Halivar
First Post
Maybe this is something that can be modularized? Point-buy system uses a linear bonus, while rolled scores use a 1st Ed. bell curve?
Ability Scores
- Thread starter Meophist
- Start date
Dragonblade
Adventurer
I think you guys are still thinking inside the box too much.
The more I read playtest reports and the more I see people who have played D&DN post, the more and more convinced I am that this is how 5e ability scores will work.
Ability scores that are meaningful in and of themselves, not just as a source of modifiers? CHECK
Less bonus creep as PCs level up? CHECK
Level 1 monsters still viable into higher levels of play? CHECK
Random rolling OR stat buy as viable char gen options? CHECK
The more I read playtest reports and the more I see people who have played D&DN post, the more and more convinced I am that this is how 5e ability scores will work.
Ability scores that are meaningful in and of themselves, not just as a source of modifiers? CHECK
Less bonus creep as PCs level up? CHECK
Level 1 monsters still viable into higher levels of play? CHECK
Random rolling OR stat buy as viable char gen options? CHECK
Last edited:
kitsune9
Adventurer
I agree with most of this. Good points!
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Rolling your scores is a quintessential part of making your character. It's up to you...or more accurately, the dice...but what you roll for your character.
I will also throw my hat in that I have never been in a "point buy" system. Though I have been in the "-2 from one ability to +1 to another" to, hopefully, mesh out the character class/concept you, may have, originally conceived/wanted.
For rolling/generation styles:
I've done 3d6 in order and 3d6 place as desired.
I've done 4d6 drop the lowest (most often), both "in order" and "place as desired."
And, as noted, have used the -2/+1 swap (was that an "official" optional RAW? I'm thinking it was, but can't really definitely remember now) in just about all of those.
I'm all for the 5e offering all of those as optional/possible ways of generating abilities. To make a "This is how" proclamation, seems unnecessary to me. Give them 4 or 5 options and let the DM pick. Hell, through in a "point buy" option as well. Everyone gets [to choose] what they want!
For the "what" of the ability scores, we always interpreted things as such:
Strength: physical strength. Everone's got this one covered/under control. How hard you hit, how much damage you do, can you break down the door?, can you hand onto the rope? swim across the channel? lift/carry lots? Your actual physical "build"...which then would/should influence others to a degree (intimdation, physical attraction, etc.) You shouldn't have a "thin, frail looking guy" with an 18 strength (assuming 18 is the top pinnacle of human physical strength). I don't care what race he is, a guy (or girl) with 16, 17, 28 (!) Str. is CUT, bulky and ripped dowwwwwn!
Constitution: endurance...the ephemeral "fortitude". Can you stave off disease? Conquer the poison coursing through your veins? Yes, "hold your breath". Survive trailing Merry and Pippin for 3 days without needing a break to sleep or eat? You can be "physically weak" (low Str) but "tough as nails." (high Con)
Dexterity: can you move quickly, precisely, accurately? Can you aim your bow or get that sling stone to land where you want? Dive aside of the incoming dragon breath in time? Better AC, better to hit with missiles, better "Reflex saves".
Intelligence: your "smarts". Can you learn that language or this spell? How many? Can you put together different elements in a coherent logical fashion and get the proper results/outcome? Can you remember what it is you once learned? All "cognitive" functions. A "Spock" character as easily as a "Rainman" as easily as a "fictional character I can't think of right now who is just STUPID smart but not at either of those extremes." [EDIT] OH! Came up with one down post, Dr. Brennan from Bones! [/EDIT]
Wisdom: I would say how "enlightened" are you, instead of or in addition to how "aware" you are. How well you can make solid "good" decisions for your character..."Common Sense" if you will. (Note: I feel the player's awareness/knowledge and "common sense" always needs to take a back seat to the Character's Wisdom/"common sense"!). More importantly, for the divine types, how strong is your faith? Your connection to/understanding of your "divine" (thence, your "bonus" spell capacity). Reading and connecting with "emotion" (empathy). And understanding, in general of "emotion" vs. Int's "understanding" of facts. [For an EXCELLENT take on this, watch the tv program Bones. Temperance Brennan is an excellent example of Int. without Wis.] Your power of personal will (moreso than "Charisma", though I definitely see them as connected in this event) to overcome things...hence, Will saves. One's "gut feeling". Facilitating "Soul", if I can make that distinction, vs. Intelligence's facilitating "Mind".
Charisma: Your "personality" and your "like-able-ness." Your capacity to influence others, moreso than your "Wisdom". For most, and myself, your "looks" are wrapped up in this.
In my learned opinion (note, that is "learn-ed" not "learned"
) Charisma is, by far, the weakest link. Easily subsumed by Wis and Int, other than the physical appearance of folks...which could be wrapped up in Strength (And thence came "Comeliness" and thence, but for the grace of Wee Jas, it went)
But then, they added/made things like Sorcerers (though I don't know realyl any of the "rulz" about them, I have gathered they cast on/dependent on their Cha) and Bards' casting dependent on Charisma (makes sense), the "interaction" skills, and the paladin (and I forgot until recently, the DRUID!) already had a HUGE Charisma "requirement" to be the classs...I think the ranger, originally (in 1e) also.
So, then, Charisma couldn't necessarily be the "throw away" ability score anymore.
Anywho, I like 'em all. All 6. They all have a place in defining the physical, mental and otherwise ephemeral qualities of your fictional character. I want/hope they all stay and want/hope they all keep their "traditional" functions.
--SD
I will also throw my hat in that I have never been in a "point buy" system. Though I have been in the "-2 from one ability to +1 to another" to, hopefully, mesh out the character class/concept you, may have, originally conceived/wanted.
For rolling/generation styles:
I've done 3d6 in order and 3d6 place as desired.
I've done 4d6 drop the lowest (most often), both "in order" and "place as desired."
And, as noted, have used the -2/+1 swap (was that an "official" optional RAW? I'm thinking it was, but can't really definitely remember now) in just about all of those.
I'm all for the 5e offering all of those as optional/possible ways of generating abilities. To make a "This is how" proclamation, seems unnecessary to me. Give them 4 or 5 options and let the DM pick. Hell, through in a "point buy" option as well. Everyone gets [to choose] what they want!
For the "what" of the ability scores, we always interpreted things as such:
Strength: physical strength. Everone's got this one covered/under control. How hard you hit, how much damage you do, can you break down the door?, can you hand onto the rope? swim across the channel? lift/carry lots? Your actual physical "build"...which then would/should influence others to a degree (intimdation, physical attraction, etc.) You shouldn't have a "thin, frail looking guy" with an 18 strength (assuming 18 is the top pinnacle of human physical strength). I don't care what race he is, a guy (or girl) with 16, 17, 28 (!) Str. is CUT, bulky and ripped dowwwwwn!
Constitution: endurance...the ephemeral "fortitude". Can you stave off disease? Conquer the poison coursing through your veins? Yes, "hold your breath". Survive trailing Merry and Pippin for 3 days without needing a break to sleep or eat? You can be "physically weak" (low Str) but "tough as nails." (high Con)
Dexterity: can you move quickly, precisely, accurately? Can you aim your bow or get that sling stone to land where you want? Dive aside of the incoming dragon breath in time? Better AC, better to hit with missiles, better "Reflex saves".
Intelligence: your "smarts". Can you learn that language or this spell? How many? Can you put together different elements in a coherent logical fashion and get the proper results/outcome? Can you remember what it is you once learned? All "cognitive" functions. A "Spock" character as easily as a "Rainman" as easily as a "fictional character I can't think of right now who is just STUPID smart but not at either of those extremes." [EDIT] OH! Came up with one down post, Dr. Brennan from Bones! [/EDIT]
Wisdom: I would say how "enlightened" are you, instead of or in addition to how "aware" you are. How well you can make solid "good" decisions for your character..."Common Sense" if you will. (Note: I feel the player's awareness/knowledge and "common sense" always needs to take a back seat to the Character's Wisdom/"common sense"!). More importantly, for the divine types, how strong is your faith? Your connection to/understanding of your "divine" (thence, your "bonus" spell capacity). Reading and connecting with "emotion" (empathy). And understanding, in general of "emotion" vs. Int's "understanding" of facts. [For an EXCELLENT take on this, watch the tv program Bones. Temperance Brennan is an excellent example of Int. without Wis.] Your power of personal will (moreso than "Charisma", though I definitely see them as connected in this event) to overcome things...hence, Will saves. One's "gut feeling". Facilitating "Soul", if I can make that distinction, vs. Intelligence's facilitating "Mind".
Charisma: Your "personality" and your "like-able-ness." Your capacity to influence others, moreso than your "Wisdom". For most, and myself, your "looks" are wrapped up in this.
In my learned opinion (note, that is "learn-ed" not "learned"
) Charisma is, by far, the weakest link. Easily subsumed by Wis and Int, other than the physical appearance of folks...which could be wrapped up in Strength (And thence came "Comeliness" and thence, but for the grace of Wee Jas, it went)But then, they added/made things like Sorcerers (though I don't know realyl any of the "rulz" about them, I have gathered they cast on/dependent on their Cha) and Bards' casting dependent on Charisma (makes sense), the "interaction" skills, and the paladin (and I forgot until recently, the DRUID!) already had a HUGE Charisma "requirement" to be the classs...I think the ranger, originally (in 1e) also.
So, then, Charisma couldn't necessarily be the "throw away" ability score anymore.
Anywho, I like 'em all. All 6. They all have a place in defining the physical, mental and otherwise ephemeral qualities of your fictional character. I want/hope they all stay and want/hope they all keep their "traditional" functions.
--SD
Halivar
First Post
What if we went back to CHA-based NPC reaction rolls?Charisma: Your "personality" and your "like-able-ness." Your capacity to influence others, moreso than your "Wisdom". For most, and myself, your "looks" are wrapped up in this.
In my learned opinion (note, that is "learn-ed" not "learned"
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
You mean NPCs couldn't make CHA reaction roles?!
I haven't played later than 2e. So, forgive the ignorance.
But, just off the cuff, seems to me...and I have ever averred...what's good for the geese (PCs) is good for the ganders (NPCs).
An NPC, in my experience and practice, have never been 3 line folks...I mean, description-wise, sure. But as a DM, I always had stats for the NPC in my notes. Even if it wasn't numbered stats but something like "He's not strong, he's not smart. He's a ridiculous fop of a pretending "noble" man. But he's very charming and very savvy."
Heh. lookit that, 3 lines. Guess I have done that...ANYwho, YES, of course NPCs get CHA-based reaction roles.
Halivar
First Post
There's Diplomacy, but that is an active skill. So far as I know, I have not seen a passive CHA-based reaction other than in 1e (never played 2e).
JohnSnow
Hero
Wow, Google sucks. A couple other sources offer the following...
Charisma: n.
1. a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.
2. a special personal quality or power of an individual making him capable of influencing or inspiring large numbers of people
Synonyms: charm, magnetism, presence.
It's worth noting that charisma is also associated with divinely granted powers, so making it the basis for Channel Divinity is probably wholly sensible.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
My inner geek likes: Strength, Constitution, Size, Agility, (manual) Dexterity, Perception (or Awareness), Intelligence, and Willpower (including some functions of current Charisma). All appearance related parts of Charisma would get moved into feats. Size would be a blatant rip off from RuneQuest.
Guess my inner geek will have to be satified with some other system in that regard, because there is no way in all the various hellish planes every conceived in D&D worlds that the above will come to pass. And I'm ok with that.
I intensely dislike heavy influence from stats on final success percentage. That kind of natural talent is practically useless without skill developed to take advantage of it. I suppose one could get wonky with mechanics, and only let a +4 from Strength be fully felt after a certain amount of skill, but I believe in the interest of elegant design, it would be better to compromise by keeping the total mods under some kind of control.
Perversely, in the kind of core ruleset that have discussed thus far, with everything as an ability check at heart, I find I don't mind it nearly so much. I think this is because in such a system, a high ability score is assumed to be a package of skills, not merely the raw ability that later versions implies.
Guess my inner geek will have to be satified with some other system in that regard, because there is no way in all the various hellish planes every conceived in D&D worlds that the above will come to pass. And I'm ok with that.
I intensely dislike heavy influence from stats on final success percentage. That kind of natural talent is practically useless without skill developed to take advantage of it. I suppose one could get wonky with mechanics, and only let a +4 from Strength be fully felt after a certain amount of skill, but I believe in the interest of elegant design, it would be better to compromise by keeping the total mods under some kind of control.
Perversely, in the kind of core ruleset that have discussed thus far, with everything as an ability check at heart, I find I don't mind it nearly so much. I think this is because in such a system, a high ability score is assumed to be a package of skills, not merely the raw ability that later versions implies.
Ahnehnois
First Post
One interesting idea I thought of:
There was some kind of option in 2e to break each ability score into two subscores. You would put your score in, and then could modify the subscores. For example, Constitution might be split into toughness and endurance. You want to play a heavily muscled barbarian who can take incredible amounts of punishment but is limited to relatively short bursts of rage. You could put a 14 in Con, but increase your toughness to 16, thereby lowering your endurance to 12.
That would be a fun option, and a way of placating the people (including to some extent myself) who think the six ability scores are poorly defined.
There was some kind of option in 2e to break each ability score into two subscores. You would put your score in, and then could modify the subscores. For example, Constitution might be split into toughness and endurance. You want to play a heavily muscled barbarian who can take incredible amounts of punishment but is limited to relatively short bursts of rage. You could put a 14 in Con, but increase your toughness to 16, thereby lowering your endurance to 12.
That would be a fun option, and a way of placating the people (including to some extent myself) who think the six ability scores are poorly defined.
Similar Threads
