 attribute stat block. They could be regrouped, but then there are weird connections regardless. I'd argue that there are other groupings that make more sense; I'd also say that what they are depends on stylistic choice and D&D is loath to acknowledge that it's anything other than generic fantasy (despite the specificity in a lot of the mechanics).

Steampunkette
2015-06-09, 03:29 PM
Alternatively: People could use the system in this thread and define their character's AA, SA, and DA independent of the contrivances created by the original development team based on their history with related systems older than almost half the population.

>.>

I know I plan to.

Morty
2015-06-09, 03:41 PM
Charisma is also force of personality, and effectively willpower. That's essentially where the problem lies - the attributes are bundled such that there are some really weird connections, and some things that are significantly less connected than one might expect. For instance, Strength and Constitution have nothing to do with eachother, though they generally would be expected to go together (and often end up being grouped together in other systems). Charisma's status as a mixed bag has already been covered, but then there's the weirdness of Wisdom representing both intuitive sense, experience, and physical senses. There's the use of one stat for both fine motor skills and gross motor skills, where the ability to aim and the ability to do acrobatics have approximately nothing to do with each other in real life.

Unfortunately, this is a bit tricky to fix. The attributes could be broken down a lot more, but almost nobody wants a 20 attribute stat block. They could be regrouped, but then there are weird connections regardless. I'd argue that there are other groupings that make more sense; I'd also say that what they are depends on stylistic choice and D&D is loath to acknowledge that it's anything other than generic fantasy (despite the specificity in a lot of the mechanics).

It does sort of come down to D&D attributes being a hodge-podge of different ideas, welded onto them over the years in an attempt to make sense of them, that no designer of any edition is willing to let go of.

Thrudd
2015-06-09, 03:54 PM
It does sort of come down to D&D attributes being a hodge-podge of different ideas, welded onto them over the years in an attempt to make sense of them, that no designer of any edition is willing to let go of.

That's why for a home brew, I would consider at the very least renaming some of the attributes to better reflect what they actually do.

VoxRationis
2015-06-09, 11:54 PM
Alternatively: People could use the system in this thread and define their character's AA, SA, and DA independent of the contrivances created by the original development team based on their history with related systems older than almost half the population.

>.>

I know I plan to.

Ah, the "old white guy" argument of deprecating something. A classic, and just as fallacious as ever. The age of something does not invalidate it. A new idea can be good, as can an old one, but both must be so on their own merits.

Steampunkette
2015-06-10, 06:55 AM
The old idea limited concept to create tropes.

Those tropes have been played to death and created stereotypes that are going to last for freaking ever. The characterizations they've created will be a warm blanket for all us grognards and an easy way to play for newblets who are getting the hang of things.

But the rules don't need to enforce those tropes in order for them to continue on, beyond this point.

The whole "Stats mean nothing!" argument is a hyperbolic slippery slope that is disproved by the rest of the 5e system staying the same. And, really, that's the only argument that's been presented beyond "Tropes are important, not just cliche."

So system 1: Limiting concept to reinforce trope and making new ideas weaker in play by default.
System 2: Not limiting concept to reinforce trope so new ideas are equal in play by default.

Nothing's keeping someone from making their Half-Orc Barbarian with strength-dex-con as their important stats, after all. So the tropes will continue on as they always have.

But you gain more options for play. New character concepts and styles and ways to have the rules reflect the player's idea.

Also, I said nothing about "White Guys". Just that the idea is so old that half the population is younger than it, and it might be time to try something new. The race and gender of the devs is basically irrelevant to that (their hold to traditionalism less so). Please don't put persecution in my mouth. If I want it, there, I'll do it myself! :smallwink:

Thrudd
2015-06-10, 09:08 AM
The old idea limited concept to create tropes.

Those tropes have been played to death and created stereotypes that are going to last for freaking ever. The characterizations they've created will be a warm blanket for all us grognards and an easy way to play for newblets who are getting the hang of things.

But the rules don't need to enforce those tropes in order for them to continue on, beyond this point.

The whole "Stats mean nothing!" argument is a hyperbolic slippery slope that is disproved by the rest of the 5e system staying the same. And, really, that's the only argument that's been presented beyond "Tropes are important, not just cliche."

So system 1: Limiting concept to reinforce trope and making new ideas weaker in play by default.
System 2: Not limiting concept to reinforce trope so new ideas are equal in play by default.

Nothing's keeping someone from making their Half-Orc Barbarian with strength-dex-con as their important stats, after all. So the tropes will continue on as they always have.

But you gain more options for play. New character concepts and styles and ways to have the rules reflect the player's idea.

Also, I said nothing about "White Guys". Just that the idea is so old that half the population is younger than it, and it might be time to try something new. The race and gender of the devs is basically irrelevant to that (their hold to traditionalism less so). Please don't put persecution in my mouth. If I want it, there, I'll do it myself! :smallwink:

My biggest problem with it is that it makes no sense for anything to replace strength and dexterity as the primary contributors to combat actions, at least as the abilities have been described in 5e and in earlier editions, even given the differences.

there is just no way that the attribute which helps you interact socially and be convincing also makes you better at swinging a sword or shooting a bow.
Unless we redefine combat into something that is not strictly a physical activity. You would have to describe how you non physically attack your enemies using methods that fit your main attribute.

Magic is another issue, as the system is defined now, physical attributes make no sense as primary factors in spell casting. Maybe dexterity for spells that need attack rolls, but not to contribute to the DC of non physical spells. You would have to redefine how magic works to allow physical attributes as primary attributes.

The attributes being defined as they are, and the game's combat being based generally on real-world fighting with weapons and armor, it would destroy verisimilitude to propose that people can use mental attributes to replace physical attributes as the contributors to combat. If you redefine combat as something much more abstract, ie not necessarily being physically fighting with weapons, then maybe it makes sense. Or redefine the attributes so they could all apply to physical fighting, in which case we'd need to look at how that affects the skill system and saving throws as well, because it would.

Just doing this so players can always use their highest ability scores for everything, verisimilitude be damned, is not a good reason to me. It isn't about role playing, which you can do regardless of whether you have a +4 on every action you take. You don't need an 18 in something to be considered good at it or for you to express that attribute as a defining character trait.

Also, there are backgrounds, multiclassing, and the system is quite flexible by design. Any character of any class can have proficiency in almost any skill, which has more impact than ability modifiers in the long run. You can make a perfectly effective multi dimensional character with the system as it is.

Ace Jackson
2015-06-10, 09:38 AM
there is just no way that the attribute which helps you interact socially and be convincing also makes you better at swinging a sword or shooting a bow.
Unless we redefine combat into something that is not strictly a physical activity. You would have to describe how you non physically attack your enemies using methods that fit your main attribute.


Spiderman (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFightLikeACow), he puts his enemies off balance using a cutting wit ironically born of his fear of them, or boredom, depending on the writer, allowing him to get a few more over-extensions out of his enemies, making them easier to hit. (Cha AA, providing to hit bonus, and more unintentional exposure of soft spots from the enemy for damage bonuses). Plus his web shot has come either by his knowledge under some writers (Int DA or SA), or biologically under others, (which could be said to be a wisdom DA or SA, as he would need to be able to quickly adapt to his new physiology and capabilities).

Does he have utterly absurd dex? Yeah, but he also has his spider sense (An arguable SA-DA, whether bound to Wis for the traditionally minded, or Cha depending on how far someone takes the force of personality/will imposing angle of it.) and made a martial art all his own, the way of the spider, which further reinforces the idea of the uniqueness of a hero, or at least of an adventurer.

Fiction has plenty of character's who don't fit this sacred cow of a D&D mold as it is.


The attributes being defined as they are, and the game's combat being based generally on real-world fighting with weapons and armor, it would destroy verisimilitude to propose that people can use mental attributes to replace physical attributes as the contributors to combat. If you redefine combat as something much more abstract, ie not necessarily being physically fighting with weapons, then maybe it makes sense. Or redefine the attributes so they could all apply to physical fighting, in which case we'd need to look at how that affects the skill system and saving throws as well, because it would.

As I mentioned earlier, just because an entire party could theoretically attack with int, that wouldn't always work for them.


Second, you do have tradeoffs, Intelligence governs the greatest number skills in the game, but you still need a party strongman to open a heavy stone door in a dungeon. Charisma governs many social abilities, but there is never a guarantee of talking your way out every time, so having a bodyguard with the dex skills, such as slight of hand and acrobatics to intercept and even turn around assassination attempts is useful.

Thrudd
2015-06-10, 10:12 AM
Spiderman (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFightLikeACow), he puts his enemies off balance using a cutting wit ironically born of his fear of them, or boredom, depending on the writer, allowing him to get a few more over-extensions out of his enemies, making them easier to hit. (Cha AA, providing to hit bonus, and more unintentional exposure of soft spots from the enemy for damage bonuses). Plus his web shot has come either by his knowledge under some writers (Int DA or SA), or biologically under others, (which could be said to be a wisdom DA or SA, as he would need to be able to quickly adapt to his new physiology and capabilities).

Does he have utterly absurd dex? Yeah, but he also has his spider sense (An arguable SA-DA, whether bound to Wis for the traditionally minded, or Cha depending on how far someone takes the force of personality/will imposing angle of it.) and made a martial art all his own, the way of the spider, which further reinforces the idea of the uniqueness of a hero, or at least of an adventurer.

Fiction has plenty of character's who don't fit this sacred cow of a D&D mold as it is.

Spider-Man's wit doesn't hit people in the face, pick them up and throw them, or hit them in the eyes with webbing. I would argue his talking is a nominal factor in his combat performance, it gets him in trouble as often as it benefits him. Also, his various clones and superior spider(Otto in Peter's body) perform just as well without the witty banter.

Also, spider sense is equivalent to a supernatural/magical ability. It isn't the equivalent of natural wisdom that anyone could have. It would be a special feature that lets him add wisdom bonus to armor class in addition to dex, or some such thing.

his intelligence let him build the web shooters, but it has nothing to do with operating them, that's all physical. It's not like he uses telekinesis.

In D&D, it isn't about sacred cows, it's about simulating certain types of fantasy worlds. D&D isn't a super hero game, telekinesis, clairvoyance and prescience are mostly things that require spells to perform, they aren't inherent powers represented by ability scores. Nobody uses intelligence to fight with their weapons instead of physical abilities, unless they are telekinetic. If you have characters with that sort of natural power, you need a whole other set of rules to determine that power's functioning and limits. It can certainly be done if you want, but don't act like it doesn't make any difference in terms of the verisimilitude of the setting to replace strength with intelligence.

All the attempts to claim otherwise are simply not convincing when you consider the way the abilities are defined in addition to even a small understanding of how fighting works. Physical attributes have far more impact in a combat, because no matter how good your strategy is or how you banter, you need training, reflexes, physical strength and agility to affect the other person.

Even using precision strikes to disable someone require more agility and physical control vs intelligence. Knowing where to hit is step one, but actually being able to execute is entirely a matter of physical control.

To sum up, if the goal is even a small amount of verisimilitude (which for me it is), this ability swapping proposal is completely inappropriate.

Steampunkette
2015-06-10, 12:57 PM
I disagree.

There's plenty of verisimilitude in skills, secondary stat functions, weapon variety, and saving throws. And the AA, DA, and SA stats aren't needed to reinforce it.

Especially when you get into Monks, who are ostensibly just fistfighters, punching Ogres 15 feet through the air or running 15ft/second for 10 minutes. Or fighters reloading a heavy crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds while taking accurate shots and moving between cover. Or healing themselves by thinking "My wounds should close, now."

There's enough fantastic stuff where changing the abstraction to represent character ability in combat doesn't impact verisimilitude enough to harm the game.

Of course it's going to be different for everyone, in the end. Different people are going to want to rework Hit Points to be "More Realistic" or change the way feats and combat work to fit their idea of "Realism". And that's fine, too.

Bottom line? This system isn't broken. The house rule won't make your characters unbalanced powerhouses that scoff at the challenges placed before them. So as an alternate rule system for people who want that variety and flavor it's functional and fairly well designed. Can we agree to that, even if you won't personally use it any more than Spell Points, Vitality Points, or some other alternate ruleset that is balanced but esoteric enough that it doesn't get used in your game?

Thrudd
2015-06-10, 01:53 PM
I disagree.

There's plenty of verisimilitude in skills, secondary stat functions, weapon variety, and saving throws. And the AA, DA, and SA stats aren't needed to reinforce it.

Especially when you get into Monks, who are ostensibly just fistfighters, punching Ogres 15 feet through the air or running 15ft/second for 10 minutes. Or fighters reloading a heavy crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds while taking accurate shots and moving between cover. Or healing themselves by thinking "My wounds should close, now."

There's enough fantastic stuff where changing the abstraction to represent character ability in combat doesn't impact verisimilitude enough to harm the game.

Of course it's going to be different for everyone, in the end. Different people are going to want to rework Hit Points to be "More Realistic" or change the way feats and combat work to fit their idea of "Realism". And that's fine, too.

Bottom line? This system isn't broken. The house rule won't make your characters unbalanced powerhouses that scoff at the challenges placed before them. So as an alternate rule system for people who want that variety and flavor it's functional and fairly well designed. Can we agree to that, even if you won't personally use it any more than Spell Points, Vitality Points, or some other alternate ruleset that is balanced but esoteric enough that it doesn't get used in your game?

I think it wouldn't horribly break the game mechanically, but it does exacerbate an existing problem which is that strength already is almost a worthless ability. The skills based on it are already few and at least one of them can be substituted for a dex skill. Saving throws are not common. There are fringe cases where it will come into play outside of combat, almost no one tracks weight or encumbrance anymore.

So take away its single important roll in the game, and you have a perfect universal dump stat for min-maxers. This is why I personally do not like finesse weapons either, and would remove the whole concept from the game, it impinges too much on the one important role of strength.

That +3 or +4 that you're probably getting in combat does make a difference, especially at low levels. I can see the appeal of wanting to do this if you feel like your low level characters aren't competent enough at all the things you would like. But this can also be rectified by giving them a more lenient ability generation method- more points for point buy or 5d6b3 or a better array.

So you think your level one character should be able to be great at fighting, and really quick witted and charismatic, and fast and acrobatic, and be able to use a long sword and shield as weapons of choice. So roll it up and put you best scores in strength, dex, and charisma. You probably have average to lower scores in the other three, which means you don't have the max possible hp, and you're not the guy in the party who is in charge of being on watch or searching for stuff. Is this really that bad? Does it somehow ruin your character concept or make it unplayable?

So, no, I don't think it totally breaks the game. But it does contribute to a creep towards power gaming that I wouldn't want, and from my point of view doesn't contribute anything that the game is currently lacking.

Edit: a much simpler way to customize your character would just be to substitute skill proficiencies.

Say you want to be a fighter, but think it is not appropriate for your character to be good at athletics or feats of strength, for some reason (basically the only other things strength does), instead you want to be learned and have all kinds of knowledge skills. if the class gives you skills you think your character shouldn't have, ask to substitute them for the ones you want. You don't need to alter anything about the attributes themselves. Make a custom background, already something the rules provide for.

The most drastic thing you might ask for is to change what abilities your character gets proficiency in, remove strength and add intelligence. I could see an argument for that.
But int instead of str as the all purpose combat modifier? No. Str as the ability that lets you memorize more spells? No.

One more edit: the issue of races being good at only certain classes that was brought up as a main reason for this new system: just let players choose whatever ability bumps they want, regardless of race. Much simpler and removes the problem (if you think it is a problem).

Steampunkette
2015-06-10, 04:43 PM
I can definitely understand and accept your reasoning. And I'm glad we could more or less come to a common ground on the matter.

That said, I think one thing that would really help the whole Finesse/Strength thing is to make some changes to how weapons work. But I'll set up another thread for that!

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-10, 06:42 PM
The more I stay on these boards, the more I realize how impossible it is to create a system or idea that will please everyone. I suppose that's normal, to be expected, and fair. Bit of a shame, but that's how the world works. At least there are some people who enjoy the idea of this system enough to use it. And I appreciate Lee's effort to put it together. This system certainly suits my philosophies regarding RPGs, so I'll be using it if I ever DM 5th edition. I'll probably try to convince my DMs to let me use it, as well.

Anyway, to continue the debate (because isn't that what forums are for? :p ), I expect that the viability of many attributes are heavily dependent on the DM and campaign. I see strength checks come up way more often for miscellaneous things than any other check. That is likely due to the skills that exist for other attributes, but still, having strength would have certainly helped me in many situations.

Similarly, charisma wouldn't be as useful in an undead campaign, wisdom not as useful for a campaign that doesn't have many ambushes, intelligence not as useful for a DM who likes to keep secrets, etc. Only one that is basically universally useful is Dex, for AC and/or initiative, and the AC thing is removed in the Flexible Attributes system. Con is still universally useful, unless you base HP off of the DA as well (which I probably would).

Also, there seems to be an undertone that you disapprove of "powergaming", Thrudd. I understand disliking when players go to extremes, or making nonsensical characters, but I've never understood why people get angry when people simply try to make their character effective at what they envision their characters to be good at. Anyway, I'd argue that this system makes powergaming less apparent than in the default system. By using flexible attributes, "powergamers" and non-powergamers alike can put points into the attributes that fit their character, and be just fine. Using the default system, the powergamers are likely to choose things like Half Orc barbarian to maximize their effectiveness through optimization. Meanwhile, those who don't optimize choose the race and stats that fit their cool idea of a smart, charismatic fighter, but suffer in terms of keeping up in effectiveness with the optimizers. It's likely they don't even know why they're not as good.

By using this system, you place the optimizers and the non-optimizers on a more even field.

(Also, I got distracted while putting this post together, and when I came back, things were more or less settled, but dang it, I typed this, I'm posting it!)

Zireael
2015-06-11, 08:07 AM
1) Is this for 3.x or 5e? (it's not tagged)
2) If I'm reading the OP correctly, SA cannot equal DA cannot equal AA. Right? To prevent people tagging their best ability as the do-everything.
3) I like the idea of choosing the attributes that are used, but I'm not sure how it makes the expected attack and HP the same, as someone upthread asserted.

Ace Jackson
2015-06-11, 08:26 AM
1) Is this for 3.x or 5e? (it's not tagged)
2) If I'm reading the OP correctly, SA cannot equal DA cannot equal AA. Right? To prevent people tagging their best ability as the do-everything.
3) I like the idea of choosing the attributes that are used, but I'm not sure how it makes the expected attack and HP the same, as someone upthread asserted.

1) This was moved from the 5e sub-forum.
2)From what I can see, you must tag at least two abilities, but you may tag one twice, AA DA, DA SA, or AA SA, depending on what you are going for, with one exception, you may not tag con unless you already have proficiency with it's saving throws, and then can only tag it as a DA, this is meant to curtail tying concentration, HP, and spell dc or attack bonuses together. Otherwise your free to redistribute.
3a)It is an assumption that everyone would max their attack stat, meaning everyone would always have a +5, I don't believe it's an unreasonable assumption, but I don't think it means as much either. A wizard will still only have a d6 hit die, no multiattack, and tremendous cantrips, the only reason they'd conceivably attack as opposed to anything else would be if the rest of the party was down and they were in range of a mage slayer. At least as far as I see it.

3b)The HP assumption, I don't honestly know for sure where that came from, the different classes have different hit dice, but it might be rooted in the optional variant rule where DA governs bonus hp instead of con. Personally, I wouldn't play with that variant either, but to each their own, this hasn't exactly been play tested extensively yet.