PDA

View Full Version : [CRE8] New Set of Ability Scores



Draz74
2010-02-08, 06:01 PM
Introduction

Anyone sick of arguing about whether Will saves should be Charisma-based or Wisdom-based? Wishing there wasn't a "universal dump stat" in the game? Wishing there wasn't an everybody-needs stat in the game? Here's my suggested improvement.

This is not supposed to be a major fix for game balance (at least, not until you combine it with the rest of the CRE8 ruleset). It is just supposed to make it a little clearer what each of the game's ability scores mean and have them make more sense fluff-wise.

The Scores

Brawn
Brawn measures your character's muscle, toughness, and sheer bulk. Compared to the standard ability score "Strength," it is more size-dependent but has less to do with stamina and coordination.

Agility
Agility measures your character's flexibility, balance, and fine motor skills. Compared to the standard ability score "Dexterity," it is pretty similar, but with a more appropriate name.

Fitness
Fitness measures your character's health, stamina, and coordination. Compared to the standard ability score "Constitution," it is less about being able to take a hit, and more about having well-trained muscle memory and control.

Discipline
Discipline measures your character's focus, memory, and mental conviction. Compared to the standard ability score "Intelligence," it is less cerebral; compared to the standard ability score "Charisma," it is less people-skills focused.

Intuition
Intuition measures your character's awareness, empathy, and keenness of subconscious thought. Compared to the standard ability score "Wisdom," it is similar, but with a more appropriate name and less oriented toward common sense or willpower.

Wit
Wit measures your character's cleverness, eloquence, and ability to "think on his feet." Compared to the standard ability score "Charisma," it is less about force of personality or personal magnetism, and more about the sort of quick-wittiness that was sometimes considered to be part of "Intelligence."

Dependencies

Carrying Capacity should be dependent on Brawn.

Initiative should be dependent on Intuition.

Skill Points should be dependent on Wit.

Melee Attacks should be dependent on Fitness and Brawn. Fitness affects the attack's attack roll or accuracy. Brawn affects the damage roll.

Ranged Attacks should be dependent on Agility and, usually, Brawn. Agility affects the attack's attack roll or accuracy. Brawn affects the damage roll (except with particular ranged weapons, i.e. crossbows and non-composite bows, which do not normally allow an ability score to affect damage).

Defense against Physical Threats should be dependent on Brawn, Agility, and Fitness. Specifically:

A player should gain bonus Hit Points equal to their Fitness score. Note: this only happens once, not at every level.
In a system where Armor does something other than let you avoid hits completely, Brawn should affect your Armor. It is preferable to use a system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140536) where this (http://true20.com/) is the case (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm). In a game that uses standard Hit Points, your Brawn modifier should instead affect your Hit Points at every level.
Agility should affect your Defense, or, in a system where defense and armor are indistinguishable, your Armor Class.


Fortitude Saves should be dependent on Fitness.

Reflex Saves should be dependent on Agility.

Will Saves should be dependent on Discipline.

Skills: The CRE8 system will use a different skill list. But for the sake of familiarity, I shall adapt 3.5e's skill list to these six ability scores here.

Brawn: Intimidate
Agility: Balance, Escape Artist, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, Ride, Sleight of Hand, Tumble, Use Rope
Fitness: Climb, Jump, Swim
Discipline: Autohypnosis, Concentration, Decipher Script, Heal, Knowledge,
Intuition: Diplomacy, Forgery, Handle Animal, Listen, Profession, Search, Sense Motive, Spot, Survival
Wit: Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Disable Device, Disguise, Gather Information, Perform, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device


Spellcasting: The CRE8 system will have a unique spellcasting system. But again, if you wish to try out these ability scores in a 3.5e game, you can use them in the following manner.

In general, spellcasters must have a Wit score of 10+spell level to cast any spell. They use Intuition to determine Bonus Spells, and Discipline to determine spell Save DCs.
Wizards do not receive Bonus Spells.
Divine Casters must have an Intuition score of at least 10+spell level to cast a spell. This replaces the Wit requirement for casters in general.


Class Features for 3.5e classes:

Barbarian Rage improves only Brawn. Its duration is 5+Fitness mod rounds.
Bardic Knowledge is dependent on Wit.
Turn Undead is dependent on Discipline, both for uses/day and for turning damage.
For Monks, AC Bonus, Stunning Fist DCs, and so forth are all based on Intuition.
Wild Empathy is dependent on Intuition.
Divine Grace is dependent on Intuition.
Lay on Hands is dependent on Intuition.

Baron Corm
2010-02-08, 06:28 PM
Still confusing. You think no one will ever argue over Brawn vs Fitness? Or Discipline vs Wit? I think if you want to make things clear cut and definitive, you need to go back to the basics of Strong/Fast/Smart/Charming and just make less categories.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 06:56 PM
Truth be told, if you're going to have different atributes, don't just make them six.

Go wild and add a few more, so you have more clear-cut categories.

The problem is that there is no real middle ground here. You either go for 3-4 to keep it simple, or 9+ to be as detailed as necessary. Six is actually a very, very bad plan.

Also keep in mind that the best way to have no dump stat is to make every one important and unique. Yes, that includes having a social stat separately from the rest, and actually make it important (White Wolf does it just fine).

Hyooz
2010-02-08, 07:39 PM
This is like, almost identical to the existing ability score system.

Like, seriously.

Glimbur
2010-02-08, 08:04 PM
What about five main ability scores, each with four sub scores?

Physique
Physical Fitness
Strength
Bodily Attractiveness
Health

Charisma
Facial
Vocal
Kinetic
Rhetorical

Dexterity
Hand-eye coordination
Agility
Reaction Speed
Enunciation

Intelligence
Language
Math
Analytic
Spatial

Wisdom
Drive
Intuition
Common Sense
Reflection

DaTedinator
2010-02-08, 08:17 PM
I like what you're trying to do, but there's far too much overlap here for this to be worthwhile yet. Where's the line between fine motor control and coordination? Sleight of Hand uses oodles of both. Diplomacy is as much about eloquence as it is empathy, even moreso in plenty of situations, so why is it Intuition and not Wit? Why is Profession more about awareness than memory, when it largely covers the mundane routines of life? And that's just some of the skills.

Again, your goals are admirable, and I could totally sign up for this when it's finished, but it still needs work.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 08:30 PM
I like what you're trying to do, but there's far too much overlap here for this to be worthwhile yet. Where's the line between fine motor control and coordination? Sleight of Hand uses oodles of both. Diplomacy is as much about eloquence as it is empathy, even moreso in plenty of situations, so why is it Intuition and not Wit? Why is Profession more about awareness than memory, when it largely covers the mundane routines of life? And that's just some of the skills.

Again, your goals are admirable, and I could totally sign up for this when it's finished, but it still needs work.

An idea that you can use to overcome the above problem is simple:

Use both attributes that might apply (or all, if more than one).

This can be done in three easy ways:

A)They stack. Will need to adjust DCs accordingly.
B)They average out. No need to adjust DCs, helps further MAD (which I think in some cases is a good thing). Or instead of average, apply "weights" to each ability like in Fallout, say, but that's too complex.
C)Take the highest, or most important for that skill, ability score, and add 1/2 round down of the others on top of it. Might need to adjust DCs accordingly.

I don't even want to go on the hard ways.

Pronounceable
2010-02-08, 10:23 PM
The problem is that there is no real middle ground here. You either go for 3-4 to keep it simple, or 9+ to be as detailed as necessary.
I sorta agree with this. Either have very broad or very specific stats. The middle ground is the good old DnD stats by any name.

Also, forget stats. What use are those? Modifiers are the bee's knees.

Zexion
2010-02-08, 10:51 PM
This is basically the standard ability system, with different names. If you want to call this stuff differently, then you can, but at least look up the descriptions of the various stats in the PHB.

Draz74
2010-02-10, 01:16 AM
This is basically the standard ability system, with different names.
Huh. And here when I posted this thread, I was expecting people to be more concerned (positively or negatively) about the differences from standard D&D, than about the similarity to standard D&D. The Homebrew Forum never ceases to astound. :smallsmile:

In any case, if I implied somewhere that new Ability Scores was going to be one of the major, radical changes in the CRE8 system, then I have erred. These ability scores were never supposed to be anything other than a "tweak" to the 3.5e scores.


If you want to call this stuff differently, then you can, but at least look up the descriptions of the various stats in the PHB.

:smallannoyed: Going to ignore backhanded insult ...


You think no one will ever argue over Brawn vs Fitness?
They shouldn't. The difference here is really pretty clear. With the possible exception of tasks that truly require both.


Or Discipline vs Wit?
The mental scores still have some room for argument, especially Intuition vs. Wit, I admit. If someone would like to suggest a division that is clearer fluff-wise, while still being balanced, I'm all ears.


The problem is that there is no real middle ground here. You either go for 3-4 to keep it simple, or 9+ to be as detailed as necessary. Six is actually a very, very bad plan.
Odd, I actually determined to stick with six, not mostly because it's a "sacred cow," but because it felt like the right amount to me aesthetically. It seems to me like it can represent diverse characters nicely, without making any of the scores too insignificant.

I'm pretty sure I don't want to go to 9+ abilities and super-detail (sorry Glimbur, thanks for the suggestions). Dropping to 3-4 ... what would they be? Because in the following suggestion, for example:


I think if you want to make things clear cut and definitive, you need to go back to the basics of Strong/Fast/Smart/Charming and just make less categories.
Yeah, based on the treatment Charisma gets, I feel like that would lead to a very popular Charming dump stat. And how do you represent a swashbuckling type who is tough but not strong, or the absent-minded professor who is smart but clueless?


that includes having a social stat separately from the rest, and actually make it important (White Wolf does it just fine).
Interesting. What's different about it?

So in short, I'll consider dropping to less ability scores if I see some really good arguments for how it would work, but so far I'm unconvinced.


I like what you're trying to do, but there's far too much overlap here for this to be worthwhile yet. Where's the line between fine motor control and coordination? Sleight of Hand uses oodles of both. Diplomacy is as much about eloquence as it is empathy, even moreso in plenty of situations, so why is it Intuition and not Wit? Why is Profession more about awareness than memory, when it largely covers the mundane routines of life? And that's just some of the skills.

Again, your goals are admirable, and I could totally sign up for this when it's finished, but it still needs work.
Yes, it does. And I'll be the first to admit that the area it needs the most work is a way to handle tasks that require more than one ability, like the Sleight of Hand example. (Diplomacy ... well, that skill is just too broad anyway, so I kind of plan to shake things up there anyway. But yes, as per 3.5e, Diplomacy definitely is based on both Intuition and Wit.)

Thing is, any system of ability scores will end up having some tasks that depend on more than one of them. Guaranteed, unfortunately. So regardless of which abilities CRE8 uses, this needs to be dealt with.

I don't feel like getting into it tonight, though. Need to ponder it more first. Thanks for starting us off with some suggestions, Cataphract, but ... they all include more math than I'm hoping to build into the game. Except the first one, which just feels like it will make it way too easy to pump skill checks into the stratosphere, just like 3.5e.


B)They average out. No need to adjust DCs, helps further MAD (which I think in some cases is a good thing). Or instead of average, apply "weights" to each ability like in Fallout, say, but that's too complex.

I agree about MAD not being bad. In fact, you could say one of the main goals of my ability score re-shuffle is to increase MAD (especially for spellcasters); I don't like 4e's way of embracing dump stats and making them essentially not matter.

So I imagine I'll end up doing something sort of similar to this option ... vaguely.


Also, forget stats. What use are those? Modifiers are the bee's knees.

Oh, you mean where you don't have Brawn 15 (+2), you just have Brawn of +2? Yeah, I thought about it, and I'm open to hearing further opinions and arguments on the subject. But this is one thing I might keep just because it's tradition. I also have a couple ideas (and would welcome more) of how to make scores (not modifiers) more useful.

Draz74
2010-02-10, 01:23 AM
There's actually an interesting discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7855370&postcount=27) right now in the Gaming forum about the possibility of axing ability scores (and modifiers) entirely.

I'm skeptical, but interested to hear if this idea has more popular support.

Temotei
2010-02-10, 01:23 AM
:smallannoyed: Going to ignore backhanded insult ...

Probably the best course of action, although it was rather uncalled for.

I'm agreeing that these are pretty similar to the original ability scores though. Perhaps if you made a bunch of very small, well-defined ability scores, then cut them down to a smaller amount by combining very similar abilities, you can create a nice system...not that this isn't nice.

Point: Ability scores are too similar to the current system. More or less could fix it, or change them to do different things.

That poster has a point on that last part. Maybe you could make a system where a +1 bonus matters.

DaTedinator
2010-02-10, 02:26 AM
My point got a bit tied up in skills. It wasn't so much "What ability applies to what?" as that's easily fixed by not tying skills to abilities, and just making it a DM decision, case-by-case. My point was more, where do you draw the line between coordination and balance, or "keenness of subconscious thought" and ability to think on your feet, or toughness and health? Or even rather than where do you draw the line, why do you draw the line?

All I'm saying is, I feel like if you put a bit more thought and effort into it, you could get rid of the ability overlap.

Also, Wit seems... weird, in general. Your eloquence and ability to think on your feet determines skill points, rather than your memory? And then a lot of the skills stuck under Wit just seem like either strange choices (such as Craft), or skills that didn't fit anywhere fantastically, so they were stuck in Wit to make it not a dump stat (such as Use Magic Device).

Temotei
2010-02-10, 02:29 AM
My point got a bit tied up in skills. It wasn't so much "What ability applies to what?" as that's easily fixed by not tying skills to abilities, and just making it a DM decision, case-by-case. My point was more, where do you draw the line between coordination and balance, or "keenness of subconscious thought" and ability to think on your feet, or toughness and health? Or even rather than where do you draw the line, why do you draw the line?

All I'm saying is, I feel like if you put a bit more thought and effort into it, you could get rid of the ability overlap.

Also, Wit seems... weird, in general. Your eloquence and ability to think on your feet determines skill points, rather than your memory? And then a lot of the skills stuck under Wit just seem like either strange choices (such as Craft), or skills that didn't fit anywhere fantastically, so they were stuck in Wit to make it not a dump stat (such as Use Magic Device).

Use Magic Device under Wit kind of makes sense. The skill often involves guessing and testing, requiring rather quick thinking without analyzing (although that could come after a few uses of the item or figuring out what it does).

I'm thinking Craft should go under Discipline...maybe even some Craft skills in Discipline and some in Agility or something.

Draz74
2010-02-10, 02:51 AM
That poster has a point on that last part. Maybe you could make a system where a +1 bonus matters.

So, I'm planning on having Vitality Points based on Fitness score, and probably carrying capacity based on Brawn score. Any ideas what the other abilities could improve that would use their score rather than their modifier?


My point got a bit tied up in skills. It wasn't so much "What ability applies to what?" as that's easily fixed by not tying skills to abilities, and just making it a DM decision, case-by-case. My point was more, where do you draw the line between coordination and balance, or "keenness of subconscious thought" and ability to think on your feet, or toughness and health?
That's a tough question, and at the moment, the best answer I have is "Follow the stereotypes. If you're not sure whether XXX should be under Fitness or Agility, think about a fat, lazy, gluttonous but nimble halfling thief. Should the stereotypical character be good at XXX? If so, it's probably Agility-based. If not, it's probably Fitness-based."

Also, blur the lines by providing a number of abilities that let you swap ability dependencies. But be careful that, in doing so, I don't let anybody make their character too SAD.


Or even rather than where do you draw the line, why do you draw the line?

All I'm saying is, I feel like if you put a bit more thought and effort into it, you could get rid of the ability overlap.
Heh, you don't want to know how many versions of this I've already gone through. :smallsmile:

Suggestions of setups to reduce/eliminate the overlap are welcome, though, especially if they preserve the final number of scores at six.


Also, Wit seems... weird, in general. Your eloquence and ability to think on your feet determines skill points, rather than your memory? And then a lot of the skills stuck under Wit just seem like either strange choices (such as Craft), or skills that didn't fit anywhere fantastically, so they were stuck in Wit to make it not a dump stat (such as Use Magic Device).

Maybe I should rename Wit "Cunning"?

In any case, this is an area where I used the above "stereotypes" strategy extensively. A stereotypical Rogue has pretty good Wit and Intuition, pretty poor Discipline. A stereotypical Wizard has great Discipline and Wit, pretty poor Intuition. A stereotypical priest has great Discipline and Intuition, mediocre Wit. When you process those, do the dependencies make more sense?

This is also an area where something gets lost in the translation from CRE8 to 3.5e. In CRE8, if Use Magic Device exists at all, it will be a Talent (think "skill trick," for comparison) rather than a skill. And skill points actually won't depend on any ability score; but the number of Talents a character gets will be based on Wit.


I'm thinking Craft should go under Discipline...maybe even some Craft skills in Discipline and some in Agility or something.

Yeah, Craft as it exists in 3.5e could definitely depend on a number of scores, and vary depending on what kind of Craft it is. That's a can of worms ... :smalltongue:

Roderick_BR
2010-02-10, 09:43 AM
What about five main ability scores, each with four sub scores?
(...)
But will spells/magic itens enhance all sub scores withing a main ability, or you need one for each? I jest, of course, but sitll something interesting to think about.

Also, to the OP: You could add Dexterity for manual works (separated from Agility). Maybe something else for a mental ability. Perception? Kinda into Intuition, I guess. Something like Reaction, to show the character's response speed maybe?

lesser_minion
2010-02-10, 10:00 AM
What about five main ability scores, each with four sub scores?

You appear to have taken FATAL, renamed a couple of sub-stats, and changed the groupings.

It could conceivably work as long as you don't ask people to roll 10d100/5 for each ability score.

Glimbur
2010-02-10, 10:56 AM
You appear to have taken FATAL, renamed a couple of sub-stats, and changed the groupings.

It could conceivably work as long as you don't ask people to roll 10d100/5 for each ability score.

That was the joke. I don't honestly believe that those 20, or 25 depending on how you count, stats are the best way to mechanically define a character.

Yakk
2010-02-10, 11:49 AM
Why attempt to divide overlapping properties with non-overlapping stats?

Steal a page from the trope based RPGs.

You have a collection of attributes. These can be neutral, weak or strong.

Each attribute can apply to a given task as a primary or secondary contributor.

You can add new attributes to the game relatively easily.

So you could have one character with a Brawn of +3, a Fitness of +2 and a Smarts of -1. Another character can have a Quickness of +3 and a Balance of +2 and a Fitness of +1. Another character can have a Wit of +3, and a Willpower of +1 and a Brawn of -1.

When you try to do something, you can use one primary and two secondary stats on the task. You add twice your primary, and one times your secondary stats to your roll.

Now your fighters don't all have to be huge and brawny -- some can use their brawn to attack with, others can use their quickness.

All you need is a list of categories of task each skill is a legitimate primary or secondary contributor to.

Defences work much the same way, as just another task.

Pronounceable
2010-02-10, 12:16 PM
You can have a grand total of 3 stats: Physical, Mental and Spiritual, shamelessly ripped off from Jade Empire. Physical would be your overall prowess meaning either the slow but strong guy, weak but fast guy or any combination of the two, the distinctions being completely fluffy. Same for smart but aloof, wise but slow and a dozen other tropeys unified in Mental. Which leaves magical ability, charisma and whatever else unfit for others to Spiritual.

Then you'll have an intensely fluffy base for a system (further tweakings will be needed for skills, checks and saves at the very least). Which may not be your goal at all, of course.


My point was more, where do you draw the line between coordination and balance, or "keenness of subconscious thought" and ability to think on your feet, or toughness and health? Or even rather than where do you draw the line, why do you draw the line?
With this, you don't. Which is quite refreshing.
...
If you really want 6 stats, you could just stick with DnD's. That'll save you some time. Or swipe from some CRPG, ex:I use SPECIAL.
...
As for skills, I'd add either two stats or twice the stat to every skill (that is if I wasn't always simply saying 'Your guy has +9 spot'). Climb: str+str, Sense Motive: wis+int, Sleight: dex+dex, Hide: dex+int, Swim: str+con, Bluff: cha+wis, Knowledge: int+int... Minimum tweak to DCs and you're good to go.

Milskidasith
2010-02-10, 12:44 PM
The only thing I got out of this is that you feel that all casters should be absurdly MAD, and that the new names really don't change the nebulosity of what they cover.

Ashtagon
2010-02-10, 01:22 PM
This looks as if the main reason to change attribute names is to break any psychological barriers that might otherwise stop people from accepting a change of some benefit getting a modifier from a new attribute.

If we swap back the names and compare RAW with the proposal...

Strength (brawn)
carrying capacity (no change)
melee damage roll (no change)
ranged damage roll (no change) (only applies to those ranged weapons that normally would qualify for a damage bonus under RAW anyway)

EITHER bonus hit points (was Con) (if using conventional combat rules) OR AC bonus (was Dex) (if using true20 style damage levels)

Dexterity (agility)
ranged attack roll (no change)
AC bonus (no change)
Ref saves (no change)

Constitution (fitness)
melee attack roll (was Str)
bonus hit points (no change) (only applies at 1st level, not every level)
Fort saves (no change)

Intelligence (discipline)
Will saves (no change)

Wisdom (intuition)
initiative (was Dexterity)

Charisma (wit)
skill points (was Int)

----

The Strength for bonus hp actually parallels a rule from GURPS. The Con for melee attack is a bit odd, but kind of makes sense when viewed in a certain light. Wisdom for initiative is just common sense considering that most perception-based skills are tied to Wisdom.

No comment on the skill re-assignment (too long to hunt down the attribute changes) or the caster MAD (too class-specific).

Draz74
2010-02-10, 01:27 PM
This looks as if the main reason to change attribute names is to break any psychological barriers that might otherwise stop people from accepting a change of some benefit getting a modifier from a new attribute.
Yes, that's a big part of it.


Intelligence (discipline)
Will saves (no change)
Um. Take another look at that. This is possibly the biggest change.

Baron Corm
2010-02-10, 07:29 PM
Yeah, based on the treatment Charisma gets, I feel like that would lead to a very popular Charming dump stat.

You did say this wasn't supposed to be a fix for game balance. If it was, a smaller stat system would be more like Brawn (Strength + Constitution), Grace (Dexterity + Charisma), and Brains (Intelligence + Wisdom).


And how do you represent a swashbuckling type who is tough but not strong, or the absent-minded professor who is smart but clueless?

...tough but not strong? I don't think I follow you there. Generally being in good shape implies toughness as well as strength. If you mean a long-distance runner as opposed to a bodybuilder, well maybe that's just too specific a difference to point out in a game like this, unless you want to make the gigantic list of ability scores. Kind of like how daggers and axes swing at the same range, and there's no such thing as aiming to cut off someone's arm. It makes things too complicated. I would give the runner a primary in Agility/Speed/Whatever and a secondary in Brawn.

As for smart but clueless, the clueless part can just be a personality trait. You just associate it with ability scores because of the way it was done in d20, with Wisdom being wisdom as well as perception and awareness for some reason.

Temotei
2010-02-10, 09:12 PM
You did say this wasn't supposed to be a fix for game balance. If it was, a smaller stat system would be more like Brawn (Strength + Constitution), Grace (Dexterity + Charisma), and Brains (Intelligence + Wisdom).



...tough but not strong? I don't think I follow you there. Generally being in good shape implies toughness as well as strength. If you mean a long-distance runner as opposed to a bodybuilder, well maybe that's just too specific a difference to point out in a game like this, unless you want to make the gigantic list of ability scores. Kind of like how daggers and axes swing at the same range, and there's no such thing as aiming to cut off someone's arm. It makes things too complicated. I would give the runner a primary in Agility/Speed/Whatever and a secondary in Brawn.

As for smart but clueless, the clueless part can just be a personality trait. You just associate it with ability scores because of the way it was done in d20, with Wisdom being wisdom as well as perception and awareness for some reason.

I can say from experience that running strengthens you, whether it shows or not.

itastelikelove
2010-02-10, 11:42 PM
I personally really like Baron Corm's 3-stat idea. Simple and elegant, and there's less room left for debate.

And I have an 8-stat system for a not-at-all-D&D system I'm building, which I think covers most everything without being gratuitous.

If you like six, though...I would say that you seem to be stretching a bit for that third mental stat (since you're removing social stats), and your physical stats seem to overlap as much as standard D&D.

So maybe like this?
Strength - Sheer power, including lifting, jumping and punching
Stamina - General fortitude, ability to take a punch or run long distances
Dexterity - Coordination, for small detailed work, accuracy or precision of motion
Quickness - Speed of movement, for sprinting, dodging or drawing/swinging a weapon quickly
Discipline - Trained intelligence, covers learning, remembering, and analyzing
Intuition - Reflexive intelligence, covers perception, reaction, and ingenuity

If you like these, I would recommend making wizards and clerics use Disc. for highest spell level, Intu. for save DCs, and Stam. for bonus spells. After all, clerics need to focus on their prayers and study the ways of their deities. Maybe bards, druids, possibly even sorcerers could swap Disc. and Intu.

For to-hit bonuses (but probably not damage), add Str. to bludgeoning weapons, axes and polearms, add Dex to piercing and ranged weapons, and add Quic. to slashing weapons. Maybe tie sneak attacks, and possibly crits, to Dex

Still not perfect, but I think it fixes more problems than it creates.

Draz74
2010-02-12, 12:34 AM
Also, to the OP: You could add Dexterity for manual works (separated from Agility).

A separate Dexterity ability would, again, be a very popular dump stat for anyone who doesn't plan to pick pockets and locks.


Steal a page from the trope based RPGs.

I'm not sure I understand still what you're intending to suggest. I doubt it's what I'm after, but all the same I'm interested to learn more. So, players can just make up their own sets of ability scores for their characters?


Then you'll have an intensely fluffy base for a system (further tweakings will be needed for skills, checks and saves at the very least). Which may not be your goal at all, of course.

Not really, no.


The only thing I got out of this is that you feel that all casters should be absurdly MAD,

Yes, definitely. Non-casters should too, for that matter.


You did say this wasn't supposed to be a fix for game balance.
Ah, right, I meant that it alone wouldn't solve 3.5e's class imbalances (e.g. by making casters MAD). It certainly is supposed to produce stats that are well-balanced in their popularity.

* * *

So in response to feedback here, I've started cautiously playing around with a reduced system that has Brawn/Fitness/Intuition/Cunning. Does that really seem a lot clearer?

I actually really like the Brawn/Fitness split that I've done with physical scores, though. I like how their current division allows me to give each of them both a defensive and an offensive purpose in combat. And it seems easy to me to tell the difference (since it's tied so closely with size).

If I make a switch to something like this, I think I would actually remove ability modifiers from Skill Checks in general. Trying to map all skills onto those four abilities just feels ... wrong. Instead, skills would be designed to express things that are holes in the four-ability system. ("Dexterity" would probably become a skill. Possibly "Charisma" too.) Feats and the like, or just in-game circumstances, could still allow you to add a certain ability mod to a skill, of course.

* * *

It's also occurred to me that a way to categorize my ability array (in the OP) that's pretty similar to some of the suggestions I've seen can be done like this:

Brawn - power of body
Discipline - power of mind
Agility - speed of body
Wit - speed of mind
Fitness - health/well-roundedness of body
Intuition - health/well-roundedness of mind

Though I suppose if I decide that's really how I'm defining the abilities, I'd have to make a swap, Initiative under Wit and skillfulness under Intuition.

DaTedinator
2010-02-14, 11:04 PM
It's also occurred to me that a way to categorize my ability array (in the OP) that's pretty similar to some of the suggestions I've seen can be done like this:

Brawn - power of body
Discipline - power of mind
Agility - speed of body
Wit - speed of mind
Fitness - health/well-roundedness of body
Intuition - health/well-roundedness of mind

Though I suppose if I decide that's really how I'm defining the abilities, I'd have to make a swap, Initiative under Wit and skillfulness under Intuition.

I am very much in support of going this direction.

Skjaldbakka
2010-03-01, 09:29 AM
"Brawn - power of body
Discipline - power of mind
Agility - speed of body
Wit - speed of mind
Fitness - health/well-roundedness of body
Intuition - health/well-roundedness of mind"

so you have physical stats broken down into essentially the same power/finesse/resistance groups that White Wolf uses. Not saying that is good or bad, but you should definitely look at that and see if you glean something useful. Even if it is just a matter of googling a world of darkness character sheet to see how attributes/skills are broken down.