D&D General Heroes of Myth and Legend

[AbdulAlhazred]

Is intelligence including quick and predictive thinking it is in 4e (where for instance we get it as potential reflex fuel)?​

Is wisdom getting perceptivity and general awareness?​

Yeah, I think that is the general idea. I had no problem really with how 4e parsed that. It seemed pretty 'trad D&D' in that sense, and I've always been pretty comfortable with D&D's ability score handling (I mean, noting that HoML just gets rid of the scores and keeps the bonuses, not that this is very radical).

So, if you look at the 'knacks' (I just like the name better, I think its more accurate than 'skill' for how 4e uses them) they're basically the same as the 4e ones, I haven't really found much that I can significantly improve on, aside from trading the more limited 'dungeoneering' label for 'Engineering'. I consider everything to be pretty broad.

I left religion/religious tied to INT, which I believe 4e did partly for balance and partly the notion being that 'religion is not piety, it is knowledge of the doctrines, etc.' HOWEVER, it does seem to me that by explicitly calling them 'knacks' the "how I solve problems" aspect is stronger than the 'knowledge' aspect. So, maybe it really should shift to being "I'm good at using my piety to solve problems" in which case WIS seems like a better match. The problem then is WIS is getting a LOT of knacks!

Of course, we could parse things differently, or more finely, etc. I mean, I could see CON having both "solve things through Stamina" and "solve things through sheer ability to Endure/Survive" High CON helps both, and at the 4e level of parsing they are just all 'Endurance' and that is fine, but you could squeeze out a second aspect for CON that way. OTOH I'm not sure it would always be clear which is a better match to govern a situation.

I guess we could go the other way and just abolish knacks altogether. In some sense Abilities do some of the same work. I guess another option would be to break with the classic 6 scores and maybe have something like 9, that would maybe get you some added things. I mean, you could have 'MOXIE' that would handle 'Streetwise' type "I can handle this" situations, maybe Alertness to take perception and similar out of the realm of WIS (which is not the very best fit), and I suppose you could have an actual POWER Ability score too. That would certainly lead to some interesting optimization questions if it affected your power points!

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, I think that is the general idea. I had no problem really with how 4e parsed that. It seemed pretty 'trad D&D' in that sense, and I've always been pretty comfortable with D&D's ability score handling (I mean, noting that HoML just gets rid of the scores and keeps the bonuses, not that this is very radical).

So, if you look at the 'knacks' (I just like the name better, I think its more accurate than 'skill' for how 4e uses them) they're basically the same as the 4e ones, I haven't really found much that I can significantly improve on, aside from trading the more limited 'dungeoneering' label for 'Engineering'. I consider everything to be pretty broad.

I left religion/religious tied to INT, which I believe 4e did partly for balance and partly the notion being that 'religion is not piety, it is knowledge of the doctrines, etc.' HOWEVER, it does seem to me that by explicitly calling them 'knacks' the "how I solve problems" aspect is stronger than the 'knowledge' aspect. So, maybe it really should shift to being "I'm good at using my piety to solve problems" in which case WIS seems like a better match. The problem then is WIS is getting a LOT of knacks!

Of course, we could parse things differently, or more finely, etc. I mean, I could see CON having both "solve things through Stamina" and "solve things through sheer ability to Endure/Survive" High CON helps both, and at the 4e level of parsing they are just all 'Endurance' and that is fine, but you could squeeze out a second aspect for CON that way. OTOH I'm not sure it would always be clear which is a better match to govern a situation.

I guess we could go the other way and just abolish knacks altogether. In some sense Abilities do some of the same work. I guess another option would be to break with the classic 6 scores and maybe have something like 9, that would maybe get you some added things. I mean, you could have 'MOXIE' that would handle 'Streetwise' type "I can handle this" situations, maybe Alertness to take perception and similar out of the realm of WIS (which is not the very best fit), and I suppose you could have an actual POWER Ability score too. That would certainly lead to some interesting optimization questions if it affected your power points!

I like how the Level UP guys totally separated Knacks (heh) from the attributes. Athletics (Int/Wis) might be used to predict the winner of a contest or analyze an enemies capability before having too many clues

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, I think that is the general idea. I had no problem really with how 4e parsed that. It seemed pretty 'trad D&D' in that sense, and I've always been pretty comfortable with D&D's ability score handling (I mean, noting that HoML just gets rid of the scores and keeps the bonuses, not that this is very radical).

4e followed through on it I felt a bit better in my opinion.. 3e gave the nads though so creds to it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I like how the Level UP guys totally separated Knacks (heh) from the attributes. Athletics (Int/Wis) might be used to predict the winner of a contest or analyze an enemies capability before having too many clues

That's just basically a 5e-ism, not that 5e really invented that idea either... I am not really super opposed to it. OTOH it seems like an added complexity, particularly with the idea of a 'controlling knack' for each check, now you also need a controlling attribute. It is just one more 'step'. You could also argue that KNOWLEDGE of athletics is totally unrelated to Athletic PROWESS, which doesn't really happen with this system (yes, you can be a low STR athlete with a high INT who can answer questions better than leap a chasm, but you're still pretty good at the leaping part!). Anyway, you can, ala 5e again, have a 'knowledge specialization' in 'sports'. If you read the knack chapter it talks about that at the end, which is the other approach. Again, not exactly hard opposed to the 5e-ish way, just leery of the extra mental overhead, and the fact that you cannot write down a completely specified knack bonus anymore (because technically there are 6 possibilities, the list is just too long).

Of course, all this does bear on the question of why have knacks AND abilities as separate things at all.

 

[Garthanos]

That's just basically a 5e-ism, not that 5e really invented that idea either.

In level up there is no default they seem to go all in on it.

.. I am not really super opposed to it. OTOH it seems like an added complexity, particularly with the idea of a 'controlling knack' for each check,

it just means you talk about the thing you are doing and decide which 2 things primarily apply.

now you also need a controlling attribute. It is just one more 'step'. You could also argue that KNOWLEDGE of athletics is totally unrelated to Athletic PROWESS

level typically is the simplifying thing right there, but you are already advancing a skill and an attribute separately.

, which doesn't really happen with this system (yes, you can be a low STR athlete with a high INT who can answer questions better than leap a chasm, but you're still pretty good at the leaping part!).

heroic versatility... it is in service of a trope. Assumptions abound that if you have high strength you can jump and lift too. Then 4e made skill powers and practices and level up made specializations. (note 4e enabled exertions of a form to do better and were tied in with resources)

Anyway, you can, ala 5e again, have a 'knowledge specialization' in 'sports'. If you read the knack chapter it talks about that at the end, which is the other approach. Again, not exactly hard opposed to the 5e-ish way, just leery of the extra mental overhead, and the fact that you cannot write down a completely specified knack bonus anymore (because technically there are 6 possibilities, the list is just too long).

it adds a decide and add step sure

Of course, all this does bear on the question of why have knacks AND abilities as separate things at all.

abilities are extremely broad? and knacks are somewhat broad?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

abilities are extremely broad? and knacks are somewhat broad?

Yeah, basically. I am not that inclined to monkey with it this time around. It has been working for me since 4e came out

 

[Gilladian]

Yeah, I think that is the general idea. I had no problem really with how 4e parsed that. It seemed pretty 'trad D&D' in that sense, and I've always been pretty comfortable with D&D's ability score handling (I mean, noting that HoML just gets rid of the scores and keeps the bonuses, not that this is very radical).

So, if you look at the 'knacks' (I just like the name better, I think its more accurate than 'skill' for how 4e uses them) they're basically the same as the 4e ones, I haven't really found much that I can significantly improve on, aside from trading the more limited 'dungeoneering' label for 'Engineering'. I consider everything to be pretty broad.

I left religion/religious tied to INT, which I believe 4e did partly for balance and partly the notion being that 'religion is not piety, it is knowledge of the doctrines, etc.' HOWEVER, it does seem to me that by explicitly calling them 'knacks' the "how I solve problems" aspect is stronger than the 'knowledge' aspect. So, maybe it really should shift to being "I'm good at using my piety to solve problems" in which case WIS seems like a better match. The problem then is WIS is getting a LOT of knacks!

Of course, we could parse things differently, or more finely, etc. I mean, I could see CON having both "solve things through Stamina" and "solve things through sheer ability to Endure/Survive" High CON helps both, and at the 4e level of parsing they are just all 'Endurance' and that is fine, but you could squeeze out a second aspect for CON that way. OTOH I'm not sure it would always be clear which is a better match to govern a situation.

I guess we could go the other way and just abolish knacks altogether. In some sense Abilities do some of the same work. I guess another option would be to break with the classic 6 scores and maybe have something like 9, that would maybe get you some added things. I mean, you could have 'MOXIE' that would handle 'Streetwise' type "I can handle this" situations, maybe Alertness to take perception and similar out of the realm of WIS (which is not the very best fit), and I suppose you could have an actual POWER Ability score too. That would certainly lead to some interesting optimization questions if it affected your power points!

I HATE the term "knack". I don't think it suits at all the way I think of skills. Skills are training. Knacks are things you are instinctively good at; they may get BETTER if you have associated skill training, but I for example, have a knack for handicrafts. I'm just good at them, a combination of interest, patience in that particular way, and an ability to see how to do things. I don't count it as "skill", because I'm NOT skilled at a lot of crafts that I can pick up and figure out because of my knack. I would prefer that these be DIFFERENTLY handled in the ruleset. A knack for something is like a synergy bonus or a stat bonus. SKILLS are things you deliberately learn and study and practice, which you get better at. Does this make sense? If you continue to use Knack as "a thing you've learned to do" I will put up with it, but it will be a constant irritation to me.

 

[Gilladian]

I'm pretty lost by the current discussion. It all seems to esoteric and convoluted to me. I like 3.5. You have abilities. You have skills. They complement each other. Synergy shows where they overlap. I'd add a lot more synergy bonuses, or allow people to "buy" a synergy bonus with a feat/boon, or something. So if you had Knowledge Athletics, you could have a minor boon that let you apply that bonus (with some daily limit?) to an athletics attempt. You're using your understanding of "HOW" to polevault to the attempt to jump over that chasm, for example. But some jumps just won't be amenable to that sort of application of knowledge.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I HATE the term "knack". I don't think it suits at all the way I think of skills. Skills are training. Knacks are things you are instinctively good at; they may get BETTER if you have associated skill training, but I for example, have a knack for handicrafts. I'm just good at them, a combination of interest, patience in that particular way, and an ability to see how to do things. I don't count it as "skill", because I'm NOT skilled at a lot of crafts that I can pick up and figure out because of my knack. I would prefer that these be DIFFERENTLY handled in the ruleset. A knack for something is like a synergy bonus or a stat bonus. SKILLS are things you deliberately learn and study and practice, which you get better at. Does this make sense? If you continue to use Knack as "a thing you've learned to do" I will put up with it, but it will be a constant irritation to me.

I think the general idea is to portray them not so much as training and more as inclination. If I'm a sneaky lying sort of guy, then Bluff (could be renamed) is a knack I have. I will engage in problem-solving via the route of deception, rather than the route of say Diplomacy (negotiation and agreement). I mean, I am not really disagreeing with you, but is 'craft' really a single SKILL? I mean, I think there's a degree to which doing one craft hones your overall core skill set, but being good at Femo doesn't seem to me to translate much to, say, embroidery. I would think that the 'specific knowledges' or what 5e seems to prefer to call 'tool proficiency' (awkward if you ask me, as not everything involves tools). So, you might be noted on your character sheet as "Femo expert" and have a knack for crafts. Given some decent underlying ability bonuses, you would be quite good at Femo, and probably also good at embroidery, maybe to a lesser degree.

And, honestly, I don't see that an action adventure type of game needs to really dwell in the weeds of exactly what people get bonuses for. I think in a story game type of paradigm it is better to just say "well, if you tell THIS story, consistent with your character's concept, then you will see more successes on the dice." Anyway, I was just bothered by the 4e idea that things were 'skills' which seemed to be rather inaccurate, and begged the question of why there were only 17 entries on that list and no more.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm pretty lost by the current discussion. It all seems to esoteric and convoluted to me. I like 3.5. You have abilities. You have skills. They complement each other. Synergy shows where they overlap. I'd add a lot more synergy bonuses, or allow people to "buy" a synergy bonus with a feat/boon, or something. So if you had Knowledge Athletics, you could have a minor boon that let you apply that bonus (with some daily limit?) to an athletics attempt. You're using your understanding of "HOW" to polevault to the attempt to jump over that chasm, for example. But some jumps just won't be amenable to that sort of application of knowledge.

Right, so I think in HoML that is just some sort of Boon. Anyone might technically acquire it, but if you are not very strong and don't possess the 'Athletics' knack, then when you utilize it the results will be interesting perhaps, but not spectacular. OTOH Mongo the Mighty with +4 STR, and Athletics proficiency for another +5 could take that boon and be bouncing off the walls with it. That's one reason to have the idea of complete success, if you have high bonuses you will get that a lot. And if you then burn a power point and get enhanced success, something pretty amazing happens. Note you need attunement with a power source (probably martial in this case) to invoke that 'kicker'.

Anyway, I THINK the end result is pretty straightforward. Ability scores provide a basis, but not exclusively, for what you can do, and then knacks indicate the specific preferred types of solutions (IE Athletic activity), and a Boon that accesses a Feat (Mighty Leap) gives you a reason to expend a PP to get the kicker it provides. Likewise you might acquire practices/rituals that let you recast problems in terms of Athletics (IE the 'Iron Body' practice lets you meditate for a while and then break through stone walls and heavy doors/gates by making your body as tough as steel for 5 minutes). A wizard would use Knock, Mongo the Mighty uses Iron Body.

It SEEMS like a comprehensive system, but I want to understand how it feels in play. Maybe it isn't as easy to use as my imagination makes it. I like one thing about 5e, it is pretty obvious about what is what and why you want to take some character option, and once you take that option, the results are delivered and need not be revisited. That was a down side of 4e IMHO, you were always needing to 'garden' your character to keep up on his core stuff.