Removing Bonuses from Ability Scores

[sheadunne]

I have been working on getting rid of feats. I have integrated some into skills, most into class abilities and archtypes, and a few more are now being integrated into ability scores (I'm calling the ability score feats, attributes.)

The intention is to remove ability score bonuses from the game and flatten the math a little (not as significantly as 5e is trying to do, but enough so the numbers to get out of control).

I'm in the camp that believes ability scores represent potential and not actual ability. If you have a high strength score, it doesn't mean that you can swim better, only that you have the potential to swim better. In this regard, the flat bonuses from ability scores don't make sense. I am instead creating a system whereby players choose attributes instead of gaining a flat bonus.

Example
If you have an 18 strength, you gain 4 attributes
If you have an 8 strength, you gain 1 negative attribute.

These attributes will be similar to many feats that currently exist such as Iron Will, Nimble, etc, and the negative attributes will pretty much be the reverse of those types of feats.

Players will never increase in their raw ability score but they can gain and lose attributes.

Races that gain ability score modifiers will instead gain bonus attributes or negative attributes.

Example

A halfling will gain 1 negative strength attribute instead of the -2 to strength. If the halfling has a 14 strength (2 attributes) she would instead gain 1 attribute.

An elf will gain 1 dexterity attribute instead of the +2 to dexterity. If the elf has a 14 dexterity (2 attributes) she would instead gain 3 attributes.

When characters gain levels they no long increase their ability score, but instead gain attributes which can be used to select a new attribute or remove a negative attribute. The halfling finally gains enough experience to be a good swimmer and removes his "sink like a stone" negative strength attribute.

Spells that would normally increase a characters ability scores (such as bull strength) would instead give a flat monstrous attribute such as Hulking (gain +4 damage) or something like that (still in progress). Magical items would function the same way.

Creatures/monsters would still have high ability scores and also a separate array of attributes that would reflect the creature more accurately. These attributes would be accessible to players only through spells and magic items.

A player cannot select the same attribute multiple times. This will limited the bonus gained from strength to +1 to hit. Two similar characters with the same strength score may have completely different attributes to better reflect what type of strength the character has. Are they a weight lifter? A smasher? An olympic climber?

I have also expanded saving throws to include all 6 ability scores and have been reworked to not rely on ability score modifiers (although some attributes may raise your ability score).

Are there potential issues with this system other than being more fiddly?

It has never sat well with me that a character can have a 39 strength.

 

[Greenfield]

Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

Once upon a time, Champions allowed someone to take "negative levels" as a limitation to a weapon. Think of Thor's hammer, which mythology describes as being so badly balanced that only someone of immense strength could lift or wield it.

The classic abuse was to build a weapon and stack it with a few thousand negative levels, making it almost impossible to hit with. The points one could reap from this were essentially unlimited, of course, and one could apply them wherever they liked, according to the rules. So you have a weapon you can't hit with and lots of points to put in other things. The final, winning move was to leave the weapon at home, and just take the bennies it gave you in everything else.

That's kind of what I'm seeing here. I'll take all the negative attributes you want to hand me and apply them to something like underwater basket weaving, while taking the corresponding benefits and putting them in places I'll actually use them.

Under your system a guy with an 18 strength doesn't do any better in feats of strength than a guy with an 8.

Pardon my crassness, but this sounds like a really bad idea. It doesn't "flatten the math" (if you mean "simplify"), it just shifts the complexity around.

And it's not like it's really all that complex. Right now my character sheet shows a skill name, the associated attribute, the skill ranks, the attribute bonus, a column for other bonuses such as synergy or racial modifiers, and a final total for my bonus. All the "complexity" is handled off screen, when I choose my skill points.

In play, I look at my total bonus, roll a dice, and add the two together. Simple as 2+2 (or in some cases, D20 +7).

For each weapon I list the weapon name, the total bonus to hit (which includes BAB, magic, feat modifiers and attribute modifiers), the damage (which again includes base dice plus any magic, attribute or feat modifiers), the reach or range, the type (slash, pierce, bludg, etc), and any notes on the weapon's special abilities or properties (Adamantine, silver, whatever).

In play, I roll a D20, add the bonus listed and I'm done. If I get to roll again because of iterative attacks, I just roll again, add the total bonus and subtract the penalty. Easy as 2+2-5.

Do the paperwork in advance (preferably with a good spreadsheet or character generator) and there's no complex math to flatten.

 

[sheadunne]

Flatten is referring to keeping the numbers low, it has nothing to do with complexity. I don't want numbers in the 30s and 40s, I'd rather keep them in the teens and twenties. I also don't like ability scores applying to skills because it makes certain untrained classes more effective than the classes that are suppose to be good at those skills.

There is no swapping negative for positive so i'm not sure where that's coming from, at least not anymore than min/maxing the current system. It's no different than taking the current +4 from an 18 str and having to spread it out as a +1 to four different things rather than +4 to everything.

I want the system to put more emphasis on skill. If you want to be good at lifting things, put ranks into athletics.

I don't believe there should be much difference between an 8 str and an 18. It represents potential not an actual thing, because strength can be measured in a 100 different ways. You could be stronger but only if you train and work out, otherwise you're just wasting your potential. To put it another way, two people with an 18 str grow up. One works out and trains and the other sits on the couch and drinks beer all day. Which one is stronger?

 

[sheadunne]

Although I do understand your concern that the negative attributes won't be waited equally toward the positive. That's a good concern and certainly one that needs to be kept in mind while balancing the attributes

 

[nijineko]

sounds like you need to play rolemaster. they had a system like that, iirc. high stats yielded limited special options which could make three characters with the same stat all very different from each other in terms of actual ability.

 

[Water Bob]

I have been working on getting rid of feats.

Comment on "getting rid of feats": I can understand a dislike of Feats. My guess is that you view them like a lot of new spells--lots of details to read and remember. Stuff that slows down the game.

When I first came to d20, I felt a moment of the same. But, then I realized that Feats add a lot of "fun" to the game. A big part of D&D and the d20 system (not necessarily with all RPGs) is a player building a character.

It's cool to go fight some stuff, then "level up" and have a few choices that make your character better. The player digs that advancement--that improvement. And, Feats are a large part of that fun.

Plus, Feats are the perfect way to add special abilities to different peoples, creatures, and character classes. Let's say the PC group runs into these wilderness savages that use primitive weapons and shaman sorcerery. But, they have this special attack where they run and use their spears to pole vault a jump at their targets, giving them a great chance to knock their enemy down, then stand over them and bash their foes to death with their obsidian daggers and rock-headed clubs.

Mechanically, a DM could put that into the game using a well balanced Feat. It's a special ability of this particular Barbarian class. The balancing comes in the game because the Feat, although new and completely designed by the DM, takes up a Feat slot--the Barbarians can only have a few.

So, I would argue that you might want to think again before taking Feats out of the game. IMO, they have a real place in the rules.

Removing feats will, I fear, also reduce some of the fun of the game.

 

[dkyle]

This is an excellent idea, and I look forward to seeing more about it. I think this is a great way to make ability scores interesting. d20+mods vs DC sounds good for skills on paper, but in practice, it's just boring and rife with DM fiat.

One thing I advise, that I think you're doing anyway but just want to articulate, is to make sure these advantages/disadvantages are focused on non-combat tasks. Balancing "swims better" with "does more damage" is basically impossible, and part of where feats went wrong in the first place.

That's kind of what I'm seeing here. I'll take all the negative attributes you want to hand me and apply them to something like underwater basket weaving, while taking the corresponding benefits and putting them in places I'll actually use them.

By my understanding, you could only have disadvantages for stats you have an 8 or less in, so it's not like you can load up on disadvantages to stack up advantages. Your "sword of never hitting" example doesn't really apply.

And as long as advantages avoid combat benefits, I don't think there's much risk of imbalance. There's basically no balance to the skill system to begin with.

Under your system a guy with an 18 strength doesn't do any better in feats of strength than a guy with an 8.

He would if he takes a "feats of strength" advantage.

But one thing I might suggest is to bring back the old "roll under" mechanic for freeform skill rolls, where a specific advantage doesn't apply.

 

[Greenfield]

From what I read at the start, the idea is an attribute bonus that doesn't apply to everything. You have to choose where it applies.

If, when statting a character, you use any sort of "point buy" method, I can run a bunch of low stats (hence attribute penalties) that gives me extra points to create very high stats elsewhere. Not a new theory, just he idea of having more than one "dump stat".

So if I have to choose when and where my attribute bonuses apply, and am limited in how many places I can spend them, I should also be able to choose when and where my attribute penalties apply, and there should be an equally limited number of places to "spend" them. So I'll choose to "spend" my penalties on underwater basketry, knowledge- left handed monkey wrenches, social climbing, and Craft Insult. Combat penalties will be penalties to hit with Bohemian Earspoon and thrown building.

See, if you limit when/where bonuses apply, you implicitly limit when and where penalties apply, and I can choose to apply them in meaningless ways. That effectively turns every 6 or 8 stat into a 10. I mean, you can't exactly force the PC to attack with a Bohemian Earspoon, now can you.

The only alternative would be to apply bonuses selectively and penalties universally, which is really hard to rationalize, and makes it look like you're making "Craft RPG" your dump-skill.

Plan C would be to apply bonuses and penalties universally and with an equal hand. And that's what we have now. Personally, I like Plan C.

 

[dkyle]

If, when statting a character, you use any sort of "point buy" method, I can run a bunch of low stats (hence attribute penalties) that gives me extra points to create very high stats elsewhere. Not a new theory, just he idea of having more than one "dump stat".

Given 28-point-buy, if you spread stats as evenly as possible (14/14/12/12/12/12), you get 8 advantages.

If you min/max as much as possible (18/16/10/8/8/8), you get 7 advantages, and 3 disadvantages. I don't see any way to have more than 8 advantages, aside from racial bonuses.

So, all you gain from taking on those disadvantages is being able to lump your advantages into 2 stats, instead of spreading them out, and you actually lose an advantage. This could be beneficial, but likely not hugely so, especially if advantages are designed to not stack up for a given task.

So if I have to choose when and where my attribute bonuses apply, and am limited in how many places I can spend them, I should also be able to choose when and where my attribute penalties apply, and there should be an equally limited number of places to "spend" them. So I'll choose to "spend" my penalties on underwater basketry, knowledge- left handed monkey wrenches, social climbing, and Craft Insult. Combat penalties will be penalties to hit with Bohemian Earspoon and thrown building.

So then don't have those obviously silly disadvantages available. Disadvantages should be things that have a reasonable chance of coming up, even if the players doesn't want them to.

Also, my reading of the OP is that this is only for non-combat bonuses. Disadvantages/Advantages would not work as well for combat. But for non-combat, I don't think it's likely to be a real problem. There isn't really any semblance of balance to the skill system to begin with.

 

[N'raac]

Also, my reading of the OP is that this is only for non-combat bonuses. Disadvantages/Advantages would not work as well for combat. But for non-combat, I don't think it's likely to be a real problem. There isn't really any semblance of balance to the skill system to begin with.

Except that classes with less skill points will be much better able to apply their advantages to the skills they focus on, and disadvantages to skills they were never going to take in the first place. So my Fighter applies his CHA penalty to Use Magic Device and his INT penalty to Spellcraft. He only has 1 skill point per level (or does he get 2, since he didn't apply his INT penalty to skill points; 2 or 3 if he's human), so Advantaging the few skills he max'es, or even puts ranks into, should be pretty simple.

Hopefully, a fleshed out system would provide a meaningful set of advantages and disadvantages for each stat, but it seems likely the system would still favour some characters and disfavour others. Good luck getting Advantage to all your 14 INT human rogue's skills!

Where do you get the sense combat isn't affected? Attributes mentioned include AC ("Nimble"), saves (Iron Will, etc.), Damage (Hulking) and I think attack bonus was included in there somewhere as well.