Attribute/Ability System Idea

[GaelofDarkness]

Something that has always niggled at the back of my mind in a variety of fantasy RPGs is that the effectiveness of ranged weapons like bows scale off of dexterity (or equivalent) and is unrelated to strength. This inspired the general idea for this attribute/ability system (current blueprint below), intended for use in a homebrew fantasy game. The core mechanic is currently roll 2d12+relevant score vs difficulty (may be set by an opposing roll or by GM) but we're experimenting with what feels right for us, so it's liable to change (3d8 instead of 2d12 or some dice-pool mechanic maybe). I'd really appreciate some feedback on the attribute system, even if it's just broad strokes.



There are Primary, Secondary and Tertiary attributes and the lower order attributes are each associated to a higher order one. When using an attribute, the relevant measure of how good you are at it is the sum of the scores for itself and any higher attribute scores. So for example: Body is a primary attribute, Dexterity is a secondary attribute associated with Body and Finesse is a tertiary attribute associated with Dexterity. So the score that determines how good a character is at delicate, precise work is Finesse+Dexterity+Body. I'm aware this is very much like how skills scale off abilities in DnD but the idea is to allow more nesting. Using Dexterity partially scales off Body and so does using Strength, so the archer whose able to pull back a drawstring without any difficulty isn't likely to suddenly have great difficulty in lifting a moderate weight.

Does this make sense? Would you prefer your dexterous character being a bit of a wimp unless you specifically invested in a strength stat and vice versa? Any really weird overlaps or synergies you see in the scheme below that you like/don't like?



The overall scheme right now (which is very much open to critique and alteration) is:


Body
Strength
Athleticism (climbing a rope, jumping across rooftops)
Brawn (heavy lifting/carrying capacity)
Might (grabbing a ledge, holding ground against a shove)



Dexterity
Finesse (skill with delicate, precise work like picking locks, handling machinery)
Stealth (ability to go unseen and unheard)
Agility (ability to evade/dodge certain dangers and acrobatic skill)



Fortitude
Stamina (the higher this is the long you can handle exertion beyond your norm, hold your breath or resist exhaustion)
Resilience (Recovery, improved hp)
Endurance (more of a defensive stat for resisting temporary stresses, like not falling to the ground when hit by a powerful electrical shock)






Mind
Intellect
Scrutiny (Analysis/Assessment/Investigation)
Persuasion (ability to use rhetoric and reason to convince others of your view)
Focus (Concentration)



Memory
Lore (History/Culture)
Erudition (Science-y and enginner-y things)
Recognition (speed of recall, can defend against certain charms/illusions)



Wit
Celerity (Initiative/Thinking on one's feet)
Deception (skill at lying convincingly)
Perception (awareness of environs)






Soul
Vibrance (strength of spirit/aura)
Presence (Intensity and Stage Presence/How captivating you can be)
Mystique (for mysteries or mysticism, familiarity with esoteric teachings and pseudo-mystical nonsense. May include ability to impress, confuse or unnerve with misdirection or the seemingly extraordinary as well?)
Temerity (basically sp. defense out of pokémon if I'm honest)


Heart (strength of character/virtue/resolve)
Leadership (ability to command authority)
Instinct (used for survival instincts, navigating without tools, tracking, may indicate something is "off" about a place)
Zeal (Determination/Stubbornness)


Sensitivity (wisdom/openness)
Intuition (Reliability of hunches or insights about other's motives or means, flashes of inspiration)
Empathy (understanding of another's emotions and skill with non-verbal communication - e.g. with animals)
Keenness (Spidey senses)









In my broader system, the intention is to have at least one class/job that scales off each secondary attribute. The warrior uses Strength, the budoka uses Dexterity, the witch uses Wit and the sorcerer uses Vibrance (representing their innate pool of magic). Some builds could rely on more than one, like a warrior/sorcerer, or just a witch with a decent left hook.

At every level a character gets two points they can use to increase two different attributes one step, up to a maximum that rises slowly with level. They can only increase a secondary attribute if each of it's tertiary attributes has been increased already and similarly the primary attributes can only be increased if each of its secondary attributes has been increased. For example, Fortitude can only be increased if Stamina, Resilience and Endurance were already increased. Mind can only be increased if Intellect, Memory and Wit are already increased. This is the main mechanical reason for the symmetry with each attribute branching out in threes, so the same number of points improves each attribute. I like symmetry, so if I'm honest the design was as much about aesthetics as mechanics, and I'd really like a more practical take on this. Race and class choices give you a few free attribute increases right off the bat, but a small enough boost that this optimization isn't necessary to make effective characters (orcs get a free stamina increase for example).

Is there something that you feel absolutely needs more sub-divisions? Or a single division you feel is so broad it's vague or game-breakingly op compared to others? Since Body impacts much of your fighting and traversal (i.e. athleticism, agility and stamina) abilities as well as health, is that excessive or something that helps martials compete with casters? There are definitely some attributes that are designed to be auxiliary though, so I don't mind a few very narrow or less powerful stats - especially the tertiary attributes.



I intentionally don't have a single, explicit "social" or "charisma" stat. Different stats lend themselves to different kinds of social interactions. High Wit leads to deception (using Deception obv) while high Vibrance might lead to having that character distract with Presence while their party get's the job done. If a player wanted to intimidate I'd let them use a show of Strength or maybe their skill with knives (Finesse) or even just the sheer intensity of their stare (Presence again).
Do you think this would encourage more rp or just frustrate players? Is it something you think would be a marmite type thing?



Your thoughts and first impressions are welcome!

~~~

Edited to add more detailed description of what stats do.

[Bansheexero]

Reminds me of Legend of the 5 Rings a bit, as it had primary attributes (called Rings) determined by two secondary attributes each. You might look into that a bit. I used it as a model to create a Homebrew system when I was in jail (long story) for an Elder Scrolls game that went over really well actually (I only had access to d6's from a Risk boardgame to use and I created a mat and used chesspieces for it). The system's special attacks, skills, and traits scale off of the rings and a ring is determined by the lowest of it's two aubattributes, forcing development of each depending upon class and school (different sword schools use different rings as foci). It also helps divide the schools into what skills they are better at.

[Nifft]

Pillars of Eternity is a computer game in the spirit of Baldur's Gate and friends.

It has a single Might stat which affects all damage -- melee, ranged, and spell. (It also affects healing, which is interesting.)

So you can certainly get away with using one stat for ranged & melee damage, with or without the tertiary-level breakdown.

[GaelofDarkness]

Reminds me of Legend of the 5 Rings a bit, as it had primary attributes (called Rings) determined by two secondary attributes each. You might look into that a bit.

That system sounds really interesting. I've heard of Legend of the 5 Rings but never played it or learnt the rules. I'll absolutely look into it. Thank you.




Pillars of Eternity is a computer game in the spirit of Baldur's Gate and friends.

It has a single Might stat which affects all damage -- melee, ranged, and spell. (It also affects healing, which is interesting.)

So you can certainly get away with using one stat for ranged & melee damage, with or without the tertiary-level breakdown.

I know I could go a much simpler route (and thought about it) but I don't know how to do that without effectively merging strength and dex-based fighting - and there would be mutiny if I did that! What I mean is, that if all damage scales off a might stat, then I'd have to find a different way of creating a dex-based type martial class to appease my players and fusing strength and dex altogether is a non-runner. I'd have no problem giving high dex character's initiative and speed bonuses but I fear that could lead to dex still being neglected in favour of might due to damage output.

Unless I made the speed bonuses lead to extra damage somehow. Maybe indirectly by giving them the chance to take extra attacks or something, like in some CRPGs? Maybe you can deal extra damage scaling off how much earlier in the turn you act? Hmm, I'll think about it. There's definitely a player or two who will oppose a dissolution of their beloved dex based damage but I might be able to convince them. Thank you!

For the above scheme, do you think the tertiary-level breakdown goes to a headache-level of complexity (probably my biggest fear) or is it just a bit on the noodle-ier side of things. My lot's used to some mildly noodley homebrew but I don't want to fall into the trap of thinking that because I get it (and I made it so I certainly should) that it's less complicated than it is.

[Bansheexero]

You probably want to balance simplicity with variability. Currently, while you have it broken down somewhat, it is a bit too linear. You might try tying tertiary abilities to more than one secondary ability or creating a sort of synergy (working through one boosts another). The design issue I see is it might be a little too linear, especially if you are going to require tertiary abilities to be raised before secondary ones. It seems too prereq dependent, which ties down the potential for variability. You might use the tertiary abilities a different way. Lot5R uses XkY dice pools (roll X dice and keep Y of them) and uses the secondary ability as the Y value, while the X value is the secondary ability + the skill itself. Of you want to use the tertiary skills as prereqs, you may want to soften that requirement. Lot5R again used insight levels to determine your effective level and thus what special abilities you knew. Basically, it took a grand sum of your skills and abilities and every so many ranks in that total you raised would increase your insight rank. Rings (primary abilities) determined more static values such as health, movement, and defense.

[Nifft]

I know I could go a much simpler route (and thought about it) but I don't know how to do that without effectively merging strength and dex-based fighting - and there would be mutiny if I did that! What I mean is, that if all damage scales off a might stat, then I'd have to find a different way of creating a dex-based type martial class to appease my players and fusing strength and dex altogether is a non-runner. I'd have no problem giving high dex character's initiative and speed bonuses but I fear that could lead to dex still being neglected in favour of might due to damage output.

Unless I made the speed bonuses lead to extra damage somehow. Maybe indirectly by giving them the chance to take extra attacks or something, like in some CRPGs? Maybe you can deal extra damage scaling off how much earlier in the turn you act? Hmm, I'll think about it. There's definitely a player or two who will oppose a dissolution of their beloved dex based damage but I might be able to convince them. Thank you!

For the above scheme, do you think the tertiary-level breakdown goes to a headache-level of complexity (probably my biggest fear) or is it just a bit on the noodle-ier side of things. My lot's used to some mildly noodley homebrew but I don't want to fall into the trap of thinking that because I get it (and I made it so I certainly should) that it's less complicated than it is.

Speed, Accuracy, and Crit Chance are three good damage variables to associate with other stats.

In terms of speed / extra attacks, you might think about how 1e did it -- you get 3/2 attacks per turn, so an extra attack on the 2nd turn. Or you might think about giving extra Reactions and letting the high-Dex character Riposte and Opportunity Attack for off-turn damage.

Accuracy speaks for itself. Doesn't matter how high your Might might be if you can't hit the target.

Crits are system-dependent but they could be used to make a Perception stat or a Luck stat more combat-related.

[Maat Mons]

One way to allow dex-based melee builds is to use dex for attack rolls, and then give bonus damage based on how much the attack roll exceeded the target’s AC.

If you want to plausibly link ranged damage to str, one way to do it is to give all weapons minimum str requirements. So a little waif can only manage a Derringer, but a hulking heman can fire a minigun from the hip. If you go this route, you might even consider removing str bonus from melee damage, for symmetry with ranged damage. So a stronger character deals more damage because he can heft a giant axe, not because he somehow sinks a dagger in deeper than other people.

Have you considered merging strength and fortitude? I feel like, in fiction, most characters with a lot of muscle power can also take a hit, and vice versa. I think it makes for nice parity with dexterity too. Dexterity has an offensive component (accuracy), and a defensive component (evasion). If you go this route, you can have the combined strength/fortitude stat (let's say, Might) have an offensive component (damage) and a defensive component (HP) too.

One thing you might want to ask yourself, is if all the tertiary attributes are just as good as all the other tertiary attributes. Because, if they all cost the same, they should be.

What stats govern spellcasting in your system? Does a spellcaster need as many stats to be effective as a melee character does?

It seems like, the way you have it set up, the only way to benefit from two stats being in the same tree, is if you also take ranks in the third stat. So, let's say I care about Finesse and Agility, but not Stealth. I could spend 4 points to get Finesse +2 and Agility +2, or I could spend 4 points to get Finesse +1, Agility +1, Stealth +1, Dexterity +1. That's the same on the Finesse/Agility front, but better on the Stealth front. Even if I plan to never once make a Stealth roll, I'd be stupid not to take the free ranks. Is it really desirable to design a system where no one will ever invest in just two of the three skills in a tree? Or is investing in two out of three skills in a tree being left in as a trap option for people who can't do math?

It's not really clear what some of the stats do. What do Stamina and Endurance do, and how are they different?

[GaelofDarkness]

I'm getting the sense that I really need to check out Lot5R ASAP!


You probably want to balance simplicity with variability. Currently, while you have it broken down somewhat, it is a bit too linear. You might try tying tertiary abilities to more than one secondary ability or creating a sort of synergy (working through one boosts another). The design issue I see is it might be a little too linear, especially if you are going to require tertiary abilities to be raised before secondary ones. It seems too prereq dependent, which ties down the potential for variability.

I get what you're saying. I think having these nine attributes that you can pair up is probably too many - unless there is some rule like only the secondary body stats can be paired with one another so that, say, Endurance draws from Strength and Fortitude, but there's no Strength+Intellect stat. Although Finesse as a Dex+Intellect/Wit would make a lot of sense. Hmmm, interesting.

The idea was to have a relatively quick timetable for attribute increases and incentives to increase an auxiliary attribute at the same time you were increasing a principal attribute. For example, the beefy fighter types can't increase multiple strength attributes at once, so their encouraged to increase an auxiliary attribute like persuasion or leadership for utility or flavour.



In terms of speed / extra attacks, you might think about how 1e did it -- you get 3/2 attacks per turn, so an extra attack on the 2nd turn. Or you might think about giving extra Reactions and letting the high-Dex character Riposte and Opportunity Attack for off-turn damage.

Accuracy speaks for itself. Doesn't matter how high your Might might be if you can't hit the target.

Crits are system-dependent but they could be used to make a Perception stat or a Luck stat more combat-related.

All excellent suggestions!

It does feel like each character would have a fairly similar or at least comparable breakdown in stats though or rather, regardless of your class archetype, you could pursue a similar stat-breakdown to someone with a very different archetype. Like, a warrior could focus on getting critical hits just as much as a thief-type could or they could both try to have highly dependable attacks by focusing on accuracy. That's not a bad thing by any means, so I'll see how it goes over with the group. I'm just afraid that they're looking for their archetype's distinctiveness to be reflected in the core mechanics.

[GaelofDarkness]

One way to allow dex-based melee builds is to use dex for attack rolls, and then give bonus damage based on how much the attack roll exceeded the target’s AC.

If you want to plausibly link ranged damage to str, one way to do it is to give all weapons minimum str requirements. So a little waif can only manage a Derringer, but a hulking heman can fire a minigun from the hip. If you go this route, you might even consider removing str bonus from melee damage, for symmetry with ranged damage. So a stronger character deals more damage because he can heft a giant axe, not because he somehow sinks a dagger in deeper than other people.

Have you considered merging strength and fortitude? I feel like, in fiction, most characters with a lot of muscle power can also take a hit, and vice versa. I think it makes for nice parity with dexterity too. Dexterity has an offensive component (accuracy), and a defensive component (evasion). If you go this route, you can have the combined strength/fortitude stat (let's say, Might) have an offensive component (damage) and a defensive component (HP) too.

One thing you might want to ask yourself, is if all the tertiary attributes are just as good as all the other tertiary attributes. Because, if they all cost the same, they should be.

What stats govern spellcasting in your system? Does a spellcaster need as many stats to be effective as a melee character does?

It seems like, the way you have it set up, the only way to benefit from two stats being in the same tree, is if you also take ranks in the third stat. So, let's say I care about Finesse and Agility, but not Stealth. I could spend 4 points to get Finesse +2 and Agility +2, or I could spend 4 points to get Finesse +1, Agility +1, Stealth +1, Dexterity +1. That's the same on the Finesse/Agility front, but better on the Stealth front. Even if I plan to never once make a Stealth roll, I'd be stupid not to take the free ranks. Is it really desirable to design a system where no one will ever invest in just two of the three skills in a tree? Or is investing in two out of three skills in a tree being left in as a trap option for people who can't do math?

It's not really clear what some of the stats do. What do Stamina and Endurance do, and how are they different?

I really like the idea of bonus damage based on exceeding the to-hit difficulty. It makes a lot of sense really.

Minimum strength requirements for heavier weapons also make a lot of sense, but we were thinking of having heavier weapons restricted based on a character's size category. Play as a halfling and you can't use heavy weapons. Play as a half-giant and you can use comically oversized weapons. Each option was to come with other pros and cons to balance this out, like half-giants being fairly easy to hit. Your idea feels like it could work really well though and I do like the image of a ripped halfling with a crazy big anime sword.

I do think that strength and fortitude have/should have a similar relationship as strength and dex, that's why they both fit under the primary Body stat rn.



Plenty of the tertiary stats are very situational, but they all have their uses and whatever stats a player picked there'd be a way to allow them use it to make it shine. The ones I'd be more worried about would be mystique and instinct because I think they're "fill in the gaps" stats rather than addressing something more definitive.

In the current set-up, each of the Mind and Soul stats is used by a different magic-using class.


Intellect - Wizard
Memory - Summoner
Wit - Witch
Vibrance - Sorcerer
Heart - Nahual
Sensitivity - Cleric

The rational is that the wizard wields magic like a programmer wields code, so Intellect. The summoner must remember complex rituals, rites and incantations to conjure and then empower their summon. The witch has to stay on their feet because their magic is held together by figurative duct tape, but it somehow works really well. The sorcerer has innate magical power, represented by the Vibrance stat. The nahual is a shape-shifting, nature-magic type (think druid but with a different emphasis/flavour) and wields magic as a righteous defender of nature. The cleric uses Sensitivity as a measure of how open they are to channeling their deity's power. As it was originally envisioned, any class's abilities would be tied to one stat. The warrior's attacks use Strength to hit and deal damage, the witch's use Wit to do the same. They could both be more effective by investing in say Resilience for more hp or Temerity as a defensive measure. If it was changed so that dex handled accuracy and strength/might handled damage or weapon types, that'd obviously have to change.



I don't have a big problem with increasing 2 out of 3 being a math trap. I'd be more concerned except we wouldn't let each other make that mistake, and I'd have no problem letting them reshuffle their stats if they had. But maybe it should be that you can't increase a secondary stat until the associated tertiary stats have had three increases all together. So you could take Finesse +1, Agility +2 and Dex +1, resulting in an overall change of Finesse +2, Stealth +1, Agility +3 and Dex 1. Yeah, I can see how forcing the direct increase in Stealth takes away from player choice and having it increase purely as a side-effect of increasing Dex would be a nice bonus... Thank you!

I'll edit the stats to add more detail!

[NyarlyThotep]

I really like this idea. The number of tertiary attributes is high, but it is comparable to some skill lists. Pathfinder has 30+. 3 attributes, 9 specializations and 27 skills might be too complex for some people, but it's doable.
As far as balance is concerned, it really depends on what your class does with those attributes and the DM/setting.
Underwater basket weaving doesn't really sound useful, but if I was playing in a setting where it's the most popular sport I would definitely sink a lot of points into it.
Your attributes could probably be tweaked somewhat, but nothing really comes to mind.
Providing examples for every tertiary attribute would probably help. If you are trying to read someone's intentions are you using Scrutiny, Instinct, Intuition, Empathy or Keenness? I can make a case for each one. Or, should that be worked out between player and DM?

[GaelofDarkness]

I've added more detail to the attribute descriptions and I hope that helps!


If you are trying to read someone's intentions are you using Scrutiny, Instinct, Intuition, Empathy or Keenness? I can make a case for each one. Or, should that be worked out between player and DM?

I'd say Intuition - it's more about insights or flashes inspiration.

Scrutiny might tell you that they are sweating profusely or are fidgeting as a sign of stress - but are they worried that the guards will catch you all in this plot or are they stressed because they're about to double-cross you?

Instinct might tell you if they are dangerous but not if that's a threat to you or a potentially useful ally.

Empathy could tell you about their emotional state, like if there was a lot of aggression on their mind but not if it's because they just got into a fight with their business partner before meeting you or if it's directed at you.

Keenness is more of a passive or defensive stat that would help you if they tried enchanting/cursing you or something.



There's definitely some overlap and that's not accidental. I like the idea of a player having different options to come to a particular solution and having permission to take a creative approach if they wanted. It's the main reason I ditched charisma.



Thank you very much for the feedback! If there's more ambiguity that people would like addressed please point me towards the trouble spots.

[NyarlyThotep]

I'd say Intuition.

Scrutiny might tell you that they are sweating profusely or are fidgeting as a sign of stress - but are they worried that the guards will catch you all in this plot or are they stressed because they're about to double-cross you?

Instinct might tell you if they are dangerous but not if that's a threat to you or a potentially useful ally.

Empathy could tell you about their emotional state, like if there was a lot of aggression on their mind but not if it's because they just got into a fight with their business partner before meeting you or if it's directed at you.

Keenness is more of a passive or defensive stat that would help you if they tried enchanting/cursing you or something.
So, all of them? Kinda. I like it.
I might actually steal borrow the idea. I'll just have to reduce the number slightly.

[GaelofDarkness]

So, all of them? Kinda. I like it.
I might actually steal borrow the idea. I'll just have to reduce the number slightly.

Please, by all means. And I agree the number is a bit high - I'd definitely not go any higher.

[Bansheexero]

Yeah, I have the 3rd edition book for L5R, and I was trying to find a PDF link for you, but no dice it seems. Not sure how the newer edition changed if at all, but I am referencing the 3rd edition rules. It has 4 rings (Air, Earth, Fire, and Water) each with a physical and mental stat and the 5th ring (Void) is essentially Luck/Fate. There are no critical hits, but players can attempt raises, which increase the difficulty of the check by 5 each (it is a d10 system), limited to a number of raises equal to the void ring (higher skill levels, spells, different options like all-out attack, and certain school techniques also grant free raises on certain rolls which do not count against this maximum). Adding raises improves the effect of the roll. For instance, 3 rolls are needed on an attack roll in order to make a second attack (also raises on attack rolls can be used to simply increase damage or target specific body parts). Adding raises on stealth rolls lets you move faster, on casting rolls allows for silent/still/quick casting, etc. You sort of bet that you can beat the target number by a certain amount in increments of 5 and success lets you be more effective than normal.

[Bansheexero]

Sorry for the double post, but found a link that might help:

https://rpg.rem.uz/Legend%20of%20the%20Five%20Rings/

[GaelofDarkness]

Awesome!!! Thank you so much. That is a really interesting mechanic.

[Nifft]

All excellent suggestions!

It does feel like each character would have a fairly similar or at least comparable breakdown in stats though or rather, regardless of your class archetype, you could pursue a similar stat-breakdown to someone with a very different archetype. Like, a warrior could focus on getting critical hits just as much as a thief-type could or they could both try to have highly dependable attacks by focusing on accuracy. That's not a bad thing by any means, so I'll see how it goes over with the group. I'm just afraid that they're looking for their archetype's distinctiveness to be reflected in the core mechanics.

The thing is, D&D currently doubles-up on the exact same thing (abilities / archetype / class / playstyle) by making you pick stats that conform to the expectations of a class.

There's a right way or two (most are obvious), and many wrong ways -- a few good decisions, plus many bad ones.

Ask yourself: What is the value of allowing the player to make bad decisions?


In 1e, it wasn't necessarily about bad decisions. You rolled dice for ability scores before picking a class, and the dice told you what classes you were allowed to pick. You didn't just decide to play a Ranger or Paladin -- you had to be very lucky, so you (presumably) took great care of that PC, because your next PC might have no choice but to be a Half-Orc Thief.

In modern RPGs, we've kept the ability scores but we use them very differently. D&D 3.5e / 4e / 5e ability scores still must match the class. There's really not much value in keeping things that way, though.

If you follow the Might / Speed / Accuracy / Luck model, then the ability scores are independent of the character concept.

The player who likes to hit consistently (high Accuracy, low Might) can get that playstyle with any class. You allow the player to be flexible about class, which may open up more RP opportunities, yet still get the same joy from combat performance.

The player who likes to hit big (high Might, low Speed) can likewise get that playstyle with any class.


Of course it's also possible to make classes provide synergy with specific ability scores, but IMHO the effect of NOT doing that -- of accommodating a lot of various ability spreads to each class -- makes the game more fun, and adds significant replay value to each class.

[Gorum]

Something that has always niggled at the back of my mind in a variety of fantasy RPGs is that the effectiveness of ranged weapons like bows scale off of dexterity (or equivalent) and is unrelated to strength. This inspired the general idea for this attribute/ability system (current blueprint below), intended for use in a homebrew fantasy game. The core mechanic is currently roll 2d12+relevant score vs difficulty (may be set by an opposing roll or by GM) but we're experimenting with what feels right for us, so it's liable to change (3d8 instead of 2d12 or some dice-pool mechanic maybe). I'd really appreciate some feedback on the attribute system, even if it's just broad strokes.



There are Primary, Secondary and Tertiary attributes and the lower order attributes are each associated to a higher order one. When using an attribute, the relevant measure of how good you are at it is the sum of the scores for itself and any higher attribute scores. So for example: Body is a primary attribute, Dexterity is a secondary attribute associated with Body and Finesse is a tertiary attribute associated with Dexterity. So the score that determines how good a character is at delicate, precise work is Finesse+Dexterity+Body. I'm aware this is very much like how skills scale off abilities in DnD but the idea is to allow more nesting. Using Dexterity partially scales off Body and so does using Strength, so the archer whose able to pull back a drawstring without any difficulty isn't likely to suddenly have great difficulty in lifting a moderate weight.

Does this make sense? Would you prefer your dexterous character being a bit of a wimp unless you specifically invested in a strength stat and vice versa? Any really weird overlaps or synergies you see in the scheme below that you like/don't like?



The overall scheme right now (which is very much open to critique and alteration) is:


Body
Strength
Athleticism (climbing a rope, jumping across rooftops)
Brawn (heavy lifting/carrying capacity)
Might (grabbing a ledge, holding ground against a shove)



Dexterity
Finesse (skill with delicate, precise work like picking locks, handling machinery)
Stealth (ability to go unseen and unheard)
Agility (ability to evade/dodge certain dangers and acrobatic skill)



Fortitude
Stamina (the higher this is the long you can handle exertion beyond your norm, hold your breath or resist exhaustion)
Resilience (Recovery, improved hp)
Endurance (more of a defensive stat for resisting temporary stresses, like not falling to the ground when hit by a powerful electrical shock)






Mind
Intellect
Scrutiny (Analysis/Assessment/Investigation)
Persuasion (ability to use rhetoric and reason to convince others of your view)
Focus (Concentration)



Memory
Lore (History/Culture)
Erudition (Science-y and enginner-y things)
Recognition (speed of recall, can defend against certain charms/illusions)



Wit
Celerity (Initiative/Thinking on one's feet)
Deception (skill at lying convincingly)
Perception (awareness of environs)






Soul
Vibrance (strength of spirit/aura)
Presence (Intensity and Stage Presence/How captivating you can be)
Mystique (for mysteries or mysticism, familiarity with esoteric teachings and pseudo-mystical nonsense. May include ability to impress, confuse or unnerve with misdirection or the seemingly extraordinary as well?)
Temerity (basically sp. defense out of pokémon if I'm honest)


Heart (strength of character/virtue/resolve)
Leadership (ability to command authority)
Instinct (used for survival instincts, navigating without tools, tracking, may indicate something is "off" about a place)
Zeal (Determination/Stubbornness)


Sensitivity (wisdom/openness)
Intuition (Reliability of hunches or insights about other's motives or means, flashes of inspiration)
Empathy (understanding of another's emotions and skill with non-verbal communication - e.g. with animals)
Keenness (Spidey senses)









In my broader system, the intention is to have at least one class/job that scales off each secondary attribute. The warrior uses Strength, the budoka uses Dexterity, the witch uses Wit and the sorcerer uses Vibrance (representing their innate pool of magic). Some builds could rely on more than one, like a warrior/sorcerer, or just a witch with a decent left hook.

At every level a character gets two points they can use to increase two different attributes one step, up to a maximum that rises slowly with level. They can only increase a secondary attribute if each of it's tertiary attributes has been increased already and similarly the primary attributes can only be increased if each of its secondary attributes has been increased. For example, Fortitude can only be increased if Stamina, Resilience and Endurance were already increased. Mind can only be increased if Intellect, Memory and Wit are already increased. This is the main mechanical reason for the symmetry with each attribute branching out in threes, so the same number of points improves each attribute. I like symmetry, so if I'm honest the design was as much about aesthetics as mechanics, and I'd really like a more practical take on this. Race and class choices give you a few free attribute increases right off the bat, but a small enough boost that this optimization isn't necessary to make effective characters (orcs get a free stamina increase for example).

Is there something that you feel absolutely needs more sub-divisions? Or a single division you feel is so broad it's vague or game-breakingly op compared to others? Since Body impacts much of your fighting and traversal (i.e. athleticism, agility and stamina) abilities as well as health, is that excessive or something that helps martials compete with casters? There are definitely some attributes that are designed to be auxiliary though, so I don't mind a few very narrow or less powerful stats - especially the tertiary attributes.



I intentionally don't have a single, explicit "social" or "charisma" stat. Different stats lend themselves to different kinds of social interactions. High Wit leads to deception (using Deception obv) while high Vibrance might lead to having that character distract with Presence while their party get's the job done. If a player wanted to intimidate I'd let them use a show of Strength or maybe their skill with knives (Finesse) or even just the sheer intensity of their stare (Presence again).
Do you think this would encourage more rp or just frustrate players? Is it something you think would be a marmite type thing?



Your thoughts and first impressions are welcome!

~~~

Edited to add more detailed description of what stats do.

1. Stats are a bit over the place. Reminds me of OWoD. One improvement (and thrust me, it wasn't all improvements) was to make their 9-stats system a lot more structured.

NWoD:

Stats Group: Power / Finesse / Resistance

Physical Stats: Strength / Agility / Stamina
Mental Stats: Intelligence / Wits / Resolve
Social Stats: Charisma / Manipulation / Composure

Then, secondary stats would be derived from them (Example: Willpower was Resolve+Composure), and active rolls would be (Skill + Stats - Circumstancial Penalties) d10, 8+ scoring a success, additional 8+ scoring more successes.

Now, I'm not saying it's an example to follow, but it certainly DID make the game far easier to learn.



2. I really appreciate you take one uniform dice roll (currently 2d12). D20, for all its sins, mistakes and botch level did have a good idea by replacing all action rolls (like percentile rolls to sneak) with uniformed d20 rolls. And I REALLY appreciate that you're looking into a dice roll method with a Bell Curve.

It basically means that circumstantial bonuses are really worth getting when skill levels are comparable, but when another character outclasses / is outclassed by you, relying on dumb luck won't cut it. Fragged Empires worked similarly, and while the game itself is a mess of poor quality (talents and weapon upgrades are to blame and need HEAVY houseruling), the dice pool was genius.

3d6 + stats + modifiers.
6s are "Strong Hits" and may have additional effects depending on the weapon, the user's talents, and whether the hit was direct or not. One standard option was "Critical Hit". It required that you hit your target, and that the hit was direct (I.E. not a grenade). An option for "Strong Hits" without hitting your target included destroying cover. It required an "Heavy Weapon" and a talent.



3. Not having a direct Charisma stat is a great idea. I would, however, push it further by suggesting that characters don't have Intelligence stats, and probably for the same reasons. "Your character is too dumb to suggest that" / "It would have made sense for my character to understand that".

DnD 2nd edition had a great way to treat its Physical stats you might want to borrow from. Strength, Dexterity and Constitution were sub-divised, allowing character to be treated as if his stat was up to 2 points higher or lower for an aspect for up to 2 points more in the other. For example, Constitution had Health and Stamina. A character who, fluff-wise, wasn't that hardy but trained to better his health might have Constitution 12, Health 10 and Stamina 14.

(Strength was Power / Endurance for... well... power and mostly carrying capacity. Dexterity was Balance and Precision)

This way, you'd have enough stats for customization while retaining for the players the ability to roleplay however the hell they want without being confined to roleplay as a dumb brute just because someone needs to dish out and absorb punishment.


On this point, taking a glance at Dream Pod 9's silhouette system might be worthwhile too. It is a bit too packed with stats (10 base stats, I can recall Body, Fitness, Appearance, Agility, Spirit, Influence on the top of my head).

What it did well was to keep even the most min-maxed monster within manageable range. For example, Secondary stats included: Strength (Body + Fitness)/2 rounded toward 0 (Basically weight and training), while health was derived from Fitness and 2 other stats and sheer ability to resist wounds included Body and Willpower.

And since stats had exponential costs (-2 awarded 1 extra point, -1 costs 0, 0 costs 1, 1 costs 4, 2 costs 9, etc), it made relatively rounded characters better all around. After all, to get a +3 Strength, one had to spend 32 points (out of something like 25), which meant that other stats, like Willpower, took a dive.

And they were costly to increase compared to skills.



4. I'm not hot about stats that progress every level, unless the base stat is like 25. And even then. All it does is promote "Min-Max the Unstoppable [X]" types of character and accentuate discrepancies between characters. But I will admit that I do not have a strong argument there, nor an example especially worthwhile to follow.

All I have is A song of Ice and Fire TTRPG where you either min-maxed into social or physical combat, or were completely useless, barred certain few exceptions which required the character to be old as **** an at least crippled in both types of combat.

Come to think of it, it is also a problem with Shadowrun.



So there ya go, my own humble and detailed opinion of your suggestion. Hope you find it useful.

[GaelofDarkness]

Of course it's also possible to make classes provide synergy with specific ability scores, but IMHO the effect of NOT doing that -- of accommodating a lot of various ability spreads to each class -- makes the game more fun, and adds significant replay value to each class.

Hmmm, that... is an extremely persuasive argument. I think you have just made a convert!

Though I will say that - for reasons of false nostalgia, resisting change or whatever - I do still like the idea of "the mage's stat" being intelligence or what have you.

I guess it's to do with coming from the tactical/war gaming side of RPGs right? I like the idea that I can know the priest of the death cult will have lower physical stats than his minions and finding ways to exploit it. It's convenient to know that the mage is the smart guy and the barbarian/brute/berserker is NOT but he can lift the beam blocking the door. It's obviously limiting, but having those limitations (even though they can be terribly cliché) means you and your party can confidently access a huge repertoire of tactics and strategies. I like that about RPGs but I see that there's no reason you can't replicate that in the kind of system you're proposing.

I shall see if I can convert my group too.

This does open up a whole new question of how to fit utility skills like Deception or Lore into the model. Obviously they can just be left independent, but I do like how something like this model can encourage players to use or invest in utility skills. One of the downsides of coming from a more tactical background but playing with a couple very rp-inclined people is that if I don't connect these to their combat abilities - at least a little bit - the tactical players can forget they exist and trample over the rp-inclined players' social and exploration encounters. TO THE DRAWING BOARD!!! Perhaps I'll start a new thread when I get around to it.



All that said, I would really still be interested in people's thoughts about this attribute system! Not just in case I need a Plan B when my players mutiny for the heresy of removing strength and dex scores, but also to appease my theory-crafting obsession. I'm still very curious to hear what people have to say about this and hopefully it will see the light of day when we want to change things up/I lose my head!

[Nifft]

Hmmm, that... is an extremely persuasive argument. I think you have just made a convert!

Though I will say that - for reasons of false nostalgia, resisting change or whatever - I do still like the idea of "the mage's stat" being intelligence or what have you.

I guess it's to do with coming from the tactical/war gaming side of RPGs right? I like the idea that I can know the priest of the death cult will have lower physical stats than his minions and finding ways to exploit it. It's convenient to know that the mage is the smart guy and the barbarian/brute/berserker is NOT but he can lift the beam blocking the door. It's obviously limiting, but having those limitations (even though they can be terribly cliché) means you and your party can confidently access a huge repertoire of tactics and strategies. I like that about RPGs but I see that there's no reason you can't replicate that in the kind of system you're proposing. Ooo, one more thought.

There's a stat in Pillars of Eternity which determines duration -- both of buffs, and of debuffs.

Obviously it's good for a Wizard who spams buff / debuff spells, but it's also great for a Barbarian whose Rage duration scales with this stat, or a Fighter whose Trip debuff duration scales.

In a system where the duration stat is supposed to be Wizard-centric, you might call it Focus.


I look forward to stealing this system after you do the hard work of play-testing it. :smile:



I shall see if I can convert my group too.

This does open up a whole new question of how to fit utility skills like Deception or Lore into the model. Obviously they can just be left independent, but I do like how something like this model can encourage players to use or invest in utility skills. One of the downsides of coming from a more tactical background but playing with a couple very rp-inclined people is that if I don't connect these to their combat abilities - at least a little bit - the tactical players can forget they exist and trample over the rp-inclined players' social and exploration encounters. TO THE DRAWING BOARD!!! Perhaps I'll start a new thread when I get around to it. There's a FATE sibling game (Fate Accelerated Edition) which has six stats called "Approaches":


APPROACHES
Choose your approaches. Approaches are descriptions of how you accomplish tasks. Everyone has the same six approaches:
• Careful
• Clever
• Flashy
• Forceful
• Quick
• Sneaky
... which aren't physical traits, but rather styles of

You could map those approaches onto the combat stats, maybe something like:

Careful = Focus
Clever = Accuracy
Flashy = ???
Forceful = Might
Quick = Speed
Sneaky = Luck

There would be some overlap, but that's okay -- a very quick character could do sleight-of-hand just as well as a sneaky character, but only one of them would be able to sneak past some guards. Likewise, both a flashy and a clever character could fast-talk her way out of trouble, but only the flashy character gets a bonus to feint in combat.

[GaelofDarkness]

1. Stats are a bit over the place. Reminds me of OWoD. One improvement (and thrust me, it wasn't all improvements) was to make their 9-stats system a lot more structured.

Now, I'm not saying it's an example to follow, but it certainly DID make the game far easier to learn.

Hmmm, would setting them up something like this help create that structure?

Stats Group: Power / Precision / Passive

Physical Stats: Strength / Dexterity / Fortitude
Mental Stats: Intelligence / Wits / Memory
Esoteric Stats: Heart / Vibrance / Sensitivity




2.And I REALLY appreciate that you're looking into a dice roll method with a Bell Curve.

3d6 + stats + modifiers.
6s are "Strong Hits" and may have additional effects depending on the weapon, the user's talents, and whether the hit was direct or not.

I love rolls with a proper distribution curves! It's such and easy to incorporate some change most of the time, just make a d20 system 2d10 - possibly ruling that crits happen on a 19+ or 18+ to keep them from being a 1% chance - and off you go! Well, it's not a curve but at least it's not flat!

Strong hits sound like an interesting mechanic. We have been playing with a system that let's you roll for additional effects under certain circumstances but we hadn't settled on how yet. I'll bring this one up.




3. Not having a direct Charisma stat is a great idea. I would, however, push it further by suggesting that characters don't have Intelligence stats, and probably for the same reasons. "Your character is too dumb to suggest that" / "It would have made sense for my character to understand that".

I see what you're saying here. I will say that my group doesn't force or police a character's to role play in that way. It's more that a character might have additional information on a topic - like a creature or a region - with Lore/History/Nature/Knowledge stat or can find better treasure without the need for a specific class feature by having better Scrutiny/Investigation/Search.

I took particular ire with a singular social stat because social encounters are typically built into the adventure in a way that is difficult to circumvent. It feels like you have to sideline certain characters because they didn't invest in the single stat that is necessary - sometimes for extended interrogations or negotiations. I have no problem giving each character a moment to shine with their specialty but social encounters are just waaay too common to be appropriate for that (in our style anyways).





DnD 2nd edition had a great way to treat its Physical stats you might want to borrow from. Strength, Dexterity and Constitution were sub-divised, allowing character to be treated as if his stat was up to 2 points higher or lower for an aspect for up to 2 points more in the other. For example, Constitution had Health and Stamina. A character who, fluff-wise, wasn't that hardy but trained to better his health might have Constitution 12, Health 10 and Stamina 14.

On this point, taking a glance at Dream Pod 9's silhouette system might be worthwhile too. It is a bit too packed with stats (10 base stats, I can recall Body, Fitness, Appearance, Agility, Spirit, Influence on the top of my head). And since stats had exponential costs (-2 awarded 1 extra point, -1 costs 0, 0 costs 1, 1 costs 4, 2 costs 9, etc), it made relatively rounded characters better all around. After all, to get a +3 Strength, one had to spend 32 points (out of something like 25), which meant that other stats, like Willpower, took a dive.

And they were costly to increase compared to skills.

Hmm, interesting. I agree with an exponential point-buy cost at character creation definitely. I think it could be a good idea in progression too, but I was always bummed making an increase that was only a half-step that didn't give me an immediate mechanical benefit. It felt kind of pointless. I made the secondary attributes require tertiary attributes to go up first to limit the rate of increase while giving some less severely game-altering benefits.




4. I'm not hot about stats that progress every level, unless the base stat is like 25. And even then. All it does is promote "Min-Max the Unstoppable [X]" types of character and accentuate discrepancies between characters. But I will admit that I do not have a strong argument there, nor an example especially worthwhile to follow.

All I have is A song of Ice and Fire TTRPG where you either min-maxed into social or physical combat, or were completely useless, barred certain few exceptions which required the character to be old as **** an at least crippled in both types of combat.

Come to think of it, it is also a problem with Shadowrun.

This is relevant to what I just said above, but also I think the bell-curve helps here a lot. The difference between being at an expected score in a stat and the perfectly min-maxed score one or two points higher in that stat isn't too big when the expected score hits 80% of the time and the min-maxed score hits 85% of the time. The edges of the curve are much smaller, so the difference only becomes hugely significant when the difficulty classes creep towards being a 50-50 shot. The expected point should have gone up enough to offset that in the meantime OR the difficulty is really high for an intentionally tough challenge to make the min-maxer shine/make the magic armor they get feel extra special should they succeed as opposed to a gimme.

I'd definitely want to avoid requiring a min-max approach to be effective though.




So there ya go, my own humble and detailed opinion of your suggestion. Hope you find it useful.

I did! Interesting ideas here. Thank you very much!

[GaelofDarkness]

Ooo, one more thought.

There's a stat in Pillars of Eternity which determines duration -- both of buffs, and of debuffs.

Innnnteresting (imagine steepled fingers). I had forgotten that.



There's a FATE sibling game (Fate Accelerated Edition) which has six stats called "Approaches":
... which aren't physical traits, but rather styles of

You could map those approaches onto the combat stats, maybe something like:

Careful = Focus
Clever = Accuracy
Flashy = ???
Forceful = Might
Quick = Speed
Sneaky = Luck

There would be some overlap, but that's okay -- a very quick character could do sleight-of-hand just as well as a sneaky character, but only one of them would be able to sneak past some guards. Likewise, both a flashy and a clever character could fast-talk her way out of trouble, but only the flashy character gets a bonus to feint in combat.

Hmm, I like it. Maybe Flashy let's a character play a little bit into a support or utility role? By distracting enemies, inspiring allies or attracting potential allies or benefactors.

[Gorum]

Fate
Amusing. It is in my signature, yet I did not think to mention it. I must admit I am still experimenting with it. The thread is here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536699-Gundam-Wrath-of-the-Stars-IC)

[Stats Structure]
Unless you want caster classes to be divided in such a way, don't. Power stats need to be used for overpowering (Fireball, Summon Monster), Finesse needs to be trickery or manipulation (Create Major Image, Suggestion) and Endurance needs to be tough (Protection from Evil, Stoneskin).

In the original system, Supernatural creatures used their peculiar abilities (e.g. Vampiric discipline like Nightmare 1: Monstrous Contenance) combined with a stat (e.g. Presence (which is Social Power)) combined with a skill (In this case Intimidation). Now, varying according to the power, this roll would have a penalty equal to the victim's relevant stats or the victim would have an opposed roll (e.g. Blood Potency + Composure).

In such a system, using a stat for a purpose it shouldn't have (like damaging or overpowering with Finesse or Endurance stats) is EXTREMELY rare, and rightly so, as it would too easily allow min-maxing. Furthermore, nearly every non-power stats had second uses, once again, to push characters to balance their characters. Exemple: Stamina determined the amount of wounds you could take. The lowest of Dex or Wits was your defense. Wits+Composure was your perception check, Composure+Resolve was your pool of Willpower, etc.

So I am afraid Vibrance / Sensitivity casters, if allowed manipulative or attack spells, might turn out too powerful.

[Roll types]
I actually ran a one-year-and-a-half heavily modded Star Wars Saga Campaign (Here is a document with most of the houserules on a Google drive. (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LEewr2mIBMMspdzLUAh9PvMwbl0lDq1k) Ignore the two first pages or so, they're the only parts in French. They were potential employers the two competing groups of PCs had to choose from, along with the base spaceship and perks the employer could give. Feel free to Google Translate if you wish.) where I tried to implement alternative rolls. Basically, there were no take 10 or take 20, but characters could select rolling 3d6+2, 2d10 or 1d20, the level of pure randomness meaning how recklessly the character acted.

2d10 were almost never used. Characters were either desperate enough to roll 1d20 (The chance of critical failure compensated by the fact a natural roll of 16+ happened 25% of the time) or wished the quasi-certainty of rolling between 10-14. The few times it WAS used was in battle, when a decent 3d6 roll failed, yet the players did not want to risk a Natural 1, which had dire consequences as it was pure failure when the player CHOSE recklessness.

That said, it kinda ****ed up the balance of the game. Modifiers were MUCH more powerful than intended, turning decent bonus to an almost impossibility to fail.1d20 and 2d10 cannot be interchanged because d20 is so imbalanced it requires a rule where an attack automatically succeeds or fail 5% of the time and it DOES come into play. And without such high modifiers in a d20 system, any form of specialization would be lackluster. How many times have we got our low-lvl resident rogue borrow his thieves tools to the untrained but decently dextrous low-lvl fighter just to have him roll high and succeed...


[Stats]
I agree. Reaching 17 Str @ level 4 and being exactly the same as a character with 16 strength except for the carrying capacity being slightly improved sucks. Clarification about the previous post: Dream Pod 9's silhouette is a 0-average game. Think of their stats as literally the stat modifiers of DnD.


[Odds range]
Oh do I agree. I always hated how Base Save + Stat could mean a difference of 10 points or more on level 12 characters. Not counting Divine Grace! That's half the dice right there. This means the confusion spell, to be of any challenge to the High Wisdom Cleric (say: he fails 20% of the time) has the fighter fail is save 70% of the time or more.

The base save difference (4 points) would be enough of a step alone, no need to push the Wisdom difference (easily 5 points, maybe 6 if the fighter wanted decent Dex (AC), Intel (Skills) and Charisma (Roleplay)). Or vice-versa.

And don't get me to start talking about the wizard always placing a fireball exactly where he needs it so that he can affect enemies in melee with allies while having 0 risk of affecting said allies, or having them aim Touch AC 7 while everyone else aim Actual AC 42.

God do I hate DnD.
And thank you for your response. It is motivating to see how positive you are when you ask for advice for your project, and all we do is talk about other games we played and exactly how terrible they are.

[Maat Mons]

Yeah, I have the 3rd edition book for L5R, and I was trying to find a PDF link for you, but no dice it seems. Not sure how the newer edition changed if at all, but I am referencing the 3rd edition rules. It has 4 rings (Air, Earth, Fire, and Water) each with a physical and mental stat and the 5th ring (Void) is essentially Luck/Fate.

I've always liked air/earth/fire/water/void as an elemental set. This is almost entirely because it makes me imagine a Captain Planet AU where Ma-Ti is a harbinger of doom.




Pillars of Eternity is a computer game in the spirit of Baldur's Gate and friends.

It has a single Might stat which affects all damage -- melee, ranged, and spell. (It also affects healing, which is interesting.)

That's interesting, I like it. It makes me want to come up with. The most truly generalizable base stats ever. Let's say, Potency, Resilience, and Versatility.

Potency would govern how good you are at what you do, no matter what it is. Killing, healing, and talking, all on one stat. It also wouldn't have any regard for different ways of doing the same thing. Hit hard, hit often, critical hits?

Resilience would govern anything even remotely defensive. Hit points, saving throws, armor class, stealth, sense motive, the works.

Versatility would be spells know, maneuvers know, maneuvers readied, and skill points per level, or whatever the system uses to allow people to do a variety of different things.




APPROACHES
Careful
Clever
Flashy
Forceful
Quick
Sneaky

This reminds me of a line of thinking I was pursuing a while ago. I was figuring that, to a large extent, a group of characters in fiction tends to slot people into the categories of "the strong one," "the smart one," "the skillful one, and "the spooky one." Okay, so "skillful" and "spooky" aren't the best descriptions. Probably "dexterous" and "magical" would have been better. But I kind of had an S thing going with Strong, Smart, Skillful, and Spooky.

I actually gave some thought to creating an ability score system on this basis. Though I didn't want all the names to start with the same letter, for ease of abbreviation. So I went with Brains, Anima, Might,and Finesse. Or, as I like to abbreviate it, BAMF!

But Nifft had a good point about how class already tells you if you're the Strong one, the Smart one, the Skillful one, or the Spooky one. So, I guess the Approaches approach makes sense. You have a way you go about things, not a complex array of figures denoting how much you tend towards each way of going about things.




Hmmm, would setting them up something like this help create that structure?
Stats Group: Power / Precision / Passive

JRPGs seem to be fond of Power/Accuracy/Resistance/Avoidance. Basically, you're combining Accuracy and Avoidance. So anyone good at hitting consistently is also good at dodging.

That's not unnecessary a bad thing. The guys who take the evasive rout the defense also typically take the precision approach to offense. And the guys who that the "tough it out" approach to defense typically take the hard-hitting approach to offense. In fact, that's why earlier I suggested merging D&D's Strength and Constitution, because the game already merged Dexterity and Agility.

But, if you want the base ability scores to account for the possibility of being a glass cannon or turtle, you probably don't actually want to merge offensive and defensive stats.

[GaelofDarkness]

[Stats Structure]
Unless you want caster classes to be divided in such a way, don't. Power stats need to be used for overpowering (Fireball, Summon Monster), Finesse needs to be trickery or manipulation (Create Major Image, Suggestion) and Endurance needs to be tough (Protection from Evil, Stoneskin).

...
In such a system, using a stat for a purpose it shouldn't have (like damaging or overpowering with Finesse or Endurance stats) is EXTREMELY rare, and rightly so, as it would too easily allow min-maxing. Furthermore, nearly every non-power stats had second uses, once again, to push characters to balance their characters. Exemple: Stamina determined the amount of wounds you could take. The lowest of Dex or Wits was your defense. Wits+Composure was your perception check, Composure+Resolve was your pool of Willpower, etc.

So I am afraid Vibrance / Sensitivity casters, if allowed manipulative or attack spells, might turn out too powerful.

Oooooh, I understand what you mean now. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I can see how that division doesn't really work under that system.


And don't get me to start talking about the wizard always placing a fireball exactly where he needs it so that he can affect enemies in melee with allies while having 0 risk of affecting said allies, or having them aim Touch AC 7 while everyone else aim Actual AC 42.

God do I hate DnD.

I still love DnD, perhaps only for the nostalgia and the fact that I can bring it up and have people know what it is, but still. But having come up with Warhammer's scatter dice mechanic the fact that a wizard might have to make and ability check for the fairly ordinary activity of making a short climb but the extraordinary ability to spew balls of flame from their hands just worked as intended was jarring. I know, I know, it's just how the spell works, saving throws are involved and spending a spell slot with no pay-off would suck, but still.


And thank you for your response. It is motivating to see how positive you are when you ask for advice for your project, and all we do is talk about other games we played and exactly how terrible they are.

Aww, thank you. It's still a fairly new project so the sense of pointless drudgery isn't scheduled to start until next week!



I actually gave some thought to creating an ability score system on this basis. Though I didn't want all the names to start with the same letter, for ease of abbreviation. So I went with Brains, Anima, Might,and Finesse. Or, as I like to abbreviate it, BAMF!

I AM SUCH A FAN OF STAT SYSTEMS ALSO BEING ACRONYMS! Yes, that was shouted with unnervingly honest enthusiasm. Look, I just think it's really cool when it works, like in Fallout's SPECIAL: Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility, Luck.

Any suggestions on how these might fit together - renaming being permitted???


JRPGs seem to be fond of Power/Accuracy/Resistance/Avoidance. Basically, you're combining Accuracy and Avoidance. So anyone good at hitting consistently is also good at dodging.

That's not unnecessary a bad thing. The guys who take the evasive rout the defense also typically take the precision approach to offense. And the guys who that the "tough it out" approach to defense typically take the hard-hitting approach to offense. In fact, that's why earlier I suggested merging D&D's Strength and Constitution, because the game already merged Dexterity and Agility.

But, if you want the base ability scores to account for the possibility of being a glass cannon or turtle, you probably don't actually want to merge offensive and defensive stats.

Ahhh, good point. We don't tend to play turtles - at least not true turtles - but glass cannons are a nice option to have.

[Nifft]

This reminds me of a line of thinking I was pursuing a while ago. I was figuring that, to a large extent, a group of characters in fiction tends to slot people into the categories of "the strong one," "the smart one," "the skillful one, and "the spooky one." Okay, so "skillful" and "spooky" aren't the best descriptions. Probably "dexterous" and "magical" would have been better. But I kind of had an S thing going with Strong, Smart, Skillful, and Spooky.

I actually gave some thought to creating an ability score system on this basis. Though I didn't want all the names to start with the same letter, for ease of abbreviation. So I went with Brains, Anima, Might,and Finesse. Or, as I like to abbreviate it, BAMF!

But Nifft had a good point about how class already tells you if you're the Strong one, the Smart one, the Skillful one, or the Spooky one. So, I guess the Approaches approach makes sense. You have a way you go about things, not a complex array of figures denoting how much you tend towards each way of going about things.

Personally I'd put skillful in the class, not the stats, and make the stats Strong / Smart / Swift / Spooky.

Then you can do classes or roles or even skills on top of those stats, with things like Face / Utility / Control / Knight / Blaster / Officer / Inspiration, or just have mixed-role classes like Thug / Hunter / Oracle / Trickster.

A Strong Knight would play very differently from a Swift Knight or a Spooky Knight -- doing all the basic Knight stuff, but in a spooky way, and having skill with some spooky stuff that's only peripheral to the Knight concept in addition.

A Strong Utility might be someone very athletic, with strange luck that manifests through physical contact (like how The Fonz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonzie) can change the song on a jukebox).

A Spooky skillful character might use ghosts & spirits to scout, disarm traps, and unlock doors -- with the class benefits being more potent the more people have died or suffered by the traps / in the location.

One part what, another part how.

[Gorum]

I still love DnD, perhaps only for the nostalgia and the fact that I can bring it up and have people know what it is, but still. But having come up with Warhammer's scatter dice mechanic the fact that a wizard might have to make and ability check for the fairly ordinary activity of making a short climb but the extraordinary ability to spew balls of flame from their hands just worked as intended was jarring. I know, I know, it's just how the spell works, saving throws are involved and spending a spell slot with no pay-off would suck, but still.


... Ranged Area spells require an attack roll vs AC 8 + Spell Level + Range penalty (N/A if touch, 10 if close, 25 if medium, 50 if long). If the attack roll fails, remove the DC from the roll. If the result of that is -1 to -3, it scatters 1 square. If it is -4 or more, it scatters 1d6+1 squares. Roll 1d8 for direction, 1 being behind the target, then going clockwise.

The attack roll being successful or not doesn't affect the saving throw's DC for those affected.

Done.