-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Removing Bonuses from Ability Scores
- Thread starter sheadunne
- Start date
Greenfield
Adventurer
So what would you do with the fifth bonus? Or the sixth?
And if Athletics is divided into subsets for the bonus, is it also divided for the penalties? That is, are we back to being able to distribute penalties into places where they won't come into play?
Note that these same questions come up for all other ability bonuses and penalties as well.
By condensing down the skill sets, and at the same time forcing a limited distribution of ability modifiers, you run into the problem we're seeing: You can't use all the bonuses and/or penalties. But if you don't limit the possible places to share them out then it becomes possible to hide our weaknesses so they don't really come into play.
Plan C would seem to be grouping skills, like Athletics, and once they're invested then allow sub-specialties. This runs 180 degrees out of synch with your goal of "flattening" the system (i.e. dumbing it down.)
Have you considered a return to 1e, where there were no skills, and ability mods only came in for exceptional abilities, usually 16+, and were class specific? (I.e. only Fighters could roll on the "Extraordinary Strength" chart.) It was already "flatttened", everything done through skills and feats were done as class abilities or "Non-combat proficiencies"?
Note that by subsuming feats into class abilities, as you've suggested, you sabotage your own stated goal of having two characters of the same race/class/ability be completely different. You are removing choices, which was 3e's strong point.
I'm a system's analyst by trade, so it's kind of natural for me to analyze proposed changes to a system, be it an office system, computer system, manufacturing system or a game system.
I once wrote a supers game system, and later tried to retrofit it on the D20 model. It didn't work because super heroes have super stats, and they overwhelm anything resembling balance in the D20 skill system. That's sort of the battle you're fighting here, on a smaller scale. You don't like the fact that a gifted athlete can be good at many sports, that a gifted scholar can be knowledgable on many subjects, that a wise and insightful person can display good sense in a lot of areas, that a friendly and personable individual can... well, you get the picture. But the fact is, an intelligent person doesn't stop being intelligent when the subject changes. A man who can lift his own weight over his head doesn't suddenly become a weakling when it comes to lifting his own weight by climbing a rope.
And though I hate to argue reality in the realm of fantasy games, that's the way things work in the real world. Most college athletes have several choices as to which sport to compete in. Football players often wrestle in the off season, and they lift weights and run to train for either one. Some play baseball as well (if they still have the knees for it), and the taller ones play at basketball as well.
You don't have to be Rain Man to be good at math, and being good at math doesn't preclude also being good at history, social science, etc. In short, 4.0 gpa students exist (My wife graduated UCLA Cum Laude, for example). In your proposed skill/ability system they either all become 4.0 students because you've lumped all the academic/knowledge skills into one (ala Athletics), or none of them do because there are too many places to put ability/skill numbers.
And the simple fact is there there are varying degrees of Strength. +/-1 max to Lifting from Strength? Everyone's either Joe Average, Willy Weakling, or an Olympic class weight lifter, with nothing in between. Every competition ends in a tie because everyone competing has exactly the same capacity (+ to Lift). Is that how "flat" you want things? It's what you're building, after all.
(DC Heroes had that problem, sort of: Every point doubled ability, so Clark Kent was either supposed to be twice as strong as Lois Lane, or exactly the same. So was Jimmy Olsen. No real gradations. Oh yeah, Joker was twice as Intelligent as Batman,but Batman could outrun a race horse, two to one.)
And if Athletics is divided into subsets for the bonus, is it also divided for the penalties? That is, are we back to being able to distribute penalties into places where they won't come into play?
Note that these same questions come up for all other ability bonuses and penalties as well.
By condensing down the skill sets, and at the same time forcing a limited distribution of ability modifiers, you run into the problem we're seeing: You can't use all the bonuses and/or penalties. But if you don't limit the possible places to share them out then it becomes possible to hide our weaknesses so they don't really come into play.
Plan C would seem to be grouping skills, like Athletics, and once they're invested then allow sub-specialties. This runs 180 degrees out of synch with your goal of "flattening" the system (i.e. dumbing it down.)
Have you considered a return to 1e, where there were no skills, and ability mods only came in for exceptional abilities, usually 16+, and were class specific? (I.e. only Fighters could roll on the "Extraordinary Strength" chart.) It was already "flatttened", everything done through skills and feats were done as class abilities or "Non-combat proficiencies"?
Note that by subsuming feats into class abilities, as you've suggested, you sabotage your own stated goal of having two characters of the same race/class/ability be completely different. You are removing choices, which was 3e's strong point.
I'm a system's analyst by trade, so it's kind of natural for me to analyze proposed changes to a system, be it an office system, computer system, manufacturing system or a game system.
I once wrote a supers game system, and later tried to retrofit it on the D20 model. It didn't work because super heroes have super stats, and they overwhelm anything resembling balance in the D20 skill system. That's sort of the battle you're fighting here, on a smaller scale. You don't like the fact that a gifted athlete can be good at many sports, that a gifted scholar can be knowledgable on many subjects, that a wise and insightful person can display good sense in a lot of areas, that a friendly and personable individual can... well, you get the picture. But the fact is, an intelligent person doesn't stop being intelligent when the subject changes. A man who can lift his own weight over his head doesn't suddenly become a weakling when it comes to lifting his own weight by climbing a rope.
And though I hate to argue reality in the realm of fantasy games, that's the way things work in the real world. Most college athletes have several choices as to which sport to compete in. Football players often wrestle in the off season, and they lift weights and run to train for either one. Some play baseball as well (if they still have the knees for it), and the taller ones play at basketball as well.
You don't have to be Rain Man to be good at math, and being good at math doesn't preclude also being good at history, social science, etc. In short, 4.0 gpa students exist (My wife graduated UCLA Cum Laude, for example). In your proposed skill/ability system they either all become 4.0 students because you've lumped all the academic/knowledge skills into one (ala Athletics), or none of them do because there are too many places to put ability/skill numbers.
And the simple fact is there there are varying degrees of Strength. +/-1 max to Lifting from Strength? Everyone's either Joe Average, Willy Weakling, or an Olympic class weight lifter, with nothing in between. Every competition ends in a tie because everyone competing has exactly the same capacity (+ to Lift). Is that how "flat" you want things? It's what you're building, after all.
(DC Heroes had that problem, sort of: Every point doubled ability, so Clark Kent was either supposed to be twice as strong as Lois Lane, or exactly the same. So was Jimmy Olsen. No real gradations. Oh yeah, Joker was twice as Intelligent as Batman,but Batman could outrun a race horse, two to one.)
Last edited:
Michael Morris
First Post
No offense sheadunne - but this idea is way too complicated to be fun, or even feasible. Also, I couldn't grok what you were aiming at on the first three read thrus so I gave up.
I don't think it's complicated, however my explanation may be overly wordy. Does this help? Replace ability score modifiers with feats, 1 feat for each +1 you would normally get and 1 negative feat for each -1 you would normally get. The feat selection is limited.
It was also 3e's weak point. A majority of feats are usually taken my specific classes. There are a few feats that were taken by a group of classes. It's not too hard to identify which feats fit naturally into which classes. Feats such as Iron Will or Skill based feats, don't below in classes. They belong somewhere else, either as feats, or as I am suggesting, as ability score feats (attributes).
I haven't removed choices at all, in fact, I've increased the number of choices. Does Pathfinders Archtype system increase or decrease choice? Now what if those archtypes 1) didn't replace existing class abilities and 3) were usable by multiple classes. You can be a rogue archer, a fighter archer, a barbarian archer, etc. How the "archer" adds to the class makes the class combination unique. A rogue archer is completely different than a fighter archer.
Anyway, I'm getting a head of myself. I'm only talking about replacing ability score modifiers with feats. Right now I have something like 20 feats for each ability score.
My concern is that this doesn't add anything to the game. That determining what type of intelligence your character has isn't a meaningful choice, but instead a distraction.
Greenfield
Adventurer
I think I see where our conflict comes from.
You clearly have a vision for your game, but for whatever reason are not communicating it clearly. And, from what I'm reading here, I'm not the only one getting lost in the maze of verbiage.
For example, you said that you were reducing feats, subsuming them into class features or attributes. When pressed on this, as a choice limiting factor, you said you were increasing feats.
Beyond this, I think we have different ideas of what makes a good game system. You commented that the variety of choices in D&D 3.* was a weak point. I consider it a strength. We're obviously starting from very different places, and pursuing different goals.
You want to "flatten" the math, which inherently reduces the granularity available in skill and combat bonuses. I rather like the ability to fine tune things.
I have no idea whether the majority of gamers favor my style, your style, or some other we haven't discussed yet. But between the obscure goals and your occasionally contradictory communications style, I'm not getting anything useful out of this discussion. And I suspect that you're not really getting anything out of my being here. So I think I'm probably done.
Advice in the future? When you start a discussion like this one, a proposed "solution", start by clearly stating the problem you're trying to address, and how you hope to address it.
You clearly have a vision for your game, but for whatever reason are not communicating it clearly. And, from what I'm reading here, I'm not the only one getting lost in the maze of verbiage.
For example, you said that you were reducing feats, subsuming them into class features or attributes. When pressed on this, as a choice limiting factor, you said you were increasing feats.
Beyond this, I think we have different ideas of what makes a good game system. You commented that the variety of choices in D&D 3.* was a weak point. I consider it a strength. We're obviously starting from very different places, and pursuing different goals.
You want to "flatten" the math, which inherently reduces the granularity available in skill and combat bonuses. I rather like the ability to fine tune things.
I have no idea whether the majority of gamers favor my style, your style, or some other we haven't discussed yet. But between the obscure goals and your occasionally contradictory communications style, I'm not getting anything useful out of this discussion. And I suspect that you're not really getting anything out of my being here. So I think I'm probably done.
Advice in the future? When you start a discussion like this one, a proposed "solution", start by clearly stating the problem you're trying to address, and how you hope to address it.
I don't believe I have ever said variety of choices were a weak point. I believe I said that variety is a strength (Customization) and a weakness (poor balancing issues). It is a weakness because of feat imbalance. It's less likely someone will choose a feat that has no direct combat usefulness. I love flavor feats and want to save them. By moving the mechanism that allows you to choose those feats (ie not in competition with other feats that are more powerful combat feats).
I don't believe I ever said I was reducing feats, I'm just moving them around. A player in my homebrew system would gain more feats not less, they would just be in class abilities and attributes and other areas of the game.
I don't believe my communication style was contradictory at all. I think you were looking for something that wasn't there, that I was complaining or attempting to push an agenda, which is common in these threads, but not my intention at all. I'm also not sure how you think our styles are any different. We both favor choice. We both favor a variety of options. All I'm suggesting is reorganizing the mechanism in which people obtain those options, by making meaningful choices and not being limited in those choice selections as the current system encourages (ie through system mastery - Taking skill focus is less beneficial than Power Attack for most fighters).
Flattening the math only reduces the granularity available if there are no other choices available. Being able to do something different with a +1 makes for more fine tuning than less. The current ability score system has 0 granularity. Every +4 is the same and doesn't change no matter what you're playing. My intention is for players to choose what that +4 means. That allows, if anything, more fine tuning. The same applies for skills, which now offer no fine tuning. There's no difference from a cleric with an 12 hide and a rogue with a 12 hide. There are no choices to represent what that 12 hide means. If there are choices you can make within the hide skill that allow you to fine tune the use of the skill, even if it means not being generically as good as the current hide skill, isn't that a better option since it allows you to make the character you want to play, rather than a character that by default is good at things you don't imagine them being good at, or poor at things you can't imagine them being bad at (I'm looking at you intimidate!)?
By moving feats out of the "feat" category and reorganizing them into other areas of the game, you allow unused feats to become choices rather than forcing players to lose one thing to gain another. I'm going for more choices and less generic, without creating new ability scores and new skills.
My question was specifically about ability scores since I wanted feedback on whether changing the system from a flat +4 bonus to a selection method would create issues for playability. Is it too much paperwork or do people like making those types of choices?
I don't believe I ever said I was reducing feats, I'm just moving them around. A player in my homebrew system would gain more feats not less, they would just be in class abilities and attributes and other areas of the game.
I don't believe my communication style was contradictory at all. I think you were looking for something that wasn't there, that I was complaining or attempting to push an agenda, which is common in these threads, but not my intention at all. I'm also not sure how you think our styles are any different. We both favor choice. We both favor a variety of options. All I'm suggesting is reorganizing the mechanism in which people obtain those options, by making meaningful choices and not being limited in those choice selections as the current system encourages (ie through system mastery - Taking skill focus is less beneficial than Power Attack for most fighters).
Flattening the math only reduces the granularity available if there are no other choices available. Being able to do something different with a +1 makes for more fine tuning than less. The current ability score system has 0 granularity. Every +4 is the same and doesn't change no matter what you're playing. My intention is for players to choose what that +4 means. That allows, if anything, more fine tuning. The same applies for skills, which now offer no fine tuning. There's no difference from a cleric with an 12 hide and a rogue with a 12 hide. There are no choices to represent what that 12 hide means. If there are choices you can make within the hide skill that allow you to fine tune the use of the skill, even if it means not being generically as good as the current hide skill, isn't that a better option since it allows you to make the character you want to play, rather than a character that by default is good at things you don't imagine them being good at, or poor at things you can't imagine them being bad at (I'm looking at you intimidate!)?
By moving feats out of the "feat" category and reorganizing them into other areas of the game, you allow unused feats to become choices rather than forcing players to lose one thing to gain another. I'm going for more choices and less generic, without creating new ability scores and new skills.
My question was specifically about ability scores since I wanted feedback on whether changing the system from a flat +4 bonus to a selection method would create issues for playability. Is it too much paperwork or do people like making those types of choices?
Greenfield
Adventurer
Hmm. The forums seen a bit odd today. I've posted two replies to this, and none of them stuck. Let's try again.
I think the point of conflict between us may be based in poor communications. I'm not the only person who read your initial post and had trouble figuring out what you were talking about.
For example, you said that you wanted to subsume skills into class abilities and "attributes", a poorly defined concept. When pressed on this point, however, you give a somewhat contradictory claim that you're increasing the number of feats available. Hard to see how one lead to the other.
You proposed bulk-packaging skills to simplify things, but then said that you'd allow them to be broken out individually again. The grouping seemed to run counter to your implied goal of limiting what ability scores can do, and then the subsequent separation appeared to undercut your initial attempt.
There are other examples as well. I enumerated a few in one of my earlier responses, but that got lost and I'm not sure rewriting them will mean anything, since this reply may get lost/rejected as well...
It also seems as if you and I have different values when it comes to good games. I suggested that the wide variety of choices was a strength of 3.*, and you replied that it was a weakness. After which you claimed to be increasing those choices (though it's unclear just how).
You said you want to "flatten" the math, which essentially reduces the granularity of skills and abilities. You obviously think that's a good thing, and I seriously disagree.
I'm sure you have a clear vision of what you're trying to do, but it's hard for me (and apparently others) to discuss, or even understand it, based on the way you've expressed it.
Over all, we seem to be starting from different place and are working towards different goals. I doubt we'll ever agree, and in fact may have so little in common that conversation is pointless. So I think I'm probably done with this thread. I've gotten very little out of our exchanges, and I doubt that you've gotten much out of my contributions. You've acknowledged that I raised some good points, but you never addressed them, so I'll presume that you've just sort of moved past them. And that's okay.
Do you mind some friendly advice? When you begin a discussion like this one, clearly state the perceived problem you're trying to address. Then, as you frame your proposal, include some explanation about how your idea addresses the problem. I have to admit that I was unclear what you were trying to do from the start, which may be why I had such a hard time getting a handle on how you were planning to do it.
I think the point of conflict between us may be based in poor communications. I'm not the only person who read your initial post and had trouble figuring out what you were talking about.
For example, you said that you wanted to subsume skills into class abilities and "attributes", a poorly defined concept. When pressed on this point, however, you give a somewhat contradictory claim that you're increasing the number of feats available. Hard to see how one lead to the other.
You proposed bulk-packaging skills to simplify things, but then said that you'd allow them to be broken out individually again. The grouping seemed to run counter to your implied goal of limiting what ability scores can do, and then the subsequent separation appeared to undercut your initial attempt.
There are other examples as well. I enumerated a few in one of my earlier responses, but that got lost and I'm not sure rewriting them will mean anything, since this reply may get lost/rejected as well...
It also seems as if you and I have different values when it comes to good games. I suggested that the wide variety of choices was a strength of 3.*, and you replied that it was a weakness. After which you claimed to be increasing those choices (though it's unclear just how).
You said you want to "flatten" the math, which essentially reduces the granularity of skills and abilities. You obviously think that's a good thing, and I seriously disagree.
I'm sure you have a clear vision of what you're trying to do, but it's hard for me (and apparently others) to discuss, or even understand it, based on the way you've expressed it.
Over all, we seem to be starting from different place and are working towards different goals. I doubt we'll ever agree, and in fact may have so little in common that conversation is pointless. So I think I'm probably done with this thread. I've gotten very little out of our exchanges, and I doubt that you've gotten much out of my contributions. You've acknowledged that I raised some good points, but you never addressed them, so I'll presume that you've just sort of moved past them. And that's okay.
Do you mind some friendly advice? When you begin a discussion like this one, clearly state the perceived problem you're trying to address. Then, as you frame your proposal, include some explanation about how your idea addresses the problem. I have to admit that I was unclear what you were trying to do from the start, which may be why I had such a hard time getting a handle on how you were planning to do it.
Similar Threads
