A Radical (Not to Mention Controversial) Change to Characteristic Determination

[mythusmage]

I've noticed that characteristics (aka, attributes or stats) don't scale well in D&D. So I came up with a change in how they are determined. Instead of using 3d6 you use 15d6. This gives a range of 15-90, with a median of 52.5 or 52-53.

In this system a character would get a modifier of -1 for every 10 points below 52, or +1 for every 10 points above 53

Obviously this means a big change in how smart, wise, or charismatic one needs to be to use spells of a certain level. Since the current scheme is 10 + level with 8th level being the highest for a bog standard (max characteristic of 18) human, obviously things will have to change. The simplest would be to use a range. So, for every 5 points above 50 the prospective spell caster can use spells of one level higher. For example, a character with an Intelligence of 64 would be able to use up to 3nd level wizard spells since 64 is 14 points above 50. To make life fair, the characteristic range for using 0 level spells would then be 46 to 50.

For those critters with characteristic averages above or below the mean one would add or subtract dice. For example elves might lose 2 or 3 dice on Constitution, but gain 2 or 3 dice for Intelligence. The lowest would be a single point for those extremely lacking in an attribute with an open upper end for those with an extremely good attribute.

Player: Bob, you really don't want to try fighting this dragon head on, he has a Strength of 50d6.

Obviously there are no few of you who are going to hate this. All I'm going to ask is that you keep your objections civil and supported. If you have any advice on how this could be improved, implemented, etc. the same rules apply. As they do for people who engage in conversations supporting/opposing this.

To go along with this I'm thinxing of changing how spells are ranked. I'd like to introduce real simple magics even dumb people can use. Dumber that is than 45. So what we know call 0 level spells would become 2nd or 3rd level, with the real basic magics being 1st. (Yes, it does mean 9th level spells would become 11th or 12th.)

So there you have my radical (not to mention controversial) change to Characteristic determination. Your thoughts?

Edited to correct mistakes and make changes.

 

[Philip]

You have extensively explained what, could you also explain why?

That would help with formulating a response.

 

[Felix]

I guess my only question is: Why?

What does "Abilities don't scale well" mean such that you're willing to rework the whole system?

 

[Jack Simth]

Obviously this means a big change in how smart, wise, or charismatic one needs to be to use spells of a certain level. Since the current scheme is 10 + level with 8th level being the highest for a bog standard (max characteristic of 18) human, obviously things will have to change. The simplest would be to use a range. So, for every 8 points about 52 the prospective spell caster can use spells of one level higher. For example, a character with an Intelligence of 64 would be able to use up to 2nd level wizard spells since 64 is 12 points above 52. To make life fair, the characteristic range for using 0 level spells would then be 45 to 52.

This would seriously hurt spellcasters at mid-late levels. In order to be able to use, say, 5th level spells (9th level wizard, 10th level Sorceror, 9th level Cleric) the caster in question needs a primary casting stat of 52+(spell level * 8)=92; the highest roll possible on 15d6 is 90 (with a probability of 1 in 470,184,984,576 - essentially impossible). With 4th level spells, it's a little better at a needed stat of 84, but the probability is still insanely low.

Also, this should definiteively go under House Rules....

 

[mythusmage]

You have extensively explained what, could you also explain why?

That would help with formulating a response.

To better slot in really small and really big critters. Or really dumb and really smart critters. I'm looking to expand Characteristic range to get right down to it. A finer grained scheme than what is available currently.

 

[mythusmage]

I guess my only question is: Why?

What does "Abilities don't scale well" mean such that you're willing to rework the whole system?

Ever have a house cat fight a peasant?

 

[mythusmage]

This would seriously hurt spellcasters at mid-late levels. In order to be able to use, say, 5th level spells (9th level wizard, 10th level Sorceror, 9th level Cleric) the caster in question needs a primary casting stat of 52+(spell level * 8)=92; the highest roll possible on 15d6 is 90 (with a probability of 1 in 470,184,984,576 - essentially impossible). With 4th level spells, it's a little better at a needed stat of 84, but the probability is still insanely low.

Also, this should definiteively go under House Rules....

Gaining points in a characteristic would have to be easier overall.

BTW, this is not how I do things, this is my proposed change to Characteristics determination in the core rules. If adopted (bloody unlikely) it would be the official way Characteristcs are determined.

(And never underestimate a gamer's ability to roll sixes on a ton of dice. )

 

[MacMathan]

I always thought the housecat vs peasant issue was more indicative of not enough granularity in the HP system.

Some attacks should not do the 1hp minimum they should do like .01 of a hp or something equally small.

 

[Philip]

To better slot in really small and really big critters. Or really dumb and really smart critters. I'm looking to expand Characteristic range to get right down to it. A finer grained scheme than what is available currently.

If that's the main reason, the new system doesn't mean anything if you don't make modifiers more finely grained as well. After all, its the modifiers that matter, not the ability scores themselves. And if you propose 10 points per modifier, it wouldn't make any difference in the peasant-house cat fight.

Besides, I don't have a big problem with peasant-house cat fights. The system models combat by heroic adventurers against monstrous opponents, I need it to do that well.

 

[mythusmage]

If that's the main reason, the new system doesn't mean anything if you don't make modifiers more finely grained as well. After all, its the modifiers that matter, not the ability scores themselves. And if you propose 10 points per modifier, it wouldn't make any difference in the peasant-house cat fight.

As long as it's the d20 System the steps will have to be large. Make it the Percentile System (for example) and the steps can be much smaller. Of coures, now that I've thought about it for awhile, I can see expanding on the number of dice. Expand the gap between the strongest typical cat and the weakest typical human.

In case you're wondering, I'm using a multiple of the standard 3d6. 5x in this case.

Besides, I don't have a big problem with peasant-house cat fights. The system models combat by heroic adventurers against monstrous opponents, I need it to do that well.

A house cat in this scheme would get something like a d6 for Strength. Meaning a -5 on damage at a Strength of 6. I also have an idea for changing hit dice and damage based on size, but that's for another thread. A house cat for example would get a d6 for damge, with 0 being the lowest possible number. Which means a house cat would have a 1/6th chance of hurting a human being on a hit.