PDA

View Full Version : Stats and their relative importance with time



NichG
2013-09-25, 10:01 AM
It occurred to me that there are a number of games in which there are stats which basically become more important as the character gains in power in other ways, but which are basically 'capped' as far as their effects early on.

For example, the casting stats in D&D and their effect on maximum spell level you have access to. You don't 'need' a 16 Int until you get 6th level spells, but its somewhat harder to increase your Int later on compared to just starting with it.

Another example is the computer game Arcanum, where similarly there are various spells/techs that you cannot buy with character points until you buy your stats up sufficiently; but at the same time those very high stats do not have a huge effect until you need them to unlock other things. Any system where stats act as prereqs is going to have a little of this property, that the stats become more important as your character becomes more powerful in other ways.

So, I'm not sure what to think about this kind of design. On the one hand, it creates a different 'category' of things - parameters that basically determine your character's future potential. On the other hand, having to make a decision about what you're going to be doing at Lv20 when you're Lv1 could be very punitive when dealing with newer players that don't know the system well.

On the other hand, its an example of an ability that, once purchased, 'keeps on giving' and remains relevant. Often we are faced with abilities, powers, etc that are cool when they first become available but then become moot as the game progresses, so it seems that there is an advantage to something that goes in the opposite direction.

Anyhow, what do you think?

Vin Robinson
2013-09-25, 11:56 AM
Most of my experience is with Dungeons and Dragons(3.5 and PF), so I will stick to that in my response.

Another thing to keep in mind is with feat prerequisites. Power Attack and Cleave might suffice for your fighter at level one, but as time goes on you may decide you want to open up combat maneuvers, such as tripping and disarming. Oh, you don't have 13 int? Too bad, friend.

TWF has a scaling Dex requirement, which can be hard to meet for characters that aren't Dex-based.

Spellcasting is obviously important, even Rangers and Paladins usually have to sink at least a +2 item to get their 4th level spells.

There are two primary sorts of players, I think. There's the kind that is into deep roleplaying, character acting, and embodiment of their characters, and then there is the math people that like optimizing their character builds. Let's face it, planning your character is a big part of the game, and what makes D&D a hobby game; you can spend just as much time planning play as actually playing it. So I don't think a little forethought on the player's part is a bad thing.

It is also incredibly rare for a game to run for more than about 5-6 levels, and you should at least be able to plan that far. Sixth level spells don't roll around until level 11. That seems like a long way away from level 1, but I don't think you should be in a full casting class with only a 16 in your primary casting stat.

I do know what you are saying, though. It can seem arbitrary and leave you high and dry.

TL;DR: Character planning is a big part of the game for most people, and planning is important to get the most out of your character.

Slipperychicken
2013-09-25, 01:55 PM
full casting class with only a 16 in your primary casting stat.

For a 3.5 spellcaster who you want to cast 9ths with, you need only begin play with casting stat at 15. Then you add all level-up bonuses to that stat, and can cast 9th level spells on time without needing items to do so.

But yeah, you could certainly play a character with a lower casting stat than that, it just means you'll need items/tomes to cast the highest-level spells. As long as you aren't too worried about save DCs or bonus spells per day, it really doesn't matter much as long as you have the minimum.

erikun
2013-09-25, 03:33 PM
I generally prefer that the benefit of stats is relatively clear and up-front, or that stats are relatively easy to improve independent from one another. I dislike instances where possessing a low stat leaves you permanently "behind the curve" by virtue of only improving a set amount per leveling up or by only being capable of improving by a set amount. It's annoying to run into as a playing, and it's annoying to explain to people who I'm introducing to a system.

Such a mechanic would be fine for optimization systems, where you are frequently rebuilding characters or designing new ones. However, unless a RPG is designs around one-shots in mind, I don't like needing to recreate characters so frequently.

Knaight
2013-09-25, 05:43 PM
I've seen soft caps used in various places, often to effect. For instance, in Savage Worlds skills cost a certain amount to buy up to the level of the attribute, then more afterwards. You can still get them, but it's twice as pricey. Thus, attributes have benefits down the road as well as their flat utility, but not to the point where not having them completely shuts down options.

Dimers
2013-09-25, 06:38 PM
In D&D 4e, stats are very important all along -- in themselves, not merely as prerequisites (though 4e also has that).

All characters gain mildly in all stats over time and can also choose further increases in fewer stats as they go. This is inherent to the system -- there's no cost, it just happens with experience. However, almost all builds must increase their primary attack stat every chance they can, including by picking the right character race to begin with, just to stay relevant, and many builds are also locked into a particular secondary stat (if they wear light armor and depend on a secondary stat for their main defense). Optimization also often demands raising the same secondary stat every time for other reasons that can be increasingly pressing at higher tiers of play. So 4e characters tend to have two stats (out of six) much higher than the others.

4e is also designed for heroes without major stat "flaws" -- using the standard system for character building, your worst possible starting stat gives only a minor penalty.

4e stats simultaneously improve attacks, damage, defenses, secondary effects of all sorts, and skill success -- in some cases, with broad swathes of skills. Having the right combination of stats is very important to the character's impact in all ways, from the lowest possible level of play to nigh-godhood.

A stat of 10 has no modifier to rolls. It's possible to start the game with one stat as low as 8 (-1 modifier). It's possible to end the game with one stat as high as 30 (+10 modifier). The most extreme feat requirements demand a 21 in one stat and 17 in another, or 21 in one and 15 in two others, or 19 in two stats. It's possible to get one such feat, unlikely to get two or more (not that the most extreme ones tend to apply to the same builds anyway). But the effort to do so WILL reduce your effectiveness if you don't have just the right build to try for that. It's hard to even reach 15 if the stat in question isn't either your primary or secondary choice. Since there are many feats with requirements of 15 in some stat, there are usually a small handful of tasty choices you miss out on due to stat requirement.

I like the character-creation game. I like having to make such choices, mining the books for the best combinations that will work in a real game. I wish more game elements in 4e had stat limitations -- I can't think of a single paragon path or epic destiny with a stat requirement, and quite a few feats that should have them, don't. But I doubt I'm in the majority on that issue, and it certainly wouldn't be newbie-friendly to have more stat requirements in the game. That's a common complaint about 3.X -- without lots of experience you can't know how to build a character to do what you think it's supposed to, due in part to those stat requirements. So I guess that balance is okay.

skyth
2013-09-26, 06:17 AM
You also have games like 7th Sea, where you roll a number of dice equal to stat+skill but only keep a number of dice equal to stat. Skills are easy to increase, stats less so, so going long, increasing stats has the best result (Especially since it touches more things).

When you are starting out, a 2 or a 3 in a stat and a 1 or a 2 in a skill doesn't matter as much, but when the skills start getting up into the 7+ range, the stat starts to matter a lot more.

NichG
2013-09-26, 09:21 AM
Having stats that 'grow' in significance with time seems like it would encourage early-game diversification if there is a way in the system to increase stats later on, even at greater cost.

For example, in D&D 3.5 if your benefits from stat mods were capped at half your character level, you might decide to forego starting with an 18 in your primary stat since that +4 will be going to waste for 8 levels basically. Instead you might decide for example that a 14 is enough, so that by the time you hit Lv8 you can raise it to 16 and get a +2 item. (Note: I'm not suggesting that this would be a good houserule by any means)

Of course, for systems where you can't grow your stats, this seems like its just a form of 'weak to start, overpowered later', which isn't really very good design. It only gets interesting if stats can be raised, possibly along a different scheme than they're initially acquired.