Do YOU nod to "realism"?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I certainly agree that interpretations of stats mapping to combat bonuses (and other types as well) are always murky. The thing is if you decide "well, all we can do is just ignore all the stats" pretty soon they are meaningless numbers that don't do anything. Now, you could certainly make a game without stats. I think it would inhibit the ability to realize your character though. In the end the 4e approach is almost inevitable. There may be certain improvements that could be made, but they wouldn't end the debate. For instance you could move the selection of the governing stat to your weapon choice, Flails rely on CON as you need endurance to constantly keep the weapon in motion, and light blades might rely on DEX to reflect their reliance on speed and accuracy, etc. There are probably issues with that too, and certainly likely other approaches that some people would prefer.

 

[KarinsDad]

Similar justifications can be found for breaking down a door.

Str - Raw strength, naturally.
Dex - Could be contorting to get one's hand through an opening, or perhaps being able to use one's whole body (maybe bracing both feet against a wall while pulling on the handle?).
Con - Rather than an explosive use of strength, a matter of being able to maintain what strength one has for a longer sustained period.
Int - Knowledge of wood, metal, door construction, and weak points in design.
Wis - Same idea as Int.
Cha - This one, you're stuck. Unless one interprets Cha as a kind of "fortune" stat (a la ta'veren in Jordan's Wheel of Time.)

Rationalizations, not justifications. It's not that they make sense, it's that they can be stretched and convoluted into an explanation that makes a tiny bit more sense than the face value of normal common sense.

It would be better if the system used the most reasonable stat per attack type, just like it uses the most reasonable stat per skill type. If that leaves some ability scores with few or no attacks associated with them, so be it. I don't understand the need to balance out roles per power source and balance out attacks per ability score.

 

[Mallus]

The question is only: Do you avoid using 4E powers if the effect doesn't make sense to you in that moment in the fiction?

I voted no... and I played/ran 4e for 2.5 years... until my group moved on to Savage Worlds and AD&D.

My group cares about the game fiction. A lot. But most of us think it's fun trying to fit the powers (mechanics) into the game's fiction --call it description, rationalization, justification, apology, the opportunity to show how clever you are, whatever.

The thing is: any system is going to generate unrealistic results (older edition of D&D certainly did). Reconciling these results with the in-game reality (ie, fiction) is a central component to RPG play.

If it seems counter-intuitive, I find a way to make it make sense.

Exactly!

So if someone in your game needs to break down a door, why don't you check his Wisdom score? Checking for Strength would be too realistic, right?

A Strength check makes sense to resolve battering down a door.

A Wisdom or Int check would make sense to resolve opening a door by removing its hinges, or some other non-brute-force method.

It all depends on how you frame --pun unintended-- the question, and to what extent you use ability checks to overcome various obstacles.

Note the same logic applies to using different ability scores in combat: a STR fighter uses raw strength, an INT fighter fights well, smarter, while a WIS fighter relies on determination and/or faith. It's all in how you abstract things.

And if a dwarf with 3 Charisma and no social skills whatsoever wants to seduce the elven princess - more power to him! Who cares about "realism"? It's just a fantasy game, right?

I'll admit love at first sight is probably out of the question for a CHA 3 dwarf with no social skill training -- unless the elven princess has a scarred, surly, midget fetish .

However... what if it isn't love at first sight? What if the dwarf just rescued the princess from orcs, or saved her father from assassins? What if the dwarfs CHA of 3 represented his complete honesty? That would also explain his lack of Bluff/Diplomacy ranks...

Plausible, no?

I've got a simple rule when it comes to RPGs. You can either spend your time and energy figuring out why thing work, or why they don't. Which is more fun, and more appropriate, in a game about pretending to be an elf?

I also have problems with PCs swinging melee weapons with Con or Cha.

It works for paladins. CHA represents a measure of their god's grace, which strengthens their arms as they swing their weapons. It's seems appropriate to me.

I mean, CHA has traditionally been the "paladins stat". An AD&D paladin needed a 17+. It affected how much a 3 pally could heal *and* it determined their to-hit bonus on a Smite, which is exactly analogous to 4e having CHA-based melee attacks.

Hmmm... come to think of it, I did *nod* at realism when creating my 4e paladin. I gave him a decently high STR to justify his use of plate armor. It seemed wrong to gad about in so much ironmongery with a STR of 10. However, his CHA-based melee talents didn't bother me in the slightest. Nor did his melee power that attacked WILL instead of AC. In fact, that one led to a long-running joke at our table: "I stab him in the faith!

 

[D'karr]

"I stab him in the faith!"

Somebody please XP Mallus for me. Now I have to go clean out my keyboard.

 

[RHGreen]

(realistically, why would an elven empire that's been around for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, still be at the same technological level as the humans next door?)

Why would China invent virtually everything in the pre-industrial world and then stay at that level for hundreds of years?

Well in China's case they created non-glass ceramics that did what they needed them to do so they had no need to invent glass. The fact they did not have glass meant they stayed still as most of the inventions after that required glass as an intergral part of the invention itself, but most often it is needed for the scientific experimentation, research and development that was needed to come up with the idea in the first place.

Another place - the arab world was very mathematically and scientifically developed, hungrily gobbling up anything they could get their hands on from China and India, among other places and developing stuff themselves. They were very into knowledge and education. Religious attitudes put the mockers on that and they became stuck in time.

Another place - The Roman Empire was top of the food chain so they felt very little need to develop anything new. They mostly just sat around for years feeling big and clever (and constantly looking back at the Greeks)until they had their backsides handed to them on a plate and then everything fell apart.

 

[RHGreen]

I also have problems with PCs swinging melee weapons with Con or Cha. Int and Wis are quasi-ok, but Con and Cha just bug the heck out of me.

I have stamina, so I hit you easier and harder. WT???

I agree totally with Charisma (but I do think it could be used to feint or distract an enemy) but I think Constitution could work in particular circumstances.

I would be happy if Constitution was used for axes and hammers. I know strength makes sense, obviously, but I can imagine a high Con dwarf huffing and puffing swinging around a 2-handed sledgehammer.

Perhaps all weapons could have certain governing attributes that a player could use as he wishes.

Examples:

Dagger : Dex
ShortSword : Str, Dex
Longsword : Str
Warhammer : Str, Con
Rapier : Dex
etc

Also I would personally like:
Shortbow : Dex (multi-fire and movement)
Longbow : Str (Range and damage - fighters mainly)

Crossbows : Maybe this is a stretch Dex, Int, Wis - excellent peasant weapon, easy to shoot from battlements(easy to learn easy to shoot) - keep those nasty monsters out of town.

Elves would not get bonuses to longbows - they would be a very human weapon (along with large ships, horses, lances, crossbows and full field plate armour). Elves haven't got the physical build to pull a longbow. Pulling a longbow takes at least 7 years to become proficient because it is like holding a young adult up on one arm every time you shoot it.

I know the last part goes into "How many times have I been to the toilet today - I must mark it on my character sheet" territory, but if you want a good reason why humans would be dominant in a fantasy setting I think the above suggestions (war and commerce technology) would ensure it. Basically I would like that fluff rather than 'Humans are just humans (that just happen to breed a lot, but aren't as good as anything else even though, in reality, we did actually invent all this stuff)' usual fluff.

 

[FireLance]

It works for paladins. CHA represents a measure of their god's grace, which strengthens their arms as they swing their weapons. It's seems appropriate to me.

I think the problem is with Melee Training (Charisma) rather than a divinely-powered melee attack that happens to be based on Charisma. I can accept either in my games, but I would prefer the latter as it has more thematic resonance for me.

 

[Rechan]

This is one of those discussions that really drives home how much people care about different stuff than me. Wow, it's that stuff that bothers you guys?

The "using stat to attack" argument is just one reason why I like my houserule of taking ability scores out of the to-hit equation.

Btw, @Hussar as far as "non-European Cultures", there have been "other culture" settings and they generally do not sell well. See Nyambe, for instance. And Oriental Adventures apparently upsets a lot of people. But ultimately, everything is Euro-Fantasy with Kitchen Sink because that's what most gamers are comfortable with. Just look at how many people complained when the Monk was included in 3e, and how it didn't fit in their Eurofantasy.

 

[LurkAway]

But does it really, truly matter to have Cha or Con or whatever be used to apply a bonus to something?

Because if you rationalize that any of the 6 attributes can be used "to hit", then ALL of the attributes can be used to attack.

And "realistically" the ability "to hit" is some combination of multiple attributes at any one time (as I suggested upthread) and if everyone uses the same point buy system, then every PC has approx the same baseline bonus to attacks (ie., every player sums up the bonuses for all 6 stats and gets roughly the same number).

So why not just 'buy' attack bonuses like you select a feat or skill? So if you're a paladin, you can buy a paladin's Crusade Training feat and get +1 to attacks with appropriate weapons (or merge it into level progression). Who cares what stat(s) the paladin uses to attack -- just flavor it how you like (like most 4E mechanics).

The "using stat to attack" argument is just one reason why I like my houserule of taking ability scores out of the to-hit equation.

Sounds great, how exactly do you houserule that? Does it address AbdulAlhazred's concerns that ability scores would become meaningless? (I personally think ability scores have been over-represented in the game for long enough, and I wonder if they cause more trouble than they're worth as per all those 'player advantage' threads)

 

[Rechan]

Sounds great, how exactly do you houserule that? Does it address AbdulAlhazred's concerns that ability scores would become meaningless?

Mine is a less elegant version of this (and I'm considering just flat out using the linked houserule) Stats would effect initial defenses, and continually effect HP/Surges, initiative and skills.

But I doubt that will satisfy @AbdulAlhazred because I want stats to be less pivotal. I dislike how crucial stats are in terms of class, I'm doing the above to discourage the race to get the highest primary score to the detriment of other scores, to encourage multi-classing even when the classes don't have matching primary scores, and encourage non min-maxed race/class choices. That, and I just want to smooth out the to-hit formula. That's how I want it at my table.