Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[Greg K]

Not particularly interrested in the swimming argument but relating it to the original topic. Would the people with a preference for 3.x then be unwilling to play a system like Mearls talked about in his column where skill as such do not exist but the checks are made against the ability scores?

I would be unwilling. One of the reason that I left 1e was that there was no real skill system (until the proficiency system in Wilderness and Dungeon Survival Guides, but I prefer 3e's skill system with roll high and add skill modifier vs a DC based on the "Common Standard")

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I like the idea of ability scores being the core but...

- All six stats should matter, noone should be able to dump without noticeable effect, but on the flip side, average stats shouldn't be punishing - that's the domain of low stats.

- The point buy/default array/rolling method should generate stats that give enough without giving too much. MAD is the enemy, it's ok to have a prime stat requirement and 3-4 other stats that appeal to your character build, but too many must-have demands wear thin.

- Stats should be grounded in the role play world where the 3-18 range, with 9-12 being common exist. The problem I find is trying to get my head around what a monsters stats are when they've got most stats out of that range or simply an attribute that jars (3.0E hill giant's 17cha & 4E 19str hobgoblin soldier). I want to be able to glance at the monsters stats and go "a-ha, this monster is really good at X & Y, but Z looks a weakness.

- There should be reasonable ground between giving diminishing returns for high stats and building up lower stats. Too often the stat bump goes into the highest stat as it rewards disproportionately, but tone it down a bit and tone up boosting the lower stats could create a bit of choice in the matter.

- Set a moderate baseline and simply let high stats bring reward. Tying the baseline to a steadily increasing main attribute which is gobbling the stat bumps knocks the choice out of the matter and means secondary stats fall badly behind the baseline as each level passes.

- Ability modifiers need a serious rein in. 2E modifiers started too high (15+) but apart from high percentile strength, were largely about right. The 3E/4E thing where you can get something approaching +10 to hit from stats alone is way too much. Accuracy modifiers should be 1/2 to a 1/3 of this.

- 1st level stat distribution should model the stats throughout the career, the high str low int fighter should largely stay that way right through to 20th/30th level. It would be fine to allow a character to change this in a minor way through investment however.

I wonder if the stats should have inherent powers like in 1E/2E rather than being a source of modifier like in 3E/4E? I think I'd rather the former approach.

 

[3catcircus]

The problem I find is trying to get my head around what a monsters stats are when they've got most stats out of that range or simply an attribute that jars (3.0E hill giant's 17cha & 4E 19str hobgoblin soldier).

Not to belabor the point, but I assume you meant 3.0E hill giant's 7cha?

That having been said, I think that one of the biggest problems people have/had with DMing 3.x is that they won't arbitrarily change something to make it fit their campaign.

 

[Greg K]

This is why systems like D&D are at a disadvantage when compared to systems like Traveller or Twilight:2000/2013 (I've never played GURPS, so that might support this as well) where a comprehensive "life" system ensures that players have the opportunity to create a background for their characters mechanically that supports their characters background narratively. In those kinds of systems, you can typically select one of more levels in skills like swim, climb, etc.

3.x/Pathfinder/4e are sadly lacking in this regard. The closest that they came was the Hero Builder's Guidebook in early 3.0.

In 3e, there are a number of ways to handle this.
1. When you build your setting, limit the DM limits class choices to those that are culturally appropriate.
2. Modify a class's skills to create a variant that is background appropriate per Customizing a Character in the PHB. The PHB gives one example. There were a couple of examples of variants in 3.0 supplements (e.g., the Urban Ranger) and many more examples in Unearthed Arcana (e.g, Savage Bard, Urban Ranger, and Wilderness Rogue).
3. Modify a race as mentioned under under Character customization and expanded upon in Unearthed Arcana
4. As DM, use the skill sidebar that states the DM can prohibit a character from taking some skills based on background.
5. Use the urban/wilderness class skill swap from the Cityscape web enhancement.
6. As a player, spend some of those extra first level skill skill points on skills that reflect background.
7. If you are using 3.0, there is 0/0 multiclassing at first level found in the DMG

 

[Greg K]

In some respects, it might have been better if the 3e skill system cap didn't increase every level. I know that when I played it, I tended to think of skills as "my character is good in these three skills" and just put a point in chosen skills every level.

It might have helped
1. To not think, "my character is good in these three skills" and put a point every level, but
a. "How good is my character?"
b. Which skills has my character had the opportunity to improve based upon the the type of adventures and the locations or what new skills have these adventures given me a chance to learn.

2. DMs followed the advice in the DMG about looking at the characters they have and taking account their abilities and skills when either building challenges for their characters or running modules (and making appropriate changes since designers don't know the characters at a given table or a group's playstyle).

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's a hidden suggestion here in mearls's article:

How much complexity do you want?

If all you want is the simplest D&D you can have, ability scores can do that. It's quick, it's easy, it requires six stats, and you're good to go.

In fact, if we go back to mearls's list of "core D&D mechanical elements," you have:

• Armor Class as the basic representation of a character’s defense = Dexterity Score
• Alignment (Law v. Chaos, Good v. Evil) as a personal ethos and a force in the universe: Add on top of your six ability scores.
• Attack rolls made using a d20, with higher rolls better than lower ones: 1d20+Strength Bonus vs. Dexterity Score.
• Classes as the basic framework for what a character can do: Fighter = +2 Strength and Con; Cleric = +2 Wisdom and Cha; Thief = +2 Dex and Int; Wizard = +2 Int and Wis. (Dwarf = +2 Wis/Con; Elf = +2 Dex/Cha; Halfling = +2 Wis/Cha; Gnome = +2 Int/Dex)
• Damage rolls to determine how badly a spell or attack hurts you: Perhaps assigned by class. Fighter = 1d10; Cleric = 1d6; Thief = 1d8; Wizard = 1d4.
• Gold pieces as the standard currency for treasure. Duh.
• Hit dice or level as the basic measure of a monster’s power. Monsters have the six scores, and theirs raise with level, too.
• Hit points as a measure of your ability to absorb punishment, with more powerful characters and creatures gaining more of them.. HP = Con score
• Levels and experience points as a measure of power and a mechanic that lets characters become more powerful over time.. All Ability scores go up with level.
• Magic items such as +1 swords as a desirable form of treasure. Add directly to your d20 roll or to your ability score.
• Rolling initiative at the start of a battle to determine who acts first.: 1d20+Dexterity mod
• Saving throws as a mechanic for evading danger. 1d20+relevant ability mod
• "Fire-and-forget” magic, with spellcasters expending a spell when casting it.: Spells are magic items (Fighter gets a +1 sword, thief gets +1 bow, wizard gets Magic Missile spell, cleric gets Cure Light Wounds spell).
• Exploration and Character Development: This is sort of the physical/mental ability score divide. Str/Dex/Con helps you explore new areas, Int/Wis/Cha helps you form connections to NPC's and organizations.

Of course, a lot of people WANT more complexity than that. At least, in certain areas. They want character abilities that can help define who they are, and what they can do, as they gain levels. They want specific game elements to use, to declare "THIS HAPPENS", be it a spell, an attack, or some sort of skill check.

Of course, the basic framework of the Powers system can be used for that.

 

[Sammael]

Not particularly interrested in the swimming argument but relating it to the original topic. Would the people with a preference for 3.x then be unwilling to play a system like Mearls talked about in his column where skill as such do not exist but the checks are made against the ability scores?

I'd have no interest whatsoever in that system.

 

[joethelawyer]

Here's a question I just posted on my blog, for people who play retroclones, or who are interested in their development (I toned down the inflammatory language here somewhat, so I wouldn't get banned):

If 5e is More Old School, How Long Before Someone Retro-Clones It? Does WOTC Then Have to Sue All Clones?


That seems to be where Mearls is heading with 5e, with all his koombaya posts on how all editions are the same at their core. It seems to be the most long-winded sales job/market research project of all time though. What if, after all the blather, they actually put out an edition of D&D which is familiar to players of older editions? Does it fall under the OGL? In whole or in part? How much I guess would depend on how many new terms they invent just for the sole purpose of making sure it doesn't fall under the OGL, like dailies, powers, healing surges, etc.

Let's say that for the most part, it does fall under the OGL. How long before someone tries to clone it?

The bigger question, what would WOTC do? Would they go after them?

I can't see how they wouldn't be forced to.

Executive who doesn't know what a d20 is: "Hows sales of the new edition going after we sunk a million bucks into its development?"

Mearls: "Well, it was good the first couple days, we made $50,000, but then someone cloned it and is giving it away for nothing."

Executive: "You're fired, you're whole team is fired--(oh, you have no team left?), and the remaining 2 people at the company who know what those weird dice are--- they're fired too--- and we're suing!"

Would they then be forced to go after the other clone publishers?

Note: I'm not saying they have good legal ground to stand on---but we all know that just the cost of defending a lawsuit would halt production of many clones and force a "I won't do it anymore, I promise, just drop the lawsuit" type of agreement.

So, the question is, are we better off letting WOTC go down the path of development they are going down, so they aren't forced to recognize what we are doing with clones?

Do we want them playing in our sandbox again?

 

[BryonD]

In all my 35 years of DMing I have yet to see this situation arise.

There's your problem.

You don't understand the issues because you are confusing your own personal opinions and experiences with the preferences and experiences of the market as a whole.

 

[nedjer]

Here's a question I just posted on my blog, for people who play retroclones, or who are interested in their development (I toned down the inflammatory language here somewhat, so I wouldn't get banned):

If 5e is More Old School, How Long Before Someone Retro-Clones It? Does WOTC Then Have to Sue All Clones?


That seems to be where Mearls is heading with 5e, with all his koombaya posts on how all editions are the same at their core. It seems to be the most long-winded sales job/market research project of all time though. What if, after all the blather, they actually put out an edition of D&D which is familiar to players of older editions? Does it fall under the OGL? In whole or in part? How much I guess would depend on how many new terms they invent just for the sole purpose of making sure it doesn't fall under the OGL, like dailies, powers, healing surges, etc.

Let's say that for the most part, it does fall under the OGL. How long before someone tries to clone it?

The bigger question, what would WOTC do? Would they go after them?

I can't see how they wouldn't be forced to.

Executive who doesn't know what a d20 is: "Hows sales of the new edition going after we sunk a million bucks into its development?"

Mearls: "Well, it was good the first couple days, we made $50,000, but then someone cloned it and is giving it away for nothing."

Executive: "You're fired, you're whole team is fired--(oh, you have no team left?), and the remaining 2 people at the company who know what those weird dice are--- they're fired too--- and we're suing!"

Would they then be forced to go after the other clone publishers?

Note: I'm not saying they have good legal ground to stand on---but we all know that just the cost of defending a lawsuit would halt production of many clones and force a "I won't do it anymore, I promise, just drop the lawsuit" type of agreement.

So, the question is, are we better off letting WOTC go down the path of development they are going down, so they aren't forced to recognize what we are doing with clones?

Do we want them playing in our sandbox again?

You're maybe being a touch hard on the guy. Way I read it he's New Old School, not Old Old School - which is