Reducing The Number of Attributes

[ValhallaGH]

For a couple of reasons.

The original M&M was a streamlined game.

... How the *bleep* did you come to that conclusion? Seriously, what was the logic. I simply can't see it, so I seek enlightenment.

From where I sit, the original M&M (1e) was a clunky mess, as complicated and befuddling as the SRD it was loosely based on.
The Third edition, by contrast, is slick, simple, and user-friendly.

If you only want 6 abilities then do the following:
Make Fighting a separate ability. It's not an ability score, it's just Fighting.
Eliminate Presence. It's arguably not worth purchasing as the system stands, and removing it won't have too many negative effects.

Your version means that for 60 power points, I can hit all of my offensive and defensive PL caps, and be halfway there on a number of skills. The current (DCA) model requires at least 120 power points for the same effect.
More disappointingly, your version eliminates the poor-skill but super-strong and tough archetypes. It also gets rid of the super-skilled mortal concept, who has amazing combat skill but human-level strength and stamina. Both of those go out the window when one stat (Fighting) covers skill, power, and resilience.
Even more confusingly, Reed Richards (the jerk) is now incredibly charming and persuasive because talking is linked to his amazing Intellect stat.

From the sound of it, your issue is purely matter of taste. You see 8 ability scores and your brain locks up, regardless of how simple or complicated the system is. If so then be aware of it and go forth; revert to 2e or even 1e (where Str and Dex affect attack bonuses) for the system that suits your tastes.

 

[TarionzCousin]

The only ability you really need is STRANTH. <-- click on the link; you know you want to.

 

[Diamond Cross]

... How the *bleep* did you come to that conclusion? Seriously, what was the logic. I simply can't see it, so I seek enlightenment.

There's a lot of vitriol in that post so I have nothing more to say on the matter.

I wanted constructive criticism, not "OMFG He's changing things!"

 

[Walking Dad]

This is an idea I've been toying with for M&M 3e. The current edition uses a total of eight Attributes. They are Strength, Agility, Fighting, Awareness, Stamina, Dexterity, Intellect, and Presence.

So they increased the original number of stats by two. I'm not entirely sure why they did that, was it to distance themselves from their original d20 based game? Personally, I prefer a game to have up to six attributes, especially in a point buy game system.

Then I realized that having both Agility and Dexterity is kind of redundant. The things that are covered by Agility can be covered by Dexterity as well as the things covered by Dexterity. So you really only need the one stat there, and that could be Agility or Dexterity, whichever word you prefer.

Then the more I thought about it, you probably don't really need to have eight different Attributes. So I decided to see what I could do to reduce the number of attributes, so here is what I came up with.

FIGHTING, AGILITY, INTELLECT, and AWE.

Fighting covers skills, advantages, actions and powers that are governed by Strength and Stamina, including Defense of Toughness and Fortitude.

Agility covers skills, advantages, actions and powers that are governed by Dexterity and Agility, including the Defenses of Parry and Dodge.

Intellect covers skills, advantages, actions, and powers that are governed by Intellect.

AWE covers skills, advantages, actions and powers that are governed by Presence and Awareness, including the Defense of Will.

I also want to combine Parry and Dodge into one defense as well.

This is just a basic idea that I'm considering that is not set in stone.

M&M 2nd had 8 Attributes/Abilities, too. Attack bonus and Defense shared the same cost and effectively modified things normally dependent on an ability in other d20 games.

Is AWE an acronym?

I will comment other details off the post below.

One potential problem I see is that "Fighting" would become under-priced in that house rule (if you keep the 2pp per +1) because it effects your melee attacks bonus, damage bonus, fortitude defense and toughness. Like wise the next valuable stat would be Agility (Ranged attack and parry and Dodge defense) followed by Awareness (Will power defense). Intelligence would be rendered a dump stat since it is the only attribute not tied to a defense.

Yes, this is the main problem.
And please don't try to argue that Fighting is useless in social encounters. Types of encounters shouldn't balance each other IMHO.

Umbrean's point is valid, but that could be solved with specializations. And, this system solves the oddity that is the Base Attack Bonus. Though I'd more likely turn Fighting into a skill, rather than an attribute.

There are fighting skills. And they cost the same as M&M 2nd's 'Attack Specialization' feat.

There are 3 tiers in attacking in M&M since 2nd edition (I'm not sure about 1st):

A bonus to all attacks

bonus to ranged or melee

bonus to specific attack.


Instead of having an 'ability' for ranged and melee attacks and an 'ability' for ranged and melee defenses, 'Fighting' just combines defense and offense melee in one ability.

Fewer stats could also mean, given the combat heaviness of superheroics, that some stats become a lot more important than others. I would say that's why they included both Agility and Dexterity - to break up the value of the single stat Dexterity in MM 1e and 2e.

That is basically the reason.
And it was the reason why 'Super-Charisma' costs 2PP/level and 'Super-Dexterity' costs 4PP/level in M&M 1st edition.

For a couple of reasons.

The original M&M was a streamlined game. I like things streamlined. Having too many attributes tends to make things far more complicated, at least for me, than it needs be.

I also don't like redundant Attributes. To me, Dexterity and Agility are the same thing and all things these things the two stats covers can be covered by one stat. Agility is simply redundant to me.

But mostly, I just like my games streamlined and uncomplicated.

That is fine. But what is more important to you? Streamlining or balance?

The Fighting attribute was first used in the original MSH RPG, actually.

But, it's also redundant for M&M because M&M has it's roots based on the d20 SRD.

And in d20 all fighting abilities are covered by Strength, Dexterity, Constitution and the appropriate feats and skills so I don't really see a need for it in M&M.

As I said above, the new fighting is the melee variant of melee BAB in other d20 games. And a melee defense.

BAB covers combat ability. The other Abilities only add to this base.

As a model of the real world, the two aren't really redundant. There are lots of people who are dexterous but not agile, and vice versa. An old watchmaker may be dexterous (great eye-hand coordination and control) but not agile (he's a lousy dancer). And a football player may be great at moving his body on the field (agile) but fumble-fingered with the remote control of his TV (not too dexterous).

And, at the same time, it sounds like you want t wrap together some things that really aren't redundant - fighting and strength? The ability to land a punch is the same as the ability to lift a Mack truck? What if you want martial artists who are amazingly good at fighting, but can't bend iron girders?

Stepping away from the simulation aspects, I think the matter of over-valued stats is probably central to the issue. If you used to have two stats (Agility and Dexterity) and two skills (dodge and parry), and you reduce them to one and one, now it is much easier and cheaper to be extremely good at not getting hit.

...

BBM. Easiest solution would to increase the cost of your (still speaking to the OP) Agility in regard of the other abilities.

There's a lot of vitriol in that post so I have nothing more to say on the matter.

I wanted constructive criticism, not "OMFG He's changing things!"

Good luck. I hope my above explanations and suggestions help.

BTW, have you seen my thread:
What kind of Super OGL book would you like?

 

[Relique du Madde]

Yes, this is the main problem.
And please don't try to argue that Fighting is useless in social encounters.

I wasn't going to. I totally see where Fighting can (and should) act as a substitute for Charisma in particular when you are torturing someone or intimidating them. After all, you can hacksaw someone using "charisma" but you can using "fighting".

Of course that is only one non-combat related fighting use I came up with fight right now.

Types of encounters shouldn't balance each other IMHO.

I wasn't going to do there considering that as pointed out by others, the consolidations of various attributes made certain character archetypes non-viable. Sure you could fix them by placing complications that confer penalties to using certain skills, but once you start doing that you basically end up negating the reason you consolidated the attributes at the first place.

So I thought it was best just to look at their combat viability and not their skill usage in various non-combat related situations.

 

[Walking Dad]

Sorry, Relique du Madde, I was trying to backk you up. My comments were directed at Diamond Cross.

Sure you could fix them by placing complications that confer penalties to using certain skills, but once you start doing that you basically end up negating the reason you consolidated the attributes at the first place.

Tri-Stat (/BESM) does this.

 

[Diamond Cross]

That is fine. But what is more important to you? Streamlining or balance?

Both are equally important to me. And AWE is not an acronym.

Good luck. I hope my above explanations and suggestions help.

They did, thanks.

 

[coyote6]

Umbrean's point is valid, but that could be solved with specializations. And, this system solves the oddity that is the Base Attack Bonus. Though I'd more likely turn Fighting into a skill, rather than an attribute.

There is no base attack bonus in M&M 3e.

The reason there are 8 attributes in 3e is that there were really 8 in 2e, too -- Attack and Defense were effectively attributes, they were just rated directly on the bonus rather than (bonus*2+10). 3e took Attack & Defense, and split up their functionality amongst other attributes -- Fighting, Agility, and Dexterity.

But Walking Dad said that.

If you do combine attributes like that, I suggest you reprice them as well. If they aren't all equally as useful, give them different prices. For example, your Fighting looks like it should cost 4 pp per point (1 each for damage, Toughness, Fortitude, and skills). Awe might be worth 3 pts (Will, and the large array of Skills it covers).

 

[ValhallaGH]

There's a lot of vitriol in that post so I have nothing more to say on the matter.

I wanted constructive criticism, not "OMFG He's changing things!"

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you would take offense at my combination of behavioral analysis and constructive criticism. I shall remember that and take it into consideration with future attempts at assistance.


Suggestion #1: Eliminate the Presence ability. Call Fighting something other than an ability score. Now you only have 6 "ability scores".

Suggestion #2: Play one of the previous editions of M&M.

Question #1: What makes you say that M&M 1E was "simple and streamlined"?

Question #2: Why don't you report posts that you think are offensive?

 

[Diamond Cross]

Question #1: What makes you say that M&M 1E was "simple and streamlined"?

Because the core of it was 1d20 + Appropriate modifiers. And everything was grouped together nicely. A certain number of skills were modified by Intelligence as well as powers, for example. Which would result in 1d20 + Int modifier + Ranks.

Question #2: Why don't you report posts that you think are offensive?

I don't like doing that. I only do that as a last resort and prefer to work out differences face to face and hopefully things will work out and differences will be resolved. Whenever a person in authority gets involved, it basically amounts to "both of you shut up or face recriminations" and that never resolves anything but only further increases resentment between the two people in conflict. However, I have no qualms about putting a person on ignore if they become too problematic.