Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5739402" data-attributes="member: 53980">I don't think it would be worth the trouble to redesign 3e or 4e under this paradigm, but   There are just too many things you'd have to change in an existing system.  However, I think it'd be worthwhile in something new, like 5e or a completely new d20-variant.To address those who say that all fighters would be the same under this system, you could handle that with a robust skill system.  Instead of a fighter with high Strength and Dexterity, you might have one with good Athletics and Acrobatics.  Such a fighter would be stronger and more agile than an intelligent, charismatic Warlord whose skill set includes Tactics and Speech.  However (assuming that the combat system isn't a subset of the skill system) they are both equally competent in their contributions during combat.The nice part of this is that it frees players to role play the character that they want to role play without forcing them to be mechanically handicapped.  Perhaps your warlord is good at tactics because he's a natural genius (as evidenced by his multiple Knowledge skills) whereas my warlord had to work very hard to acquire his tactical acumen because he's more the thick but strong type (high Tactics skill, but the rest of his skills are physical).If you split the skills, you can create characters that you otherwise couldn't.  Perhaps your fighter who's good at climbing and jumping, but a terrible swimmer (despite the fact that he's strong, he panics when he's submerged).  Even in 3e where these were separate skills, an 18 Strength fighter would possess a degree of competence in all three by virtue of his high Strength score.  IMO, the nice part of this is that it reduces modifier bloat.  To use 4e parlance, instead of a character with a +10 Athletics modifier at 1st level (20 Strength + Skill Training), you might have a character with just a +5 Athletics check (just Skill Training).  I think it's much easier to have a good set of suggested DCs when you have a smaller range of numbers to work with.  That range is approx (-1 to +12) in 4e and even larger in 3e (due to rank disparities).You can even reintroduce nuance back into the system with less issues.  Even if you change 4e over to a rank system (you get 5 skill points per skill you would be otherwise trained in, and the max rank is 5), the range is still reduced to +0 to +5.Please don't be mislead by the fact that I'm using 3e and 4e in my examples.  As I stated in my opening paragraph, I don't think it would be worth it to try and bodge this idea into an existing system.I'm not convinced that ability scores are really worth the trouble of having either, though.  I think a system that uses a single metric for measuring a character's capabilities is a much more elegant approach than a system that uses a multitude of additive metrics merely for the sake of poor simulation.EDIT:It also occurs to me that this approach would allow for much easier customization to suit a given group's style of play.  For example, let's assume a group that always role-plays social encounters and hates rolling diplomacy checks.  It seems to me that it would be much easier to remove the Speech skill (which has no mechanical implications outside of social scenarios) than it is to remove Charisma (which modifies a Sorcerer's DCs or attack rolls, depending on your edition).  The same goes for Perception, or any skill the group has no use for.</blockquote>

Verification