System Idea: Flexible Attributes

[Easy_Lee]

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.

Spoiler: quote

Show

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. You may only choose an SA if you have supernatural abilities.
4. 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.
5. The DM must approve choices.
6. *Optional: Only mental attributes (INT, CHA, or WIS) can be used for SA.
7. *Optional: DA now controls HP progression and concentration checks, CON limitation removed.
8. *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.

1. AA will be used in place of strength or dexterity for weapon attack and damage rolls made by this character, regardless of weapon used.
2. For unarmored AC, light armor, and medium armor, DA replaces dexterity.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Spoiler: Amendments

Show

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]

I love it. I love it!

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

I love it!

[whibla]

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]

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]

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.

[DireSickFish]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Easy_Lee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well, WotC did balance the saves. But they did so by having primary and secondary saves.

[Steampunkette]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.