D&D (2024) 2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d

[Yaarel]

The only way you will understand why this isn't necessarily best for the game (read "WotC's coffers") is when you stop underestimating how the introduction of such advice will impact people's impression of D&D as a complicated and difficult game.

WotC just isn't interested in delving the deeps of this complex question. They (hopefully*) realize that any such system needs to be quite involved to be worth a damn; and they simply don't want the general public to see such stuff anywhere in the PHB or the DMG.
*) I would be sad if they actually believe the shite system where you essentially randomize magic item prices is useful

Wait, your rationale, "keep it simple", is why WotC should never introduce magic items in the first place.

And if magic items are defacto default, then they need to become available in a way that is mechanically balanced, safe, and incremental.

The DM needs to understand how to manage magic items to actively avoid destroying the game.

Otherwise. Forget magic items. Just reskin feats and call it an item. So simple.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Charisma makes most sense.

Charisma is Personality. If attunement is mentally or spiritually linking to a powerful item then thee bigger your Personality, the most you can link to with your mind.

Ah, is that what we're calling it now?

TBH, D&D has needed a refactor of its stats since 3e at least. Even 4e's solution, while functional, was at least half-kludge (just add one of your prime stats to important things.) 13A has the interesting approach of making AC, mental defense, and physical defense (which is loosely analogous to Fortitude and Reflex mushed together) each key off of the middle of three stats, rather than a single stat or best-of-two.

But it really just...Dexterity and Wisdom are MASSIVELY overloaded while Int has slowly been whittled to almost nothing, and Con bled dry of everything except HP and some Fortitude-type stuff.

Personally, I would re-factor things into

Might (Str + Con, since there's no Str-based character who doesn't also value Con)
Dexterity (precision, grace, etc.)
Speed (exactly what it says on the tin)
Presence (Cha + resistance aspects of Wisdom)
Awareness (observing parts of Int and Wisdom)
Wits (thinky parts of Int and Wisdom)

Arguably, these are each nice pairs for one another. Might and Presence are physical/mental power, your ability to exert yourself on the world. Dexterity/Awareness are physical/mental precision, your ability to work carefully. And Speed/Wits are physical/mental quickness, your ability to get from intent to result as soon as possible.

But I know there are a lot of folks who would just reject this completely, unfortunately.

 

[Minigiant]

Ah, is that what we're calling it now?

That's what it always been.

Charisma has always been the strength of your personality and getting others to react the way you want them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's what it always been.

Charisma has always been the strength of your personality and getting others to react the way you want them.

I was making a euphemism out of the "the bigger your Personality" comment. As in, standing in (or would that be standing up?) for another P-word.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's what it always been.

Charisma has always been the strength of your personality and getting others to react the way you want them.

I think it's more just thrown in there because charisma has long been a dumping ground for "uhh yea sure that too"for anything slightly related to social encounters. UMD in 3.5 probably used it to avoid pushing a take umd rider because the skill system was better designed than 5e's & a rider like that would have overvalued some other attrib.

 

[Minigiant]

I was making a euphemism out of the "the bigger your Personality" comment. As in, standing in (or would that be standing up?) for another P-word.

Well it could be for some PCs.

But seriously, there was a "core classes" thread on the D&D forum. I there I proposed a D&D with a whooping 30 class of 1 page each. The premise is that the basic rules would do the heavy lifting.

In there would be an Alchemist and an Artificer classes.

The Base Rules would let you link to a certain number of magic items based on your Charisma.
The Alchemist and Artificer would get "Intelligent Attunement" and be able to like based on Intelligence
The Warlock would be Charisma based and have special Pact Weapons, Pact Books, and Pact Rods that power their magic that is accounted for with their higher Charisma score.
Same with the Paladin and their Holy Avenger, the Bard and their magic instrument, and the Sorcerer and their sorcerous rings.

 

[Yaarel]

Lumpers versus Splitters: it is an honest debate. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just saw Treantmonks vid on DC20. And how it reduces attributes to just four.

Man, I don't know. All the D&D clones that try to reduce attributes miss one super important thing:

You need many attributes to support different classes. And a class-less D&D just isn't D&D at all.

Take d20 Call of Cthulhu as an example. You have just two classes: Offense and Defense. That's super generic and super bland. And they fail to evoke the tropes and archetypes of both D&D and CoC at the same time. An epic fail.

You want several highly (or at least mostly) specific classes playing on different combos of attributes.

With only four or even three attributes (Body, Heart and Soul? Physical, Mental and Spiritual?) you basically negate the core of the D&D experience.

While I do think the iconic six attributes could be tweaked, I'm not even gonna start. The six attributes will remain as is, as long as D&D remains recognizably D&D at least. What I mean is, I see zero chance the six abilities will be tweaked. Chucked outright maybe, but not tweaked.

Shame, since tweaked would be good while chucked would be catastrophic. So Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha it is.

And DC20 is making the same cardinal error as so many would-be D&D killers before it: it immediately ceases to feel like D&D. Man there's some good ideas there. If only they kept the core framework recognizable as D&D... :-/

 

[James Gasik]

Just saw Treantmonks vid on DC20. And how it reduces attributes to just four.

Man, I don't know. All the D&D clones that try to reduce attributes miss one super important thing:

You need many attributes to support different classes. And a class-less D&D just isn't D&D at all.

Take d20 Call of Cthulhu as an example. You have just two classes: Offense and Defense. That's super generic and super bland. And they fail to evoke the tropes and archetypes of both D&D and CoC at the same time. An epic fail.

You want several highly (or at least mostly) specific classes playing on different combos of attributes.

With only four or even three attributes (Body, Heart and Soul? Physical, Mental and Spiritual?) you basically negate the core of the D&D experience.

While I do think the iconic six attributes could be tweaked, I'm not even gonna start. The six attributes will remain as is, as long as D&D remains recognizably D&D at least. What I mean is, I see zero chance the six abilities will be tweaked. Chucked outright maybe, but not tweaked.

Shame, since tweaked would be good while chucked would be catastrophic. So Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha it is.

And DC20 is making the same cardinal error as so many would-be D&D killers before it: it immediately ceases to feel like D&D. Man there's some good ideas there. If only they kept the core framework recognizable as D&D... :-/

Sure but there's the opposite too. Look at the Palladium system with it's eight ability scores. Or Vampire the Masquerade with it's 9. They model a character's abilities more precisely than D&D's 6.

And yeah, I know Vampire doesn't really have "classes", but there's no ideal standard for ability scores. In fact, I would argue you could make ability scores secondary to most classes.

There is no need to have a Charisma-based spellcasting class, for example. You could go back to all Arcane classes use Intelligence and all Divine classes use Wisdom.

Or, put another way, if only two Arcane classes use Intelligence, and the other three use Charisma, do we need Intelligence? AD&D supported a whole host of classes, and we didn't have a Charisma-based caster until the year 2000.

A Fighter can be built without a high Strength. Or Dexterity. Or even Constitution, really. I once had a friend of mine play a Fighter in 2e with a Strength of 10. They were a crossbow specialist.

We've seen the game streamline considerably around ability scores. Used to be, you needed set scores to even play a given class, now, if you want to play a Paladin with 14 Charisma and 10 Strength, you can do so, and in of itself, that doesn't make you a bad character.

I mean, at this point, ability scores themselves are vestigial- outside of Strength, does any other ability score even care about the number, and not just the derived modifier?

Class system =/= ability scores. Lots of other games have proved this over the years.

 

[CapnZapp]

Different games can have various attributes in various numbers.

D&D needs, maybe not precisely six, but probably five. Otherwise the reduction and streamlining kills the specificity, the idiosyncrasies that make up the texture of playing D&D instead of some other game.

Put simply, it's in the DNA of the game that the wizard and the cleric doesn't use the same stat. Neither does the fighter and the rogue. If those four classes are all you aim for, then sure you only need four attributes.

Boiling down 3-18 values into just modifiers is an obvious change that could have been done years ago, and indeed was done years ago by various clones. (Was Blue Rose one of the earlier ones?)

Actually changing the set of six attributes (keeping the number but changing the names and what they cover) is, I think, a lost cause. You would lose much more than you would gain. Yes, it could improve the game, but no, it's not worth the loss in perceived "D&D-ishness".