Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Ability Scores As Core
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5785155" data-attributes="member: 3192"><p>This has been mentioned a few times in this forum before. I agree. I believe the simple core game will be using Ability scores as a mixed skill check / defense rating system and then AC & HP will provide more of a light, attrition-based combat system.</p><p></p><p>To play devil's advocate here for a moment for this model. Why have 6 ability scores at all? Why tie together a 3-18 defense score to what amounts to a vary separate ability: the ability modifier? </p><p></p><p>This is the TWERPS test really. I get the d20 system is d20 +/- a modifier vs. a static defense number. But, if the question is why have the previous version of the game not done this before, why have they had divided systems, then we need to answer the same question for "Why have 6 separate scores" as well as "Why tie these scores, one derivative or the other, to each other?"</p><p></p><p>I think separate system allowed greater variety in terms of results and less uniformity during game play. Is that what the core game needs? I don't think so, but if the suppositions of the previous posters are accurate, then will "advanced", greater complexity add-ons simply be growing modifier types onto these rolls as Essentials demonstrates is possible?</p><p></p><p>I hope not. I hope there are add-on systems intact in their own right to allow for greater customization when players opt for greater complexity. The drawback is, of course, that playing varying complexities at the same game table becomes unbalanced, not to mention unwieldy. </p><p></p><p>That aspiration is pretty awesome, that fundamentally different play styles of different player's desires can be satisfied by a single game at a single table in a single campaign. A potential problem may be though that they are losing customization for campaign-level changes due to this uniformity. I guess we'll see what they are aiming at in the end.</p><p></p><p>I liked reading the systems theory design blog entry posted here a few days ago. Can't remember the link, but I have a feeling Wizards will be going a definite different route, that hey already have their design in place and playtesting won't be changing that core.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 5785155, member: 3192"] This has been mentioned a few times in this forum before. I agree. I believe the simple core game will be using Ability scores as a mixed skill check / defense rating system and then AC & HP will provide more of a light, attrition-based combat system. To play devil's advocate here for a moment for this model. Why have 6 ability scores at all? Why tie together a 3-18 defense score to what amounts to a vary separate ability: the ability modifier? This is the TWERPS test really. I get the d20 system is d20 +/- a modifier vs. a static defense number. But, if the question is why have the previous version of the game not done this before, why have they had divided systems, then we need to answer the same question for "Why have 6 separate scores" as well as "Why tie these scores, one derivative or the other, to each other?" I think separate system allowed greater variety in terms of results and less uniformity during game play. Is that what the core game needs? I don't think so, but if the suppositions of the previous posters are accurate, then will "advanced", greater complexity add-ons simply be growing modifier types onto these rolls as Essentials demonstrates is possible? I hope not. I hope there are add-on systems intact in their own right to allow for greater customization when players opt for greater complexity. The drawback is, of course, that playing varying complexities at the same game table becomes unbalanced, not to mention unwieldy. That aspiration is pretty awesome, that fundamentally different play styles of different player's desires can be satisfied by a single game at a single table in a single campaign. A potential problem may be though that they are losing customization for campaign-level changes due to this uniformity. I guess we'll see what they are aiming at in the end. I liked reading the systems theory design blog entry posted here a few days ago. Can't remember the link, but I have a feeling Wizards will be going a definite different route, that hey already have their design in place and playtesting won't be changing that core. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Ability Scores As Core
Top