PDA

View Full Version : fluid ability scores? (3.5 D&D)



bobthe6th
2013-04-29, 01:01 AM
so, the D&D ability system bothers me. It gives the statistics as basically permanent. Barring magic or a lot of levels, your strength score is your strength score. You could spend a year doing physical training, but unless the DM feels like using fiat you will have the same scores.

so an idea! The give a damn points system.

First a character generates base scores, starting with all abilities at 8 and exchanging points equally between stats. The point every 4 levels and racial bonuses are added to the base score. A character has a set PB to be spent as normal, except they treat the base scores as 8s for the cost to increase an ability. Each time they level, or given an extended break from adventuring(in the months to years range) they may redistribute the points. If this redistribution would invalidate a characters feat or prc, they lose the benifits. For Prcs this means that they lose all special benefits, but retain BAB, Saves, and HD gained from levels.

So if the wizard chooses to take a few months to do some physical training, but this disrupts his studies... he sheds a few points of int to boost Str and Con. But, his feat "super genius" had a requirement of 20 int! so he nolonger gains the benifit of the feat. This also means he loses access to the super genius Prc he had entered, and loses a caster level... but he keeps the 2d4 HDs, +1 to all saves, and +1 BAB.


So... this sound reasonable?

Shpadoinkle
2013-04-29, 06:47 AM
I actually like the idea a lot. I don't think it should be possible to drop stats below the requirements for feats or PrCs you already have this way, though.

bobthe6th
2013-04-29, 07:26 AM
You wouldn't generally, but I dislike taking away options.

Deepbluediver
2013-04-29, 10:03 AM
I guess it makes sense if you want your characters to be somewhat realistic, but how often will this actually come up in a game?

First, relatively few campaigns (not none, but few) have long periods of down time to conduct this kind of training in.

Second, most characters line up at least a rough version of their build from the get go, and already focus on whatever stats are optimal.

So I don't really see anything objectional, per se, but I also don't really see a whole lot of appeal, either. If I really want to change things up, why wouldn't I just roll a new character?
i.e. formerly I played Kristoff the barbarian, but he's retired so now I play his son Jeffon the Fighter, who has slightly different stats and class levels but has inherited all his father's gear.

Omnicrat
2013-04-29, 10:35 AM
This doesn't really reflect reality either. While I might lose some other abilities by spending all my time weight lifting, thats because I am spending ALL of my time weight lifting. I know several intelligent people who weight lift regularly, and they don't lose any other ability doing it. What would make sense is if you have to dedicate a certain amount of time "training" an ability a week to increase it and a lower amount of time a month to maintain it. It should be next to impossible for the average human to maintain 6 18s, or even 3 18s for that matter, but if someone wants to spend most of their time training instead of adventuring, they could do just that.

NichG
2013-04-29, 11:04 AM
Well the nice thing about this system is that it removes the danger of stat creep from introducing the fluidity. E.g. in a system where you didn't have to redistribute points, the person who says 'I will spend 100% of my time in various forms of training' will just be plain more powerful than someone who doesn't. This may be realistic, but the issue is that there's a real cost to doing that for real people whereas all it costs a player to do is to make the statement and take on some fluff for their character.

That said, I don't see this getting used much. People pick their stats pretty carefully, and D&D classes encourage a very narrow selection of stats. Its nice as a retrain mechanism in case you make a mistake or take a different direction with the character though. I also think that putting this under DM control will make it punitive, again because of the sort of narrow range of optimality situation.

Perhaps an alternate way of doing it is to think of the 'point-buy assigned scores' as fractions of total possible ability (e.g. if someone did train their Strength constantly, they could 'force' an 18 regardless of their natural aptitude, but at cost to other things). Then what could happen is that every game, each character gets a temporary +X bonus to some stat that cannot take them above the pre-modifiers 18 maximum based on the events of the previous game. This bonus starts at +1 and is based on if the previous game was physically intensive, mentally intensive, etc for that character. If the same stat is picked two weeks in a row, the bonus increases by +1 up to a cap of +X (probably +4 is as high as this should ever go).

Since its strictly a bonus, it won't have the problem of disabling people's feats or screwing them over if it drops out of under them, but it adds a bit of this fluidity and encourages sort of Morrowind/Oblivion style 'forced self-training' which may or may not be desirable depending on what kind of things you like in game.

Omnicrat
2013-04-29, 11:25 AM
Not true. A person who want to spend All their time training couldn't adventure. Now, a person who wants to spend all their non adventuring/sleeping time training would still have more costs than time. Like money. You think a weight set is cheap? Or a bunch of rare volumes? Or a course on public speaking? What if want to keep up more than 1 ability score? The price will add up fast.

Your system is interesting as well.

Sylthia
2013-04-29, 11:51 AM
I don't have any objections, but it does seem to add another layer of complexity that I'm not sure adds another positive to the game.

The ability scores remain relatively the same, but your characters advancement in measured in other ways. Your Str may be 16, but you train (and gain levels) so you become better at making sure your blows cause damage (your BAB goes up), or your Int is 14, but you study and become better at disarming stuff or gaining knowledge in a particular field (Disable Device or Knowledge (Something)).

Deepbluediver
2013-04-29, 11:54 AM
Personaly, I've never been a fan of the interpretation of the rules that says the ONLY way to gain exp and level up is via monster-slaughter.

I would support a rule set that allowed a character to simply gain class levels via time spent in intense training. That would resolve your time=power deal, without needing complicated formulas for exchanging stats

Sylthia
2013-04-29, 12:15 PM
Personaly, I've never been a fan of the interpretation of the rules that says the ONLY way to gain exp and level up is via monster-slaughter.

I would support a rule set that allowed a character to simply gain class levels via time spent in intense training. That would resolve your time=power deal, without needing complicated formulas for exchanging stats

As a DM, I usually give an equal amount of story and combat XP. I also give the party they would have gotten for combat if they manage to talk their way out of, or otherwise avoid a fight. Although, story-wise, in the campaign I've DMed, or been a player in, there is not usually weeks of story-downtime for the PCs to just train.

OzymandiasX
2013-04-29, 02:19 PM
Personaly, I've never been a fan of the interpretation of the rules that says the ONLY way to gain exp and level up is via monster-slaughter.

I would support a rule set that allowed a character to simply gain class levels via time spent in intense training. That would resolve your time=power deal, without needing complicated formulas for exchanging statsAdventuring is how you gain XP and level up, not just slaughter.

Otherwise all adventurers would just spend some time in the gym/library and hit level 20 before going outside. :) Okay, that is a bit of hyperbole... but in any campaign where the DM isn't railroading the plot, players will just say "we spend another month at the gym" and keep leveling up. Even my least munchkin players would always rather go up a few levels.

The idea is that practicing in the gym/library won't make you into an epic adventurer. GO OUTSIDE! lol

Deepbluediver
2013-04-29, 02:39 PM
As a DM, I usually give an equal amount of story and combat XP. I also give the party they would have gotten for combat if they manage to talk their way out of, or otherwise avoid a fight.

Not really the point. Either way, they are out adventuring, and whatever that entails, there is a big difference between it and staying in one place practicing with the express intent of improving yourself.


Although, story-wise, in the campaign I've DMed, or been a player in, there is not usually weeks of story-downtime for the PCs to just train.

Which was also one of my original points.


Adventuring is how you gain XP and level up, not just slaughter.

Otherwise all adventurers would just spend some time in the gym/library and hit level 20 before going outside. :) Okay, that is a bit of hyperbole... but in any campaign where the DM isn't railroading the plot, players will just say "we spend another month at the gym" and keep leveling up. Even my least munchkin players would always rather go up a few levels.

The idea is that practicing in the gym/library won't make you into an epic adventurer. GO OUTSIDE! lol

You could put a cap on it or implement a law of diminishing returns, but basically all of our characters have ALREADY spent at least some time practicing or training. Some, like wizards, spent more time in study, and others picked up their skills naturally as a part of their culture (barbarian) but unless you start out as a level 1 commoner, then you've already done this.

The good thing about a tabletop RPG is that the speed of the plot moves at whatever the DM determines. Maybe the BBEG is going to enact his plan some time in the next 10 days, so your party doesn't have much time to sit around and wait. Or maybe because you spent to long practicing the goblins you where supposed to fight leveled up into Bugbears.


Can you think of a good reason why a character SHOULDN'T level up from intense training? Or even just from every day life, if it's appropriate? I think I've said something like this before, but I think it's kind of appealing to have an NPC who became a 12th level Commoner just by surviving. (even a farmer in D&D world hoping for a quiet life might have to deal with wolf attacks, bandits, famine, drought, unfriendly nobles, and heavy forbid, roaming packs of adventurers) :smallwink: