Something Awful leak.

[AbdulAlhazred]

Supposing they are not too common there is no problem, in my opinion.

If I got to choose, they would be things you have at most 1-3 of, usually from race or class. Other bonuses would come through ability score increases (also not common) or circumstance bonuses (quite common). Cleric or Bard buffs would only affect them through general effects like +1 to all checks.

But again, we'll have to wait and see.

There's only one thing to wait and see about, and that's if someone wakes up and realizes its a bad idea top to bottom. But indeed we will just wait and see.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I liked only having to track

Ref
Will
Fort
AC
To-Hit

The ONLY time I need to pay attention to my 6 stats were when I had some sort of buff applied to them temporarily (spell), at which point I had a +x bonus.

It was doubtful that it would change mid-combat, unless another affect modified it. The VAST majority of the time, I needed to only pay attention to those 5.

While I like the idea of not being able to dump stat anything, (we have a player who almost exclusively plays the same half-orc in every campaign with high str, low int/cha), it WILL be more complex. Will it be so complex as to mess with the game? Won't know til we try I guess.

 

[Mokona]

The main problem I have with that is that with the way that you build monsters in 3.5 is a sense of entitlement by many (not all, but many) players that if a monster does something, that they can do something as well.

It is a natural human tendency! Humans copy the world around them. Birds can fly so people invented airplanes (hey, now we can fly like birds). Plus hang gliders, kites, helicopters, rockets, hovercraft, blimps, hot air balloons, and (conceptually) flying saucers.

If an animal or D&D monster can perform a physical act it makes sense for the intelligent races to emulate that capacity through training (martial arts styles taken from "animal" themes like Mantis-style / Crane-style) or magic. Dungeons & Dragons spells should at least attempt to replicate supernatural powers found in monsters because if we really had magic that is often how we'd get ideas of what spells to "research".

On the other hand, it's a game design nightmare to make every monster power balanced enough so that PCs can have it. This is the real challenge. Building a system where monsters are easy to make but retroactively make it exciting for PCs that say, "that was cool, I'd like to do that".

1. Explicitly create magical powers, that are balanced for PCs, that emulate iconic monster abilities. Either a Vancian spell, a ritual, or an AEDU 4e power.

2. Create magic items that emulate certain iconic monster abilities.

3. Make a point-buy system and assign a point-buy cost to train it, and a mana-cost to activate iconic monster abilities each time the PC uses it.

4. Make a character class (or classes) that emulate iconic monster abilities and build long lists of iconic monster abilities as AEDU or Vancian powers of that class.

5. Have monsters, sometimes or most of the time, use the same powers that are already available to PCs so that it's easier for PCs to get it because it's almost inherently a PC power.

 

[I'm A Banana]

if this is true then it is WORSE because now I have to change all the numbers related to my ability scores every time one of them changes, which will no doubt happen often.

It is entirely possible that they remove "all the numbers related to my ability scores."

It's not 3e. They probably don't feel a need to include detailed rules about how your CON score translates into HP per level, Fort saves, Encumbrance, your Endurance skill.....

They can probably just have CON 12 = X. CON 13 = X+1.

Not saying this is happening or even an especially good idea necessarily, just saying you're seeing a lot of problems that are potentially not actually problems.

 

[Votan]

So, I rolled an 8 and I had to put it in some ability score or other and now there's simply no way I can ever compensate for my weakness? The cleric can't buff it, I can't hide behind a bush, I can't wear a ring, drink a potion, etc? That's going to fly. Yes, that will most certainly fly.

Frankly I'm not averse to there being quite limited ways to transiently modify things. I think it is a fine idea to keep that down to a dull roar, but there is really no chance there are not going to be circumstances where some modifier needs to be used. If the only mod available is to the ability score itself, that's a REAL PITA. It is also WEIRD. I hide behind a bush and my DEX goes up? I'm pretty sure that won't happen. Thus again we arrive at the fallacy of the hidden number.

Note that my argument was against a lot of small, transient bonuses: the cleric is 15 feets away so +1, the bard is singing so +3, the Vrock has a spore field so -1 unless I move 5 feet that way in which case it is -2, plus I am bloodied so +1 for bloodied determination, I am uphill so +1, and wasn't there a bless spell too?

Not being able to eliminate all weak points would actually be more true to older editions. Not perfect but there will always be tradeoffs

 

[Essenti]

There's only one thing to wait and see about, and that's if someone wakes up and realizes its a bad idea top to bottom. But indeed we will just wait and see.

I have been pinging back and forth between both sides of this argument, I can see wisdom in both directions. But this doesn't necessitate becoming irrate. I find it is usually more productive to assume you don't have enough facts rather than assuming someone else is an idiot. It pushes you to gather more facts and look in new directions, and maybe, just maybe, see things in a way you hadn't realized you were missing.

A fair amount of the problems with transient bonuses go away if instead of modifying the defender's defenses, transient bonuses only affect the attacker's attack roll.

"You try to plop an arrow in that goblin hiding in the bushes, the goblin is granted advantage against your attack roll, you roll at -2..." etc. etc.

Yes, some of the logic you are used to becomes inverted when using the six ability scores in this way, but it doesn't make it broken and non-functional. Just a different way of looking at things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have been pinging back and forth between both sides of this argument, I can see wisdom in both directions. But this doesn't necessitate becoming irrate. I find it is usually more productive to assume you don't have enough facts rather than assuming someone else is an idiot. It pushes you to gather more facts and look in new directions, and maybe, just maybe, see things in a way you hadn't realized you were missing.

A fair amount of the problems with transient bonuses go away if instead of modifying the defender's defenses, transient bonuses only affect the attacker's attack roll.

"You try to plop an arrow in that goblin hiding in the bushes, the goblin is granted advantage against your attack roll, you roll at -2..." etc. etc.

Yes, some of the logic you are used to becomes inverted when using the six ability scores in this way, but it doesn't make it broken and non-functional. Just a different way of looking at things.

Yeah, and honestly the really transient ones like that I'm not too worried about. The less transient ones like buffs can be handled the same way. It is really in the final analysis the problem of nowhere to record your adjusted score and/or that if the score itself has to be adjusted there are other things that you have to either constantly add or change, or again if you say have a ring of protection +1 either you're into semi-permanent ability score changes, or toting up all the "everyone gets a -1 to hit my DEX defense" every time it comes up.

The inevitable upshot of all this is that sooner or later these 'defenses' will have to show up on people's sheets as recorded numbers. At that point there's just no reason not to call them defenses and be done with it.

 

[howandwhy99]

How to Stat your House Cat^tm Disney Studios

Determine lowest (1) and near maximum (10) levels of play for each class.
Determine where a house cat lies for each (below 1 every time).
So, Determine top and bottom averages for 1st level and where the house cat falls below these (0.333 - 3.0, 1.0 average, frex). (House cat = 0.1 combatant, 0.25 thief, 0.01 magic user, 0.02 cleric)
Stat out a house cat as a level 1 challenge for each type.
Determine the loss of ability needed for each class to reach the above status for a house cat.
Use as necessary.

For instance, the Reduce Person on a PC. At 12" tall a house cat can be known to be a 3rd level combat challenge. At 1" tall a house cat is a 9th level one.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Boy, you go away for a few hours.

I'm getting the distinct feeling that this whole argument is just edition warring without anybody mentioning the edition.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Boy, you go away for a few hours.

I'm getting the distinct feeling that this whole argument is just edition warring without anybody mentioning the edition.

Eh, not really. 4e refined the core d20 mechanics some, but 3e had 'defenses', and in general they worked OK. It had some issues, mainly the math was so variable overall that you could easily end up with a non-viable save. 4e STILL hasn't really fixed that. 5e could help fix that by sticking with the existing design and using its flatter curve that doesn't include attack and defense progression as a built-in. That would actually pretty much give you a solid setup. Your wizard's FORT would still be below par and your fighters REF or WILL might be bad, but with 10+(best of two) ability mod the variation is pretty much in the range of 9 to 16 for NADs. If stat bumps don't exist and you don't have more than a total +1 you can possibly get from race or class then it really would work very well.

What is frustrating is that there's a perfectly good solution, and one that AFAIK 99% of traditionalists don't seem to have a problem with, that already exists. But no no! We can't have anything recognizably carried over from 4e, that's ANATHEMA!