Removing Bonuses from Ability Scores

[sheadunne]

The bonuses and penalties are minor compared to the current system. The max bonus for a high strength is +1 hit and +1 damage compared to a +2 to each for the same ability score of 14.

If you no longer apply ability scores to skills is a +2 to a skill equal to a +1 damage? How about if there are no class skills and all skills are available to all classes? How about if a knowledge check gains you a +1 to hit? Or the heal skill can grant a +1 damage? Is a -2 to a skill equal to a +1 to hit?

Skills are difficult to balance with combat. We can all accept that under the current system. I think skills should have meaningful implications or not be included. Most combat is micro-skill use. Your skill with a sword for instance. I don't think that each skill should be developed on that level, but we can do more to make them interesting without shutting down the game or at the very least make them more applicable to combat. I find the increased numbers associated with skills making them either extremely high or laughably low. My attempt to change the modifier system is a step in that direction, but it may simply be unneeded and add unnecessary complications to the game.

I am not too concerned about players taking low numbers in ability scores in order to gain high numbers in others since I'm using all 6 ability scores for saving throws. It's still a work in progress and I appreciate the thoughts related to this topic. It seems that balance is the main concern and I couldn't agree more.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Rather than creating one attribute that gives +1 to hit, and limiting how strength normally increases your chance of hitting to just +1, why not consider a triangular number system? For 1 benefit you can choose +1, for 2 you can choose +1 again and so on. Str 12 is +1 over str 10, and str 16 is the next step up.

 

[BriarMonkey]

...

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?

Except - you are wrong. Muscles atrophy and degrade. The couch potato may have had an 18 at one point, but if he just sits there, he no longer does. Thus, the guy who works out is stronger. It is not a matter of potential - the game doesn't apply that concept in this regard.

Look at modern body builders. As a whole, they work out to sculpt and refine their bodies. They may or may not be as strong as a pro weight lifter - but their aim is totally different. The pro lifter is likely ridiculously strong - but they don't have the same muscle definition as that body builder. Likewise, neither would be out running a marathon.

Gymnasts are strong, and flexible, but put a gymnast up against a pro lifter and that gymnist won't be pressing 800+ pounds... So yeah, your argument about the lifter and the couch potato doesn't hold.

The whole point of that is scale. I agree with you that strength can be defined in many different ways, but I think the way you are going about it adds complication where no complication is needed. You are adding far too many fiddly bits where they are not needed.

Consider that the starting attribute is something like 3 to 20. With that, why shouldn't there be a large difference between 8 and 18? If you want to keep things out of the 30s and 40s, then take a page from the old versions and have a cap of 25 for ability scores.

Regardless, have you actually talked to your players about what you want to do? After all, if they are game to play that, then game how you want to. But, if they are not keen on the idea, then may haps you are doing a lot of work for nothing.

 

[BriarMonkey]

I started thinking more about the idea that an ability score is "potential".

Under this idea then, your ability score would be the cap - the maximum that you could achieve. If this is the case, then wouldn't you need another number that indicated the actual current score? I mean, if your "potential" is 18, then you don't know what your current score really is - unless you've reached your potential.

Thus, you'd need to have ability scores like 13/18 - which indicates current and potential.

Or, does "potential" mean something else?

 

[Greenfield]

I re-read the original post carefully. It still makes little sense.

You get attributes from ability scores, and you don't increase ability scores with levels or racial modifiers. Got that. But at the end it says that attributes may increase ability scores. Which would result in more attributes?

The Fighter with the 18 Strength would have 4 attributes, but could apply no more than one to any function. That is,he could get +1 to hit, +1 to damage, +1 to Climb and +1 to Swim.

Have I got that right?

If I do then a top condition athlete, as good as a normal human can ever get, is slightly better at 4 things than Joe Average with the 10.5 strength (3D6 average). Meanwhile, Poindexter the Nerd, who put points into Intelligence, will be a better athlete all around than the 18 Strength fighter, since he gets more skill points and can spend more than one of them per skill. So he'll not only meet or beat the Fighter in Climb and Swim, he'll also do better at Jump and Tumble and pretty much everything else. Sure the Fighter is better at brute force, but only a little. (+1 really isn't that much.)

And because stats don't get better over time, Poindexter will end up leaving the Fighter in the dust over time, beating him not only in typical nerd fields like Knowledge and Craft skills, but also in every athletic endevour as well.

Right now, melee hits and damage output are the only things that keep fighter types from going the way of the dinosaur, the only thing that lets them even stay close to spell caster types.

Sorry if I come across as the habitual nay-sayer, but when someone suggests rule changes I like to try and think them through. I've known too many rules lawyers, I always look for the bolt holes they'll try to squirm through. The holes in this idea don't require a squirm or a wriggle. You can lead a camel through them.

Your solution to my previous objection was "Well, we simply won't let you do that". How? My 8 strength fighter chooses not to apply any negative attributes to combat. He'll take his penalties in Swim (an almost never used skill) and Jump. Both of those get bonked by armor check penalties anyway, and both can be bypassed by buying skill points. One in each negates the penalties.

How do you prevent that? Does the DM design my character for me, dictating what feats/attributes I get, and what skills I choose to buy?

Here's the thing: You can't do just one thing. Players and the game world in general react to any change, and that causes other changes, ripples in the pond that go on forever. Some of these other changes may be things you like. Many won't be. The law of unintended consequences doesn't merely apply in RPGs, it applied, got the job, and has tenure.

 

[sheadunne]

I started thinking more about the idea that an ability score is "potential".

Under this idea then, your ability score would be the cap - the maximum that you could achieve. If this is the case, then wouldn't you need another number that indicated the actual current score? I mean, if your "potential" is 18, then you don't know what your current score really is - unless you've reached your potential.

Thus, you'd need to have ability scores like 13/18 - which indicates current and potential.

Or, does "potential" mean something else?

I don't think ability scores are representative of anything other than potential. If you want to be "strong" then take the "strong" attribute. I have never understood how an ability score actually represents some actual physical or mental capacity. There's not enough spread between the numbers to indicate how strong or smart someone actually is and in what capacity. Strength means so many different things that it's impossible for one score to represent everything that it can mean. My attempt is to make that choice in what it represents in the players hands by allowing them to choose what aspects of strength she wants the character to have.

 

[sheadunne]

I re-read the original post carefully. It still makes little sense.

You get attributes from ability scores, and you don't increase ability scores with levels or racial modifiers. Got that. But at the end it says that attributes may increase ability scores. Which would result in more attributes?

I can see how that was vague. It was reflecting on saving throws which rely on ability scores. The actual ability scores doesn't rise, only the saving throw number (like taking iron will to give yourself a +2 to your Wisdom saving throw.

If I do then a top condition athlete, as good as a normal human can ever get, is slightly better at 4 things than Joe Average with the 10.5 strength (3D6 average). Meanwhile, Poindexter the Nerd, who put points into Intelligence, will be a better athlete all around than the 18 Strength fighter, since he gets more skill points and can spend more than one of them per skill. So he'll not only meet or beat the Fighter in Climb and Swim, he'll also do better at Jump and Tumble and pretty much everything else. Sure the Fighter is better at brute force, but only a little. (+1 really isn't that much.)

A +1 isn't that much only because the system says it isn't that much. What if you never received another point increase? Then the +1 become much more important. Plenty of people think the Weapon Focus is good and it only gives you a +1 to hit.

Your solution to my previous objection was "Well, we simply won't let you do that". How? My 8 strength fighter chooses not to apply any negative attributes to combat. He'll take his penalties in Swim (an almost never used skill) and Jump. Both of those get bonked by armor check penalties anyway, and both can be bypassed by buying skill points. One in each negates the penalties.

I think that I should have included the revised skill list into the post. Jump, Swim, Climb, Lifting, bending bars, opening doors, etc, are all grouped together into a single skill called athletics. Does taking a negative to that skill make more of a difference? What if it also represented endurance? What if that skill now provided you with other bonuses?

Here's the thing: You can't do just one thing. Players and the game world in general react to any change, and that causes other changes, ripples in the pond that go on forever. Some of these other changes may be things you like. Many won't be. The law of unintended consequences doesn't merely apply in RPGs, it applied, got the job, and has tenure.

I have no intention of just doing one thing. Everything is being tweaked to represent the greater changes. I asked a simple question in the original post and you've answered it quite well. Those are all things that are taken into account. I'm just checking to see if I missed anything. My goal is to make skills equal to hit bonus and damage bonus, and not just in the exploration field. Just as you can use your axe to chop down a door to bypass the lock, so can you use other skills during combat to give you an advantage. 3.5 currently has a few specific uses for combat based skill use, such as tumble, but it doesn't go far enough. Right now it's just a list with little use during at least 1/2 of the game, a part of the game that tends to take the longest amount of time at the table. I appreciate your concern about skills, it's the same concern I have, and I'm attempting to address those issues. The first part is looking at ability scores, since they have a large effect on most of the other areas of the game.

 

[BriarMonkey]

For all your reworking, I think you would be better served by finding a different system rather than trying to shoe-horn D & D into a framework that it was never meant to represent. Maybe something like the FATE system.

 

[sheadunne]

For all your reworking, I think you would be better served by finding a different system rather than trying to shoe-horn D & D into a framework that it was never meant to represent. Maybe something like the FATE system.

3x seems to work fine with what I'm doing, although I appreciate your suggestion. If there was already another system that worked the way I wanted, I would be using that system. Considering my changes are fairly minor I don't think there's any issue with using the d20 core, it's all just determining where the pluses and minuses are coming from.

 

[Greenfield]

So pretty much all physical skills are now lumped into one? Okay, I guess.

That means that the person with the 18 Strength only has three places to put bonus points: Attack, Damage, and Athletics. Where does the 4th one go?

And when they get more, be it from levels or racial modifiers, where do they go? Are they simply unusable?

BTW: Endurance should probably be Con based, rather than Strength. Just a thought.