Vangol
First Post
I'm a long-time lurker, first-time poster, so I figured I'd make a flashy entrance and not only kill a sacred cow, but a sacred dire ox.
I like the 4e rules set for the most part, but the system is not without its problems. Others have complained about a number of issues which I think could easily be solved by eliminating ability scores.
Ability scores have always been a part of the game, and they worked fairly well in previous editions. However, they don't mesh well with some of the 4e rules.
Here's my solution:
Characters only have a single ability score which is substituted whenever an ability score is needed in the rules. Effectively, a character's abilities are all the same.
At level 1, this score is 16. It increases by 1 at levels 4, 8, 14, 18, 24 and 28.
There are no racial or other modifiers that apply to this score.
If you would like to hear my reasoning and a more in-depth analysis of this variant, read on.
Here are the problems I'm trying to fix:
1- There isn't any real choice involved in assigning ability scores; it's mostly determined by class and build. Some abilities must be maxed out for a character to be reasonably effective, and others provide a character with absolutely no benefit. Take the trickster rogue, for example. If he ever wants to hit with attacks or deal any damage, he absolutely needs a high Dex. However, there's no reason whatsoever to put any points in Int, Wis or Str, from a mechanical perspective.
2- Multiple Ability Dependency (MAD). Builds that rely on fewer abilities will almost always be more effective than those that require several abilities. Pure Star-Pact Warlocks, Paladins or Clerics with a mix of melee and magical attacks, or most multiclass characters are less effective in combat than builds that rely on fewer abilities, such as pure Fey-Pact Warlocks, or Paladins or Clerics with only Str-based attacks. This effectively limits a player's options. Even though there are plenty of cleric powers available, for example, a given character will only be able to use about half of them effectively.
3- Silly feat prerequisites. Players shouldn't have to map out all their feats at level 1 to make sure they'll meet the ability prerequisites, especially when those requirements are completely arbitrary and unexpected (such as Cha 13 for a wizard-only feat).
4- This is a relatively minor issue that bugs me as a game designer, but I still want to bring it up. Most customizable elements of 4e are modular- powers and feats, for example. They are mostly self-contained, which makes them easily balanced, and they can easily be exchanged or replaced. Ability scores, however, are not. This is inconsistent with other aspects of the system, and can cause the overall math of the game to wildly fluctuate based on how optimally the ability scores are assigned.
So how does this variant compare to the standard rules? I've built two sample characters to compare this rule to. One, a halfling trickster rogue, has a few very high ability scores that grant him great benefits, and a number of low ability scores that don't have much effect on the game anyway. The other, a dwarf cleric trained in both combat and spellcasting, suffers badly from MAD and needs to put points in nearly every ability.
The rogue's scores at level 1 are:
Str 10, Con 11, Dex 20, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 16
At level 28, they are:
Str 12, Con 13, Dex 28, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 24
The cleric's scores at level 1 are:
Str 16, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 18, Cha 12
At level 28, they are:
Str 24, Con 16, Dex 12, Int 10, Wis 26, Cha 14
Under my proposed system, a character's scores at level 1 are all 16.
At level 28, they are all 22.
As you can see the characters primary scores are slightly lower for a MAD character, and significantly lower for a specialized character. Other ability scores are all much higher. This benefits the MAD character more.
So what effects would this house rule have?
Positive Effects:
1- MAD is no longer an issue. Players are no longer penalized for choosing attacks based off of different ability scores, and multiclassing will be a much better option. This, I think, is the main advantage of this house rule.
2- Characters have more feat and power options. They can choose any powers available for their class without worrying about its key ability score, and they don't have to assign ability scores at level 1 with paragon or epic feat prerequisites in mind. This should make the system more Newb-friendly, and also allow for a larger variety of character builds.
Effects that are neither positive or negative:
3- A character's attack bonuses, in general, will be slightly lower.
4- A character's defenses, healing surges and initiative will be consistently pretty good. No character should have an exceptionally low defense. This is balanced by the lower attack bonuses mentioned above.
5- Most races will work equally well for any class or build. Players who prefer each race to have its own specialization will not like this change. Those who enjoy making unconventional class/race combinations will love it.
Negative Effects:
6- Characters will seem less unique. Every fighter will be equally strong, differentiated instead by skills, feats and powers. Moreover, a wizard will be just as strong as a fighter (although he will probably lack the attack bonuses, feats, proficiencies and powers the fighter has). This doesn't bother me too much. In any case, I think it's preferable to being forced to assign ability scores in a certain way (see problem #1, above).
7- Since characters generally have higher defenses but lower attack bonuses, battles will take longer. This could be easily fixed by adding 1 to all the PCs attack bonuses and subtracting 1 from all their defenses. It's not a very satisfying fix, however.
8- Hide armor is better than chainmail until very, very high levels, when +6 masterwork armor is available. I'm considering reducing the armor bonus provided by leather and hide armor by 1, although this would slightly weaken the rogue and ranger.
9- Levels 4 and 14 aren't particularly exciting, granting only a feat and higher attack bonuses, skills and defenses.
Anyways, I'll be running a quick one-shot 4e adventure soon, using the standard rules. Hopefully, by then, I'll have a strong enough grasp of the rules to determine whether or not this would be a good change.
In the meantime, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
(Sorry about the long post!)
I like the 4e rules set for the most part, but the system is not without its problems. Others have complained about a number of issues which I think could easily be solved by eliminating ability scores.
Ability scores have always been a part of the game, and they worked fairly well in previous editions. However, they don't mesh well with some of the 4e rules.
Here's my solution:
Characters only have a single ability score which is substituted whenever an ability score is needed in the rules. Effectively, a character's abilities are all the same.
At level 1, this score is 16. It increases by 1 at levels 4, 8, 14, 18, 24 and 28.
There are no racial or other modifiers that apply to this score.
If you would like to hear my reasoning and a more in-depth analysis of this variant, read on.
Here are the problems I'm trying to fix:
1- There isn't any real choice involved in assigning ability scores; it's mostly determined by class and build. Some abilities must be maxed out for a character to be reasonably effective, and others provide a character with absolutely no benefit. Take the trickster rogue, for example. If he ever wants to hit with attacks or deal any damage, he absolutely needs a high Dex. However, there's no reason whatsoever to put any points in Int, Wis or Str, from a mechanical perspective.
2- Multiple Ability Dependency (MAD). Builds that rely on fewer abilities will almost always be more effective than those that require several abilities. Pure Star-Pact Warlocks, Paladins or Clerics with a mix of melee and magical attacks, or most multiclass characters are less effective in combat than builds that rely on fewer abilities, such as pure Fey-Pact Warlocks, or Paladins or Clerics with only Str-based attacks. This effectively limits a player's options. Even though there are plenty of cleric powers available, for example, a given character will only be able to use about half of them effectively.
3- Silly feat prerequisites. Players shouldn't have to map out all their feats at level 1 to make sure they'll meet the ability prerequisites, especially when those requirements are completely arbitrary and unexpected (such as Cha 13 for a wizard-only feat).
4- This is a relatively minor issue that bugs me as a game designer, but I still want to bring it up. Most customizable elements of 4e are modular- powers and feats, for example. They are mostly self-contained, which makes them easily balanced, and they can easily be exchanged or replaced. Ability scores, however, are not. This is inconsistent with other aspects of the system, and can cause the overall math of the game to wildly fluctuate based on how optimally the ability scores are assigned.
So how does this variant compare to the standard rules? I've built two sample characters to compare this rule to. One, a halfling trickster rogue, has a few very high ability scores that grant him great benefits, and a number of low ability scores that don't have much effect on the game anyway. The other, a dwarf cleric trained in both combat and spellcasting, suffers badly from MAD and needs to put points in nearly every ability.
The rogue's scores at level 1 are:
Str 10, Con 11, Dex 20, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 16
At level 28, they are:
Str 12, Con 13, Dex 28, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 24
The cleric's scores at level 1 are:
Str 16, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 18, Cha 12
At level 28, they are:
Str 24, Con 16, Dex 12, Int 10, Wis 26, Cha 14
Under my proposed system, a character's scores at level 1 are all 16.
At level 28, they are all 22.
As you can see the characters primary scores are slightly lower for a MAD character, and significantly lower for a specialized character. Other ability scores are all much higher. This benefits the MAD character more.
So what effects would this house rule have?
Positive Effects:
1- MAD is no longer an issue. Players are no longer penalized for choosing attacks based off of different ability scores, and multiclassing will be a much better option. This, I think, is the main advantage of this house rule.
2- Characters have more feat and power options. They can choose any powers available for their class without worrying about its key ability score, and they don't have to assign ability scores at level 1 with paragon or epic feat prerequisites in mind. This should make the system more Newb-friendly, and also allow for a larger variety of character builds.
Effects that are neither positive or negative:
3- A character's attack bonuses, in general, will be slightly lower.
4- A character's defenses, healing surges and initiative will be consistently pretty good. No character should have an exceptionally low defense. This is balanced by the lower attack bonuses mentioned above.
5- Most races will work equally well for any class or build. Players who prefer each race to have its own specialization will not like this change. Those who enjoy making unconventional class/race combinations will love it.
Negative Effects:
6- Characters will seem less unique. Every fighter will be equally strong, differentiated instead by skills, feats and powers. Moreover, a wizard will be just as strong as a fighter (although he will probably lack the attack bonuses, feats, proficiencies and powers the fighter has). This doesn't bother me too much. In any case, I think it's preferable to being forced to assign ability scores in a certain way (see problem #1, above).
7- Since characters generally have higher defenses but lower attack bonuses, battles will take longer. This could be easily fixed by adding 1 to all the PCs attack bonuses and subtracting 1 from all their defenses. It's not a very satisfying fix, however.
8- Hide armor is better than chainmail until very, very high levels, when +6 masterwork armor is available. I'm considering reducing the armor bonus provided by leather and hide armor by 1, although this would slightly weaken the rogue and ranger.
9- Levels 4 and 14 aren't particularly exciting, granting only a feat and higher attack bonuses, skills and defenses.
Anyways, I'll be running a quick one-shot 4e adventure soon, using the standard rules. Hopefully, by then, I'll have a strong enough grasp of the rules to determine whether or not this would be a good change.
In the meantime, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
(Sorry about the long post!)
Last edited:
