Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[Kzach]

Grr... I've been posting about this exact same subject matter for years in dozens of posts and threads I've started and they all got universally canned or ignored. Mearls does it and suddenly it's a major topic of conversation that everyone discusses

 

[TerraDave]

We're definitely talkin' hardcore mulling, not idle musings. He's given this a lot of thought, obviously.

Mearls is behind Essentials, right? Essentials showed that you can play around with classes' internals as long as they output the correct math. How you get to that math is less important as long as the math is correct.

That's what Mearls's articles seem to me to be heading towards. That is, expanding 4e along those lines, rather than a full new edition.

I think marketing was behind essentials...but sure, this could be 4universal or something. But thats something.

Again, really don't know.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The question is not:

1. Can you build a minimalist D&D based on ability scores? Of course you can--just redo the math to work.

or

2. Can you use ability scores for the fundamental, but mostly unseen building blocks of other things? Of course you can--see several existing versions, including 3E and 4E.

No, the interesting question is can you build #1 so that the math works, and the game works, if that is all you use--while at the same time having options that work similar to #2, without redoing the math?

I'm not sure if that can be done or not. But it is an interesting question, both from a game design and a business case sense.

 

[TerraDave]

He seems to be implying 1+2 (so I guess 3).

 

[Balesir]

He seems to be implying 1+2 (so I guess 3).

As long as we don't end up with 2.5, that could be fine!

Older editions kept me away from D&D for around 20 years precisely because they tried to be "all things to all men". They weren't really good at anything - they were just "not bad". 4E is finally good at something - and I have other games for other foci, so I'm OK there, too. If the next iteration is a hodge-podge again, I guess I'll just stick to 4E as I have it. Minus the constant edition-war whining that might even be better still...

 

[delericho]

I think something like this could be acheived by keeping the base bonuses from attributes smaller. I think BECMI's attribute bonii were about right 0 to +3 (only from an 18) and no higher. A great score was nice, but not absolutely necessary.

Yep, that was a problem. Also, the many, many ways it was (and is) possible to boost your stats. Thus, not only do you have the disparity between the 12-Str Fighter and the 18-Str Fighter, but then add a few more points for gaining levels, a few from magic items, 2 from being a half-orc...

Obviously, if both characters are Fighters it's not such a big deal, but throw in a Monk or other MAD-class, and the discrepancies can really add up.

I'd would definitely advocate moving back to the BECMI scale for attribute bonuses, and also advocate removing (almost) everything that later modifies a character's ability scores.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Honestly, I'd be happier with even less emphasis on attributes. They're a pretty big character trap.

Want to be a fighter that's lean and fast rather then muscular? No, you suck. Want to be a thief that survives on his wits and charm rather then fast fingers? No, you suck.

Want to be what most fantasy characters are - fairly good at most things, and a bit better in one attribute? Man, you really, really suck! At everything!

I don't mind keeping the scores around, but I'd be happier if they were disengaged from things like attack scores and even (Controversial, I know) skills.

Attributes are only a trap when bloated bonuses are the sole measure of what is good.

Basing a good many activities on the attribute itself (rather than just the bonus) can work just fine .

If they are disengaged from everything meaningful then why have them?

 

[Baron Opal]

I've felt that attributes are an expression of talent and level is an expression of skill. At the beginning, talent is what lets you survive (or luck). As you gain experience it should be eclipsed by skill.

I think something like this could be acheived by keeping the base bonuses from attributes smaller. I think BECMI's attribute bonii were about right 0 to +3 (only from an 18) and no higher. A great score was nice, but not absolutely necessary.

I have an appreciation for that too. If, for example, fighters gain +1 to attack per level and a 16 strength gave you +2 to attack and damage, a higher strength would be significant at first level. The difference between a fighter with a strength of 16 and another with a strength of 10 minimizes over time, however, becoming irrelevant at tenth or twelveth level. That has a certain asthetic I appreciate.

Now, if we can do something like that as well as having a "tactician" type fighter who gains a benefit from a high intelligence, while still being as simple as the standard fighter, I would be a happy camper.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Mearls' article presents the idea as if it's a new concept. If you think about it, Castles & Crusades has been using this concept to a limited degree for years now. Ability scores work in place of skills, work as saves, and so on.

That being said, a minimalist D&D based on ability scores would be appealing. Make those scores mean something. Otherwise, we might as well go the True20 route and use modifiers. Con as AC is interesting. But then again, going the C&C route and having all the ability scores working as a save is interesting too.

Str = ???
Dex = Reflex
Con = Fortitude
Int = ???
Wis = Will?
Cha = Will?

 

[WheresMyD20]

I'd would definitely advocate moving back to the BECMI scale for attribute bonuses, and also advocate removing (almost) everything that later modifies a character's ability scores.

Another nice feature of BECMI is that ability scores are hard-capped at 18 (+3 bonus) for PCs. This limit even includes magic items like gauntlets of ogre power and girdles of giant strength. The only way a player character can have a score of 19 or higher is to achieve immortality, but then you're in a whole other league at that point.