Ability Dependency/Importance

[the Jester]

I'd like to see D&D make it possible for a low-Str, high-Int fighter to shine as brightly as a low-Int, high-Str fighter.

I'd love to see a system wherein each class could be effective regardless of where their high stats are; it would allow a great deal more of "roll stats in order" without taking away most of the players' ability to choose what they want to play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For instance, would love to see attack bonus and AC divorced from ability scores.

Heck... I think it'd be cool if there was 'offense' and 'defense' for all three pillars of the game so that classes could be balanced with each other that way too.

In combat you have bonuses for 'attack' and 'armor class'.
In interaction you have bonuses for 'discourse' and 'morale'.
In exploration you have bonuses for 'perception' and 'veil'.

This allows you to have balanced battle for all three phases of the game. Physical/magical combat, social combat, and exploration. And each class could be assigned a total +10 bonus points to be divided up amongst the three offensive and three defensive pillars however the player chooses (with maybe an automatic +2 assigned to the primary pillar of the class).

So a Fighter might get a free +2 to the combat pillar (offense and defense.) He then divides his 10 offensive points +4 attack / +4 discourse / +2 perception and his 10 defensive points +6 armor class / +2 morale / +1 veil.

So all told his offense and defense are:

+6 attack / +8 armor class
+4 discourse / +2 morale
+2 perception / +1 veil

This character is pretty proficient in melee combat and even stronger defensively. He is fairly competent in interacting with people, but can be somewhat easily swayed. He also is not that great at discovery or understanding the lay of the land, and cannot hide his way out of a paper bag. Basically... this implies a really good warrior in very strong, heavy, and loud armor who has some personality to him. A shining knight, perhaps?

Rogues, rangers and warlocks would gain a +2 to the exploration pillar, clerics and bards to the interaction pillar, and paladins and barbarians to the combat pillar.

Granted... I realize this is complete fantasy because the game would never get deconstructed like this... but it would solve the issue of how you balance classes over the three pillars. The main downside is that there are many, many DMs who would hate-hate-hate for interaction and exploration to come down to dice rolling 'fights' rather than just roleplaying them out. Which is certainly a valid concern and one that this method I describe really can't be fit into.

 

[billd91]

I'd like to see D&D make it possible for a low-Str, high-Int fighter to shine as brightly as a low-Int, high-Str fighter.

I'd love to see a system wherein each class could be effective regardless of where their high stats are; it would allow a great deal more of "roll stats in order" without taking away most of the players' ability to choose what they want to play.

Shine as brightly... but at what? Certainly not feats of strength. If he can, then what's the point of the stats at all?

For what it's worth, I agree that there should be more room for characters to carve out worthwhile things for them to do. I just want to make sure that characters designed in different ways retain reasonable differences in performance. I don't think that should be controversial, but over the last 10 years, I've found that it clearly is.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Stats should matter - but not much. An 18 strength fighter should be better than a 10 strength fighter, but a 10 strength fighter should be viable. OD&D got that right. Abilities should max out at with a +3 bonus at 18.

 

[Mengu]

what's the point of the stats at all?

That is a very good question, because in my opinion, it certainly isn't fighting ability. You pit an agile and smart warrior against a strong and sturdy warrior. Which one wins? I'll put my money on the agile and smart warrior (though I'd prefer to be the little wise guy collecting the bets).

I think stats might determine the flavor of how you fight, what techniques you use, what equipment you use, but they shouldn't determine how well you actually can fight. I don't like to make real world analogies for a fantasy game, but everything from natural instinct to training is ultimately going to matter more in a lethal fight, than a test of pure strength. Particularly in a heroic fantasy game, I can see tools like intimidation, knowledge, tactics, ability to read your enemy, clarity of mind would be valuable weapons in the right hands, regardless of how they translate into real life simulation of "swinging a weapon".

Sure, there is some level of strength required for being able to put enough force behind a blow to make melee weapons effective. Let's say that threshold is strength 13 (maybe make strength 13 a requirement to be a fighter).

Once you hit that threshold, I see no reason why a fighter with 16 strength 16 con, 13 wisdom, should be better than a fighter with 13 strength 16 dex, 16 intelligence, aside from... tradition (*sigh*). They might fight very differently. The 16 strength fighter might prefer to heft a greataxe, and support full chainmail, and hurl handaxes at range, but the 16 intelligence fighter might prefer the precision and reach of a spear, mobility of piecemeal armor, deflective properties of a shield, and carry a few spears for when he needs to throw one. I don't see why one fighter should be better than the other (and I'd certainly like to try playing the latter).

 

[the Jester]

Shine as brightly... but at what? Certainly not feats of strength. If he can, then what's the point of the stats at all?

Combat is not, strictly speaking, a matter of mere feats of strength.

Perhaps an Int-focused fighter is better at tactics; instead of gaining +2 for advantage in combat, he gets +3.

Perhaps a Cha-focused fighter is good at manipulating the enemy and can move him around better, trick him into flanking, etc.

Perhaps a Dex-focused fighter is good at light weapons, bypassing armor with precise shots, etc.

Meanwhile a Str-focused fighter is good at hitting hard- a damage bonus, easier knockdowns, etc.

 

[billd91]

Combat is not, strictly speaking, a matter of mere feats of strength.

Perhaps an Int-focused fighter is better at tactics; instead of gaining +2 for advantage in combat, he gets +3.

Perhaps a Cha-focused fighter is good at manipulating the enemy and can move him around better, trick him into flanking, etc.

Perhaps a Dex-focused fighter is good at light weapons, bypassing armor with precise shots, etc.

Meanwhile a Str-focused fighter is good at hitting hard- a damage bonus, easier knockdowns, etc.

I would consider those sufficiently different ways to shine based on different characteristics. In addition, I wouldn't consider it a problem if the options available led to one character being more effective at fighting than another, as long as the players are reasonably satisfied with their options and what they are able to accomplish with them.

 

[howandwhy99]

If you go 1, make sure it cannot be min/maxed with race and theme.
If you go 2+, make sure they don't suffer from MAD syndrome or the min/max as above.
If you go 6, then find a way to make sure all scores matter differently and are not uniformly balanced.
If you go 0, then give the class a baseline competency for its area of focus and let ability scores increase these after the fact.

 

[mkill]

[MENTION=21556]Jester[/MENTION]: must spread XP around. So I'll just nod approvingly.

 

[BobTheNob]

I want all ability scores to matter, but I want all of them to matter less such that none of them are overwhelmingly important, if that makes any sense. For instance, would love to see attack bonus and AC divorced from ability scores.

Not too shabby thinking there. One of the things that really broke in 4e was when stats other than the primary contributed to the d20 roll. Its one thing to add (say) 6 points to damage. Its a big number, but its not back breaking

Its an entirely different thing to a 6 to you chance to hit. That changes everything.

I do see where you are coming from with this. Divorcing stat bonus from d20 rolls will never happen (been there for too long) but its an interesting thought what you could do with game design if you could.