|
This might be more appropriate to the TG design thread, but given the call for fewer megathreads and more threads on small self-contained topics I'm making it a thread of its own. I know it's already answered questions to the theme of "what ability scores are right for my game", so I'll avoid redundancy there. I've seen quite a bit of chat about ability scores - generally not in a positive light - but it all seems to rest on a bed of You Should Already Know This information which I don't know and have had trouble finding. Forums search doesn't give very good post previews, and Google just finds me D&D blogs (which rely on You Should Already Know This of a different kind - I was introduced to the hobby through GURPS by a non-goon friend). So what's the big deal about ability scores - why do people dislike them to the point of calling for their death? Are the problems entirely game-specific, or do they have pitfalls which pervade all games which use them? Do any games do a good job with theirs?
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 10:56 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 05:23 |
|
|
In several incarnations of D&D, they are entirely pointless in combat, as it is optimal to raise one as high as possible and neglect the rest. Theoretically they could be used to "balance" multiclassing, but the number of options in 3E (plus sheer caster supremacy) made that impossible, and 4E made it effectively useless. So you end up with a bunch of numbers, one of which grants you a bonus to your primary attack. Since it usually ends up being exactly the same modifier, it is redundant. You could, for example, just lower everyone's base defenses to 6 instead of 10 and drop the modifiers and you'd get the same chance to hit. In games where they aren't randomly generated to differ each player's relative control over the narrative and don't involve perpetually smashing things, they tend to be fine.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 11:20 |
|
|
There's a few things wrong with the way D&D does ability scores. The first is, like Cardinal Ximenez said, that they're pretty redundant. As far as D&D goes, your Fighter's strength could just be "+4" instead of "18 (modifier = +4)" and it wouldn't make any difference at all. In any game where Ability Scores just give you a modifier or list of modifiers, they're redundant. This kinda used to make sense in oldschool D&D, where each score had a list of related die rolls, and "make a dex check" meant "roll 1d20 and succeed if you roll your dex score or below", but that had its own problems, mostly that it was over-complicated. The second is that it leads to situations where one class needs to boost 3 or 4 scores to be effective, and another class only needs to boost 1 (eg, a fighter needs Strength to hit and Constitution and Dexterity for hp and dodge because he's always in melee, while a wizard really only need Intelligence to be better at everything). The third is that simpler systems exist. Why do you need to know the 6 classic scores for your character? Can't you just pick X skills from the list that you're good at, and call it done? (My dude is good at Guns, Athletics, and Driving, your dude is good at Daggers, Explosives, and Surveillance). That kind of falls to pieces if you randomly generate scores, of course. It looks pretty dumb to have Boxing as a skill when your guy has a low strength, dexterity, and constitution, which leads into the next point. Randomly generated ability scores are awful. If one player's character can be significantly better than all the others, before the game starts, because he rolled well, that's lovely design. If you want a a character-building minigame, by all means go for it. It's not really my thing, but some people like to spend ages optimising characters before they play. The problem there is that you can't succeed at that if you get bad rolls. Oh sure, you could just roll again until you get something you like, but then what's the point of calling it "random"? You might as well be choosing a standard array or whatever, and at that point you might as well ditch ability scores for something more elegant. In summary: There's nothing wrong with ability scores, assuming they're not random, they balance across classes (if you have classes), and they're not redundant. It's just that you rarely see a system where all of those things is true. WHFRP3 comes pretty close.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 12:00 |
|
|
While I think it's fun to use starting ability scores as a sort of personality test, I think it's a boring mechanic since one class specific stat is inevitability pumped. In the D&D games I have ran (I've only ran D&D), I don't penalize or reward players who strictly use the results of dice rolls. I get real interested if somebody says something like "I use my gargantuan strength to whip the heavy iron chain around the white dragon's neck and attempt to strangle him with it." which isn't easily quantified by the basic rules. Maybe. I don't know. I've seen games where "I use my years of acrobatics training to do a spinning backflip and lodge my mace into the skeleton's head" = Basic Melee Attack, but I like to at least give something extra to somebody who is willing to describe how they are doing something. Is there a system that ignores core statistics and has a bunch of traits like "can make a rock skip across a lake at least 4 times" or "good at sneaking up on somebody and tripping them" or "loves to get drunk and sucker punch people" and these things add up to ability in combat?
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 12:08 |
|
|
The current system introduces a variety of problems. To begin with, in 4e pumping your ability score modifier is much more effective than the +5 you get for training a skill. A relatively optimized Wizard will inherently be as good at any INT-related skill as a Fighter who trained, say, History. This is relatively minor, and fairly easily fixable. However, we run into the bigger problem, which is that ability scores are tightly bound to combat effectiveness. In order to have a decent MBA, you need STR, and in order to have a decent RBA you need DEX. Thus, you can't make a know-it-all Fighter or Rogue with a good knowledge of history because you're screwing them over by pumping INT. Or, for that matter, you can't make a Wizard with a decent MBA without screwing him over, but that's much, much less of an issue compared to the basic problem of combat roles largely determining out-of-combat roles. In addition, this can create problems with classes that use basic attacks but don't prioritize STR or DEX, but the greater math problem is with the shape of classes. Most 4e classes are designed to have three ability scores, arranged in primary, secondary, and tertiary according to the build you follow. Most of these are A-shaped, where there is one constant primary and the secondary and tertiary shift, making it easy to pick up off-build powers if you like. Some (especially early ones) are Y-shaped, where there is one constant tertiary score and the primary and secondary shift, making it harder to choose stuff off the path. Some are W-shaped, where there are three possible primary scores and the whole thing is constantly shifting, and they may also have two entirely different secondary scores. The most notorious was the Warlock, but they got enough support through things like Arcane Power that they settled down into an essentially Y-shaped class. So basically ability scores define non-combat effectiveness based on what you do in combat, and the way in which they are implemented has created some wonky classes. There's an easy way to fix this, of course. You could decouple the modifiers from the ability scores, and just say that everyone starts out with a +4 primary mod, +2 secondary, +1 tertiary, or whatever works best with monster math, and then assign defense priorities and what basic attacks key off of based on class. Then you can use keywords to replicate 4e-style character paths, if you like. Skills, meanwhile, would be completely dependent on training, backgrounds, and level. They would need some more work to fully fix (maybe adding modifiers based on class if you really want to have "class skills") but you could fix some of the problems with 4e by removing ability scores from the equation. Alternatively, you could remove skills and replace them with ability scores, which might actually be preferable, but in any case combat effectiveness should probably be largely cut away from out-of-combat effectiveness. This could also help with some of the bigger exploits by more carefully controlling static modifiers, but that's a subject for another day. human snorlax posted:While I think it's fun to use starting ability scores as a sort of personality test, I think it's a boring mechanic since one class specific stat is inevitability pumped. In the D&D games I have ran (I've only ran D&D), I don't penalize or reward players who strictly use the results of dice rolls. I get real interested if somebody says something like "I use my gargantuan strength to whip the heavy iron chain around the white dragon's neck and attempt to strangle him with it." which isn't easily quantified by the basic rules. Maybe. I don't know. I've seen games where "I use my years of acrobatics training to do a spinning backflip and lodge my mace into the skeleton's head" = Basic Melee Attack, but I like to at least give something extra to somebody who is willing to describe how they are doing something. Is there a system that ignores core statistics and has a bunch of traits like "can make a rock skip across a lake at least 4 times" or "good at sneaking up on somebody and tripping them" or "loves to get drunk and sucker punch people" and these things add up to ability in combat? Heroquest does something a lot like this, but there are some other problems with it, especially with the 2nd edition. Or so I've heard from people who've broken it down and looked at it carefully.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 12:21 |
|
|
Yeah I've never liked the way DnD 3.x and above handled them. Especially scores "in-between" bonuses, which are useless and a waste of time, especially since you NEVER roll vs. the actual score. So having a stat like, say 11 is pretty loving awful. I much prefer the way WoD (old and new) and WFRP 3 handle them. Each "dot" has a substantial, tangible effect, and they interact in a flexible variety of ways with skills. You never increase an ability and feel that it has no effect (like bringing up a stat from 10 to 11 in DnD).
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 13:44 |
|
|
human snorlax posted:While I think it's fun to use starting ability scores as a sort of personality test, I think it's a boring mechanic since one class specific stat is inevitability pumped. In the D&D games I have ran (I've only ran D&D), I don't penalize or reward players who strictly use the results of dice rolls. I get real interested if somebody says something like "I use my gargantuan strength to whip the heavy iron chain around the white dragon's neck and attempt to strangle him with it." which isn't easily quantified by the basic rules. Maybe. I don't know. I've seen games where "I use my years of acrobatics training to do a spinning backflip and lodge my mace into the skeleton's head" = Basic Melee Attack, but I like to at least give something extra to somebody who is willing to describe how they are doing something. Is there a system that ignores core statistics and has a bunch of traits like "can make a rock skip across a lake at least 4 times" or "good at sneaking up on somebody and tripping them" or "loves to get drunk and sucker punch people" and these things add up to ability in combat? FATE comes pretty close to this. You get Aspects, which seem to be what you want. Whenever you do something that matches and Aspect you have, you get a bonus to the roll. Rolls are based on Skills (like Guns, or Investigation), but having an aspect that applies gets you an extra bonus. There are no ability scores. Essentially, your Aspects take their place by defining what you're like, while Skills define what you do. There are also Stunts, which are a bit complicated, but can define highly specific skills or situations Like for instance, an Assassin type character could take a stunt to use their Stealth skill as an attack roll, but only when they're striking an opponent who's unaware of them. Or a martial artist character could take a Stunt that let him use his Fists skill as if it were Intimidate. Want to get drunk and sucker punch people? Write "Angry Drunk Brawler" as an Aspect. Now you're necessarily a good Angry Drunk Brawler according to the rules. You will get a bonus to pretty much everything as long as you're angry, drunk, and brawling and what you're trying to do relates to that. On the other hand, you're going to compelled to get drunk and start brawls. Because you're angry. (Also take Skill: Fists, and maybe a Stunt that lets you do something like use Endurance as a social skill while you're drinking).
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:06 |
|
|
I like Ability Scores. Sometimes when I play a character, I don't really know what I want to play as. I could just go picking skills or feats and a class, but that doesn't really help if I can't decide what I want to play as. So, I roll my ability score sums up and I look at what I have. Then I try to distribute them and I start to get ideas of what kind of monster I've made. If I have a very even spread with maybe one weak link, I'd consider making a monk and if I rolled only one really high with the rest being extremely low, I'd consider a sorcerer. There's plenty of arguments against Ability Scores as posted here, but I feel they approach them with too much focus on fair game, which I guess is how most people here like to play. My favorite ability score system isn't really D&D's though. It's functional, but I think that both intelligence, wisdom and charisma are kinda faulty in their implementation and meaning and is about as much cause for discussion around the game table as alignment is. Call of Cthulhu had some good ideas, but also seems to be linking intelligence to skills and still act as "intelligence", which just doesn't seem right. Unintelligent people can often be very skilled and often intelligent people are extremely narrow-minded and only capable of a few things at all. My favorite, if still falling into this trap, might be the Fallout SPECIAL. It still does charisma and intelligence, but it also makes sure that your actual investment in strength and endurance have a big impact on your actual skills that use these two scores. Tagging skills is a brilliant way to get a rough idea of what kind of character you are without having it rely on your choice of ability score and having some minor stuff change for roleplaying purposes (like nature boy or bloody mess as traits) is pretty groovy. Now if only I could replace my crippled right arm with a cybernetic arm...
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:20 |
|
|
It makes me think of Mutants & Masterminds 3e, where pretty much everything attributes do can be purchased piecemeal otherwise, so attributes literally serve no purpose other than to be easy packages for new players. The problem is, of course, buying them piecemeal is often massively more efficient cost-wise, punishing players who buy them without understanding that it's a majorly inefficient means to spend your Power Points. I think the game would be better off without them, since they only obfuscate how bonuses are purchased (a fact that isn't helped that in some cases the same bonus can effectively be purchased as an attribute, skill, or a feat!). In Dungeons & Dragons they're a problem because it's often a solved system for optimal attribute outlay. Letting a fighter choose anything other than Strength as his highest attribute or a wizard choose anything other than Intelligence is basically just laying out the trap of letting folks suck at their primary role. There can be means through which attributes/abilities can be useful, but I think there's two boxes you usually need to be able to check: 1) They need to be able to provide some benefit aside from a skill bonus, and those benefits have to be roughly balanced, either by cost or effect. 2) They give new players a shorthand on how define characters easily. One type I'm a big fan of, but you rarely see, are "seesaw" or tradeoff systems, where to be good in one thing you have to directly reduce another. It allows point-based systems to basically have more focused roles like class-based systems to an extent, which is useful for some sorts of games.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:30 |
|
|
3.5e does try to use in between bonus scores for feat requirements, so it does have that, at least. Whether that is meaningful is another question. Still though. While the implementation of ability scores leaves a lot to be desired, I think the broad idea of scores for abilities, instead of more specific scores for skills, is not a bad idea. Skill scores, to me, almost inevitably involve some degree of mind reading, because they are just too specific. My character has a high driving skill? Too bad there's no driving in this adventure! So you have an awesome gun skill? Too bad you are going to a masked ball where no guns are allowed! Ability scores at least afford the player with a bit of vagueness.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:45 |
|
|
Mordaedil posted:Call of Cthulhu had some good ideas, but also seems to be linking intelligence to skills and still act as "intelligence", which just doesn't seem right. Unintelligent people can often be very skilled and often intelligent people are extremely narrow-minded and only capable of a few things at all. CoC (I only ever played 4th edition), is a pretty awesome system for random ability scores, because the whole vibe of the stories it's emulating is "normal people, often flawed, deal with eldritch horror that they were in no way expecting". It's not a game about heroes. I agree with you on the Intelligence thing, but the intelligent protagonist is a thing with Lovecraft. He also has a thing about how much better it is to be intelligent than anything else (which leads into his whole racist/xenophobic mindset). I mean, he was basically a stereotypical shut-in weirdo neckbeard. Edit: I guess I've played my fair share of CoC games where the players are expected to tool up to nuke Yog-Sothoth, and while I don't think that's a bad gaming session (hey, it's pretty much where the Lumley novels went), you'd really want to do it in almost any other modern system. One without random ability scores would be best. AlphaDog fucked around with this message at Feb 7, 2013 around 14:55 |
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:52 |
|
|
I like Call of Cthulhu's rolled ability scores. They don't have as much of an impact as in more mechanically tighter games, where having STR11 instead of STR16 is an effective -3 "suboptimal penalty" to each of your attacks. Whatever you roll is going to be within the bounds of normal humans. You aren't going to be stronger than a bear or weaker than a housecat. It provides an interesting skeleton to build on, and it encourages less archetypical characters and type-cast builds. Even terrible rolls offer interesting characterization opportunities without making the game unfun by constantly reminding you about that one blown roll at the start of the campaign. CoC combat encounters can more frequently described with less-than symbols than equals signs, but that's an expectation of the game. But again, this falls apart in a system whose primary draw is combat. Random rolling works in CoC because the draw is doomed Lovecraftian protagonists getting in over their heads. Trying to jam that into a model meant to represent awesome heroes loving poo poo up only yields half-awesome heroes not loving things up as well as they could be.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 15:05 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I agree with you on the Intelligence thing, but the intelligent protagonist is a thing with Lovecraft. He also has a thing about how much better it is to be intelligent than anything else (which leads into his whole racist/xenophobic mindset). If Call of Cthulhu was actually based on Lovecraft's viewpoint, it would be a very different (and deeply offensive) game.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 15:05 |
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:If Call of Cthulhu was actually based on Lovecraft's viewpoint, it would be a very different (and deeply offensive) game. I'm definitely not going to disagree with that. What I was getting at was that CoC is the only game I've seen where the randomness of the initial rolling of ability scores contributes to imitating the source material, because moths posted:the draw is doomed Lovecraftian protagonists getting in over their heads.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 15:45 |
|
|
Has anyone else tried Green Ronin's Song of Ice and Fire Role Playing Game? I like the way they use abilities scores as abilities; as in, these are the things you are able to do. You have fighting to cover the ability to hit stuff with things, marksmanship to hit things from far away, deception for lying and persuasion for making people agree with you. Everyone starts with a 2 in everything and can go up to 7 if they have enough points. Strength is just a specialty of Athletics that you only need if you get certain weapons or want bonus dice in certain circumstances. There are some abilities you want to push more than others if you want to be good at a role, but that doesn't preclude you from being good at something else. If you want to be a warrior who is heroically good at heraldry, gently caress, do it man. You will have a chance to use it given the demands of the setting.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 16:31 |
|
|
moths posted:I like Call of Cthulhu's rolled ability scores. They don't have as much of an impact as in more mechanically tighter games, where having STR11 instead of STR16 is an effective -3 "suboptimal penalty" to each of your attacks. Whatever you roll is going to be within the bounds of normal humans. You aren't going to be stronger than a bear or weaker than a housecat. It depends, really, on the intent of the game design. Looking back at Dungeons and Dragons (and older adventure modules), characters being incredibly heroic seemed to be the exception rather than the norm. Tomb of Horrors is a terrible example, given that the module is essentially designed to be instant deathtrap. Even CoC usually doesn't make characters die as the result of one failed roll (Even Cthulhu doesn't have to roll to kill people), though you can trace your eventual failure to one missed check. Nevertheless, the ability scores in D&D owe a lot to its wargaming roots - all those little miniatures are pretty stat-heavy, from my recollection of reading a 40k rulebook once upon a time - and the idea of the PCs being heroic doesn't really seem inherent in the system. I mean, the Player's Handbook has one of the PCs flat-out looting on the cover. Of course, now I'm getting into the semantic implications of that very image. Boiled down, D&D seems absolutely unheroic. The PCs march through natural habitats, murdering the local wildlife because it had the audacity to protect its territory from an intruder. The PCs kill dragons - seemingly heroic! - but only for the opportunity to loot its significant hoard. But back to how ability scores served D&D once upon a time. I alluded to wargaming roots as the basis for the statistics, and they stay. Their random generation provided the incentive to roleplay with them. Under the old 3d6 for each ability score in order, you did run into the odd Fighter with average strength but great intellect and personal magnetism, so the player uses that as fuel to make him the leader of their merry band. What ability scores did for D&D, in the nascent days of roleplaying, was give players cues on how to roleplay this completely random dude they just rolled up. Given the modules and rules under which the first and second editions lived by, I would say that the order of the day was surviving and taking chances to succeed, rather than just pure success. Bonuses were small, and parceled out with care. 3rd edition really did change the whole ballgame, though, with an emphasis on being more heroic and a definite decision to have min-maxing be a thing. It was definitely something that I would say started happening ever since the designers placed a definite benefit for the character if he had a high ability score in a prime attribute, and probably something that started back when people wanted to play as those heroic characters from the nerd bible, Lord of the Rings. In other words, it's always been there but has only continued to become the core emphasis of the system. At this point, I would say that ability scores in D&D are starting to become a moot point because they no longer serve the system, they only serve to hold the system back. Ability scores have a place in the system as long as they serve the intent, the purpose, and the flavor of the system. Instead of being the focus of the game design, they should just another pillar that you can use (you don't have to, of course) to support the system.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 16:54 |
|
|
It seems like before 3e, D&D had a lot more emphasis on player skill than on character attributes. There's not much more old-school than unscrambling the tiles to solve the Liche's riddle, or guessing that turning the knob clockwise will disarm the trap. But stuff like that was completely divorced from any in-game mechanics. The wizard with the 17 INT had just as much chance of guessing the puzzle as the 11 INT fighter, and the game wasn't really worse for it - that's just the kind of game it was.LuiCypher posted:What ability scores did for D&D, in the nascent days of roleplaying, was give players cues on how to roleplay this completely random dude they just rolled up. I agree strongly with this, and I think it absolutely has a place in modern design. Not to crap on the creativity of players, but a lot of us will habitually play the same character (or character type) across games unless something shakes that up. Random backgrounds and attributes go a long way towards doing that. Rogue Trader's background generation is fantastic, and it's a shame that more games don't include mechanics like that which nudge and prod more creativity out of players.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:31 |
|
|
LuiCypher posted:Nevertheless, the ability scores in D&D owe a lot to its wargaming roots - all those little miniatures are pretty stat-heavy, from my recollection of reading a 40k rulebook once upon a time - and the idea of the PCs being heroic doesn't really seem inherent in the system. I mean, the Player's Handbook has one of the PCs flat-out looting on the cover. I know this wasn't the main thrust of your post or anything, but I alwats had the impression that DnD heroes were heroic in the greek sense of "someone who does great deeds" rather than a person of great moral fibre.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:44 |
|
|
LuiCypher posted:Under the old 3d6 for each ability score in order, you did run into the odd Fighter with average strength but great intellect and personal magnetism, so the player uses that as fuel to make him the leader of their merry band.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:48 |
|
|
Clanpot Shake posted:I think it was in grognards.txt, but I remember reading somewhere that 3d6 down the line was never, in any version of D&D, a method of generating ability scores recommended in the DM guide. Basic came closest, but even Basic had a sort of way to fiddle with the end results by lowering one stat and raising another.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 20:20 |
|
|
Using ability scores as a roleplay supplement, divorced from the combat and non-combat roles, actually sounds good to me. The fighter may be strong or weak, but he still kicks rear end regardless because his career is Fighter and he does that well regardless. Let the stats explain how he looks, acts or thinks and let the class do the heavy lifting.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 20:29 |
|
|
Fangz posted:3.5e does try to use in between bonus scores for feat requirements, so it does have that, at least. Whether that is meaningful is another question. That's exactly backwards, though. Skills & similar are a guide to your GM; they're telling him or her, "I want to get in a high-speed car-chase!" Or "I want to get in a huge gunfight!" The point of investing in skills isn't to try to read the mind of your GM, it's to help guide your GM to run a session that you'll enjoy. Of course, it's also important to talk with your friends to make sure that one person isn't making Gunshoot McDrivey while another makes Talklots von Goestoballs, or that your GM can manage running both characters in the same adventure. Please try to communicate!
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 21:00 |
|
|
Clanpot Shake posted:I think it was in grognards.txt, but I remember reading somewhere that 3d6 down the line was never, in any version of D&D, a method of generating ability scores recommended in the DM guide. It was me that had that particular rant. Like Winson said, Basic came closest. The DMG has a small section about letting players who rolled really badly have another try. 1e specifically says not to do 3d6 down the line, because it will produce unsatisfying characters. 2e has multiple methods, the first of which is 3d6 down the line. It says to Ask Your DM if you can use the other ones, but I'm pretty sure that almost everyone did. 3e defaults to 4d6, drop the lowest. 4e does various things, but not 3d6 down the line. The point is that AD&D, Gygax edition, specifically says not to use 3d6 down the line, and was big on getting you the character you wanted through various alternative rolling methods (and at that point, it's looking very much like "it's not really random, because I recognise that random abilities are awful, but I have this system that's always used random abilities and I don't want to / know how to change it".
|
| # ? Feb 8, 2013 00:39 |
|
|
Ability scores in Apocalypse World: Useful, simple, tie in well to other parts of the game. Ability scores in D&D: Made redundant by the rest of the math, made redundant by skills, rarely useful on their own, don't seem to fit in with the rest of the game.
|
| # ? Feb 8, 2013 00:40 |
|
|
My take on ability scores is this: They tie combat role and non-combat role, because they effect both; whichever is more important in your game is going to determine how competent you are at the other (usually based on what your class requires). This results in pigeonholing and "Dumb Jock Fighters" Dude with a high INT and dude with a high INT and lots of skill points/training in INT skills are in completely different leagues from each other. The more you examine 4e D&D (i.e., like I did recently in an attempt to make 1-page characters statted out monster-style) you realize everything is just a bunch of numbers chucked together to get the "appropriate values". And even then, if you don't follow the basic rules (I had to tell all my players at char-gen THOU SHALT NOT HAVE LESS THAN AN 18 IN YOUR ATTACK STAT) you can still gently caress up your character, because Ability Scores can still be a trap (although at least 4e gives you LOTS of instructions on how not to gently caress them up) If your attack stat needs to be [4 or 5 + half-level + tier level] then just make it whatever that equals; don't say that the [4 or 5] has to be derived from an ability score. Same goes for defenses. Skills should just be "if you want to be good at a skill, you have +14 at it" or whatever, and you get to pick 4 of those, rather than it being [4 or 5 + half-level + training + racial bonus/background bonus] just to get to the "correct number" that equals "being good at this skill as per the DCs the game will throw at you."
|
| # ? Feb 8, 2013 04:34 |
|
|
In D&D you can make intelligence and wisdom more useful by giving players with higher scores in those stats more information than the others. I feel it's a fair way to reward high attribute points that other people would dump. "Roll a wisdom check." Okay you pass, come with me.
|
| # ? Feb 8, 2013 07:13 |
|
|
Ability scores are only the beginning of D&D's problems, and as the systems get more complex it gets worse. In Basic it makes sense - your character is really just a skeleton, and ability scores are a huge part of that. The random rolling works as a sort of abstract character generator. It's elegant, at least. In 3e/4e, you have ability scores, which are theoretically arranged to fit with your character concept. On top of that, you have skills, which are tied to specific ability scores. We start to get sticky here - Intimidate is tied to Charisma, so a really threatening warrior is also somehow pretty good at disguises and using magic items. (gently caress the skill treadmill.) On top of that, D&D has this bizarre combat/noncombat divide, and so combat isn't a skill. Classes get different amounts of skills (instead of just different ability packages), so warriors are bad at anything that isn't fighting and the best way to make a skillsy character is to also give them the ability to backstab monsters. Modern D&D (3e/4e) is at least four different, character systems smashed together (abilities, classes, skills, attack/defenses). I would be hesitant to call ability scores the issue; they work just find for systems like GURPS or Traveller.
|
| # ? Feb 8, 2013 09:48 |
|
|
God Of Paradise posted:In D&D you can make intelligence and wisdom more useful by giving players with higher scores in those stats more information than the others. I feel it's a fair way to reward high attribute points that other people would dump. I always find it strange that whenever the DM asks for an ability score check, you're supposed to use the modifier to determine the outcome, when it'd make more sense to use the base score itself, giving favor to "half-rolls", like 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17. It would also cut down on the "barbarian can't lift open the gate cause he roll 10 and the DC was 16, but the wizard tries and opens because he rolled 18, even though he has a strength of 6".
|
| # ? Feb 8, 2013 09:57 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 05:23 |
|
|
Odd numbered ability scores are depreciated. It's only the bonus that really matters 95% of the time but its a tradition that people would get angry if they changed because some people still like rolling the bell curve. Incidentally rolling ability scores rather than point buy sucks.
|
| # ? Feb 8, 2013 11:07 |
|
