PDA

View Full Version : Variant Ability Score Rules

Dennetik
2007-08-08, 06:19 PM
This is a set of rules I created because I felt the 'once in a four levels you learn something' rules of D&D is not quite what I had in mind, having all abilities increase equally slowly.

My inspiration was found in the Point-Buy system to create the ability scores at the beginning of the game.

The Starting Ability Scores: your character starts out with the basic ability scores of 16, 10, 10, 10, 10 and 8 to divide equally amongst his Abilities.
There is something special about the 16 score, to which I will refer later on. After the above scores have been divided, apply any amount of Point-Buy points, to the usual rules of Point-Buy. It is advised to apply any normal amount of Point-Buy points, minus 12 points that have already been spent, plus one for the level-up rules explained below. Contrary to normal Point-Buy, the points can be saved up for later use, as explained below.

The Level-Up: now at first level, and every level-up your character will receive one additional Point-Buy point, or Ability Point. And at every level-up your character will be allowed to trade in any amount of Ability Points for a one point increase in any ability score.
For example, Alyus, a sorcerer, received 12 Point-Buy Points at first level. He spent xx of them, and got the following ability scores: Str 8; Dex 14; Con 10; Int 14; Wis 10; Cha 18. He then received the extra Ability Point for first level, and invested it in his Constitution, bringing it to 11. Now he has turned second level, and has received another Ability Point, and enthusiastic as he is, he decides not to save it for a later day, but immediately invest it in his Constitution, bringing it to a total of 12, giving him a Con Modifier of +1

Wondering where the 16 score came into view? Well, here it is. You see, this system alone would take a great toll on the classes that depended mostly on a single Ability Score, like Wizards, mostly. Since it would soon become near impossible to improve the single ability score. After 18, with which you would hope to start, it would cost you 4 points per increase, just as it would normally, four levels of waiting. But to get it to the score of 22 it would cost you 10 levels of waiting, and the increase to 23 that you could barely make on your 20th level. This is in contrary to the Monk, who can always use a little Dexterity, and a little Wisdom, and does not at the least abolish Strength. Or the Paladin, that can frankly use Strength just as much as Charisma, and definitely doesn't mind that little bit of Constitution to do the job. Therefore I have come up with the following.

The Talent: the 16 score that you applied to an Ability Score at character creation is your talent. You were born especially agile, strong, intelligent, etc. Your talented ability score will be marked with a pretty fiddly drawing on your character sheet, and will always be treated as if it were 2 points lower when dealing with Point-Buy ability increase.
For example, this is how our sorcerer of the previous example could have 18 in his Charisma, for if you would have counted it out, it would not have worked according to normal point buy. He has increased his Charisma from the 16 a talented ability score starts at to 18 at the cost of only 4 points, because it costs only 2 points to increase an ability score between 14 and 16.

Racial Modifiers: as with the usual Point-Buy system the racial modifiers are applied only after the appliance of the points. In this system it is just the same, only throughout the game. That means that, in addition to the effects of the Talented Score the race can give similar bonuses.
A half-orc, for example, would have no trouble raising his strength, which has a +2 from his race, and is probably his talented score as well. Thus raising it from 18 to 20 would cost no more then it would usually cost to raise the score from 14 to 16. However, he will find he has significantly more difficult to raise. From the 12th point on he will need to spent two points to increase it, as if it was 14 instead, and from the 14th point on it needs 3 points for an increase.

Nawyria
2007-08-09, 11:12 AM
I must say this ruleset has a certain merit to it. Characters tend to have "heroic" ability scores at high level simply because they're wearing magical items. That is the point of D&D I've always been having problems with, the focus on acquiring super-powerful magical items.
It would be suggested to create a feat availible that gives you a certain amount of Ability Points to spend. I've always considered the fact you can't intentionally focus on training an ability score (like you can in the Runequest RPG).
This system would work rather well in my campaign, which it was designed for at first, but the rules could use some clarification. Explain it a bit better and make a table for point costs to raise a specific ability score. Also, you could dump the "Talented Ability" thing, and just state no ability increase costs more than 4 ability points; or just rephrase it to make it sound better :smallsmile: .
Otherwise, good job.

Now give me credit, I helped you design this! :P

Dennetik
2007-08-09, 11:19 AM
This system would work rather well in my campaign, which it was designed for at first, but the rules could use some clarification. Explain it a bit better and make a table for point costs to raise a specific ability score. Also, you could dump the "Talented Ability" thing, and just state no ability increase costs more than 4 ability points; or just rephrase it to make it sound better.

No, the whole point of a Talent is that you are specifically good at this ability. Just stating that nothing could ever cost more then 4 points takes away the advantage a Talent gives you at lower levels, and makes you equally good at everything. Also, it takes away the disadvantage a racial incapability gives you after mere 2 points, since it can't go above 4 anyway.

Also, I think you're right, and I should make this Table.

PS: some credit goes to you for the 16-10-8 division and the help with the basic Ability Point idea.

Valairn
2007-08-09, 11:36 AM
I could see this system help develop a way to run a game without being extremely equipment dependent. I think that instead of initially assigning a certain number of points to particular stats, you should just assign the talent modifier to one ability. And work from the standard 8 as a base point buy.

So you pick one attribute as your talented attribute, and it gets the bonus on spending. And then you proceed to do normal point buy. And the leveling system you described.

Dennetik
2007-08-09, 12:13 PM
I could see this system help develop a way to run a game without being extremely equipment dependent. I think that instead of initially assigning a certain number of points to particular stats, you should just assign the talent modifier to one ability. And work from the standard 8 as a base point buy.

So you pick one attribute as your talented attribute, and it gets the bonus on spending. And then you proceed to do normal point buy. And the leveling system you described.

Yes, it is more functional as basic in that way, but it does leave the possibility for the guy who is extremely talented in dexterity with his score of 10... which is why I chose the 16 starting point.

Of course this will not work for creating and ruling NPC characters, and it is, in basic, already stronger then the elite array statistics. I think it would be best to revert it to 12 and 5 times 8.

Nawyria
2007-08-09, 12:52 PM
Yes, it is more functional as basic in that way, but it does leave the possibility for the guy who is extremely talented in dexterity with his score of 10... which is why I chose the 16 starting point.

Of course this will not work for creating and ruling NPC characters, and it is, in basic, already stronger then the elite array statistics. I think it would be best to revert it to 12 and 5 times 8.

Perhaps just allow normal Point Buy Rules, but a player's highest score from character creation (unadjusted by racial ability modifier) is the player's talented ability.

Dennetik
2007-08-09, 05:33 PM
Good riddance, I love saying that.

Also, you're right, methinks.