Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[Kaodi]

I think it is kind of incoherent for a system that models some skills with level based classes that many other skills would be just dependent on your natural abilities.

Now, one way you could eliminate this incoherence is by eliminating classes and levels, and just make everything dependant on abilities. If you have a Str 13 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 14 Wis 15 Cha 8 you can hit things so hard, dodge things things so well, take hits like the average guy, cast 4th level arcane spells and 5th level divine spells, and suck at persuading people.

If you do not want a system that allows people to potentially cast 8th level spells off the bat, then maybe you have a level system that caps how effective you are at certain things, but not at how much oomph your successes have. So an level 1 character with 18 str would not be able to hit more often than a level 1 character with 10 str, but he would still have a lot more oomph. And you would still need to be level 15 to cast 8th level spells with an 18 Int, but at first level your magic missiles still hurt a lot more than those of a guy with 12 Int. On the other hand, once you got to 5th level, you would both hit better and harder with magic than the guy with 12 Int.

In either system, the real mode of progression would be bonuses to abilities.

Also, you could have a system where abilities were abstractions themselves. A guy with an 15 in Str is not necessarily stronger than a guy with 10 Str, but he is just more effective at tasks which are associated with Str. Dragon Fist does something like this already with stunt dice. You can have a terrible strength score, but your associated stunt, called might, can have a really high die type if you but all your increases into it.

And if you take that abstraction to a more logical conclusion, you might ditch the current "ability" scores (which once upon a time were more properly called attributes, were they not?) and simple go with ability scores called Melee Combat, Ranged Combat, Athletics, Fortitude, Reflex, Arcane Magic, Divine Magic, Persuasion, Willpower, and Skill which covered pretty much everything you would need for a simple system. If you wanted to expand it, then maybe you do it is the same way that sub-attributes used to be done: Melee Combat might have Attack and Defence subcategories, while Skill might have Profession and Knowledge subcategories.

Maybe I should run with that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Abdulalhazred: in 2e attribute modifiers were pretty minor and didn't typically kick in until 16 or 17---

Str to hit bonus: 17 +1, 18 +1, 18/01-00 +1 to +3, etc.

Str damage bonus: 16 +1, 17 +1, 18 +1, 18/01-00 + 3-6

Dex defense adjust: 15 -1, 16 -2, 17-3, 18-4

Con hp bonus: 15 + 1, 16 +2, 17 +2(+3), 18 +2(+4) the parenthetical bonuses only applied to warriors.

 

[KidSnide]

I agree that there has to be a mechanical implication, I just think the mechanical implication should be something other than "your character is mostly useless." As it is right now, a Str 12 fighter can't fulfill the defender role and is little more than a joke. But if you just use roleplaying and have a Str 18, then the character is inappropriately good at athletics and doesn't get the mechanical benefit of a high wisdom.

For an old fighter, maybe it's harder to wear such heavy armor, make those athletic checks (or maybe even do quite so much damage), but he can still hit (and land the "hit" based effects of his powers). And, he gets the benefit of being good at perception and unusually effective at fighter Wis powers. That type of character might be somewhat less effective than a pure Str fighter (who does consistently more damage), but it's an interesting, different and viable character.

Now we are almost nit-picking. You can make a high Wis fighter in 4E (or ranger is 3E) and get something out of it. I guess its a harder build...(edit: you can also do some of this through which skills are trained...)

But I think the freedom you are implying suggest another approach. I mean, the fighter is not supposed to be that elaborate of an archetype. And its not clear to me that it should be.

My argument is almost entirely one of degree. I agree that you can make a high Wis fighter in 4E and get something out of it. It's just that the something you get is really pathetic in comparison to the "to hit" bonus you give up by not making Str your best score.

Because maxing your primary ability is such a "no brainer" in 4e, it really restricts the variety of viable characters that can be built from a single class. That's a significant design flaw, at least IMO.

-KS

 

[Greg K]

It's worth mentioning that Gygax said on these forums themselves that he very often gave players ways to raise their attributes. Though the rules made them out to be entirely static, that's not how they ended up in play.

I first noticed this when he statted out Gord with level increases. There were times in the "leveling" that ability scores were increased. Of course, my initial thought was, "Why did he not include this in the official rules".

 

[TerraDave]

Restraining ability scores can help, but not without other changes too. The problem with ability scores is not that they are emphasized, but that they stack with level, feats, magic items, etc. into one final number to hit. There may be other good reasons for restraining ability scores that are good all by themselves (I can think of a few possibilities), but the real problem here is that "fighter gotta hit," and hitting is "stack everything that applies to hitting".

If you want real variety in fighters, then add options that are important to the role, that don't rely on hitting something.

My argument is almost entirely one of degree. I agree that you can make a high Wis fighter in 4E and get something out of it. It's just that the something you get is really pathetic in comparison to the "to hit" bonus you give up by not making Str your best score.

Because maxing your primary ability is such a "no brainer" in 4e, it really restricts the variety of viable characters that can be built from a single class. That's a significant design flaw, at least IMO.

-KS

I think it make sense for fighters, as an archetype, to have pretty high strength, but there is the 4E issue that "16 isn't good enough" and that there is this arms race to pile modifier on modifier on top of that.

That problem might be dealt with in other ways. In 1E, you had the great equalizer of gauntlents of ogre strength (though this has its own problems). And not to much to stack on top. (funny how these old editions had these balancing factors...)

3E (and to a lesser degree older editions) seemed to deal with this by making trade offs across abilities more costly...low int had a cost, low cha meant you wouldn't have a cohort, etc. 4E, by design I think, weakened these trade offs.

A totally different approach would be a "cap" on modifiers beyond level, like +5 or something, that would reward high strength, but allow you to compensate for it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

An intriguing idea.

Having tried out Arkham Horror, I just thought I'd rather get on and play CoC. But I have to admit that it's a great boardgame - that fails to be a gateway to the roleplaying experience of the same thing.

A proper boardgame gateway to D&D would be interesting.

In the early 1980s, I probably played as much Dungeon! with my brother as we played AD&D. It wasn't a good gateway product, either -- although I'd love to see a reissue with modern board game materials -- but it was a great companion to it.

 

[Gundark]

A new edition probably has to be different enough from the previous edition(s) to warrant the time and money for development (more of the same and who would buy it?)

You know I had the same logic about Pathfinder and expected it to fail, or at least to have a short spike and then decline. I thought "why would those who would stay with 3.5 pick up Pathfinder?". I was wrong. Now we could be talking about apples and oranges here, but people seem willing to do things like this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Abdulalhazred: in 2e attribute modifiers were pretty minor and didn't typically kick in until 16 or 17---

Str to hit bonus: 17 +1, 18 +1, 18/01-00 +1 to +3, etc.

Str damage bonus: 16 +1, 17 +1, 18 +1, 18/01-00 + 3-6

Dex defense adjust: 15 -1, 16 -2, 17-3, 18-4

Con hp bonus: 15 + 1, 16 +2, 17 +2(+3), 18 +2(+4) the parenthetical bonuses only applied to warriors.

Yes, but what you're not considering is that a bonus in AD&D does NOT mean the same thing as it does in 4e by a long shot.

There were VERY few ways to get a to-hit bonus for example. Also there were a lot less levels, meaning the maximum bonus you would get as a fighter in a typical game is likely to be +12 from level. An extra +1 was VERY useful, especially at lower level where it was virtually the only bonus you could get. Damage bonus likewise where you ACTUALLY did something like 1d8/1d12 or maybe 1d10/1d12 and the ONLY bonus you would get to that would be STR. Plus your opponents had what 4.5 hit points average at level 1 for an orc? +1 damage at level 1 in AD&D was much like getting around +5 damage today. The DEX bonus was a HUGE advantage too, since again it was unlikely you could up your defenses much by other means and it remained a big advantage throughout all levels. Getting +1 hit points is for most characters a 25% or more hit point advantage, again like getting an extra 10 hit points in 4e, and it kicked in at every level whereas 4e's bonus actually means a good bit less as you level up.

It is quite true that the bonuses kicked in at higher scores, but they were quite potent in the context of AD&D.

I agree that there has to be a mechanical implication, I just think the mechanical implication should be something other than "your character is mostly useless." As it is right now, a Str 12 fighter can't fulfill the defender role and is little more than a joke. But if you just use roleplaying and have a Str 18, then the character is inappropriately good at athletics and doesn't get the mechanical benefit of a high wisdom.

For an old fighter, maybe it's harder to wear such heavy armor, make those athletic checks (or maybe even do quite so much damage), but he can still hit (and land the "hit" based effects of his powers). And, he gets the benefit of being good at perception and unusually effective at fighter Wis powers. That type of character might be somewhat less effective than a pure Str fighter (who does consistently more damage), but it's an interesting, different and viable character.

A core goal of the character creation rules should be to allow players to create a variety of interesting, different and viable characters with minimal rules overhead. Right now, if you want to play a Wis-concentrated melee defender, you need to write a whole new class. Fighter has a minor in Wis. Why can't I use Fighter for that? The answer: because WotC gave too much importance to the primary (to hit) attributes, severely restricting effective character builds for little benefit.

-KS

This is called 'being more experienced' which means you're higher level. That's the advantage. Granted that you aren't as good as EQUAL level characters with high prime stats, which is the typical game situation, but I think you can ask any athlete whether an older guy or a younger guy with equally good training will do better. If the game can't model that at all it has problems.

As others have said, fluff it. You groan and moan about your aching bones, but when push comes to shove, you've got what it takes to get the job done. And really, you can build a fighter with a good score in any off stat without a lot of sacrifice. People like to say different, but a 16 STR works fine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, but what you're not considering is that a bonus in AD&D does NOT mean the same thing as it does in 4e by a long shot.

There were VERY few ways to get a to-hit bonus for example. Also there were a lot less levels, meaning the maximum bonus you would get as a fighter in a typical game is likely to be +12 from level. An extra +1 was VERY useful, especially at lower level where it was virtually the only bonus you could get. Damage bonus likewise where you ACTUALLY did something like 1d8/1d12 or maybe 1d10/1d12 and the ONLY bonus you would get to that would be STR. Plus your opponents had what 4.5 hit points average at level 1 for an orc? +1 damage at level 1 in AD&D was much like getting around +5 damage today. The DEX bonus was a HUGE advantage too, since again it was unlikely you could up your defenses much by other means and it remained a big advantage throughout all levels. Getting +1 hit points is for most characters a 25% or more hit point advantage, again like getting an extra 10 hit points in 4e, and it kicked in at every level whereas 4e's bonus actually means a good bit less as you level up.

It is quite true that the bonuses kicked in at higher scores, but they were quite potent in the context of AD&D.
.

Thanks for the reply AbdulHazred. I agree the bonuses were potent in the context of the system. My only point was the numbers themselves were more contained than you had in d20 (wasn't thinking of 4E so much as 3E with modifiers going into the double digits routinely). Personally I prefered the more contained bonuses.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You know I had the same logic about Pathfinder and expected it to fail, or at least to have a short spike and then decline. I thought "why would those who would stay with 3.5 pick up Pathfinder?". I was wrong. Now we could be talking about apples and oranges here, but people seem willing to do things like this.

Pathfinder is partially a special case, though. Erik Mona and company had built up a LOT of good will with their run on Dragon and Dungeon, and the way that WotC terminated those magazines left a bad taste in a lot of mouths (including mine, and I wasn't even a subscriber). Mona also had serious bonafides with the Greyhawk and classic D&D community, which helped make him a perceived new standard-bearer for classic D&D. He also did a much better job of speaking directly and honestly with fans than WotC have done for many years. People wanted Mona and company to succeed.

Also, Pathfinder was originally talked about as being an extension of 3.5, but it pretty quickly moved away from that: You don't hear about a lot of people playing Pathfinder with all of the 3.5 WotC supplements -- more people are playing magi rather than warlocks, for instance. People ended up moving over to Pathfinder, which was perceived as "fixing" a lot of the problems that the 3.5 fans acknowledged that 3E had (as opposed to the more radical surgery that 4E performed), instead of just using the Pathfinder to supplement existing 3.5 games.