Trimming the Fat: Three Ability Scores

[Acid_crash]

To make it simple, why not just call your three Ability scores - Fortitude, Reflex, and Willpower???????

 

[Felon]

To make it simple, why not just call your three Ability scores - Fortitude, Reflex, and Willpower???????

Well, because then you have a guy adding his Reflex score to his History and Arcana checks and arcane spellcasting. It's a conceptual issue.

 

[FadedC]

Hmm....I'm not entirely sure which is diminished. Con is still really important for everyone, although perhaps it's no longer the #2 stat for every class. Strength will still tend to be ignored by non melee classes and prized by melee classes just like before. Charisma was always useless for most and actuallys seems far more useful then before. Wisdom was also always a less popular stat and now has more synergy with other powers, although it's no longer the sole source of will saves.

The only real reduction I could see is on the importance of dex for wizards and inteligence for rogues. And even that may be just from seeing a very incomplete part of the picture.

 

[Felon]

Coup de gras

What is this a reference to?

 

[KidSnide]

So the impression that I'm left with is that many if not most characters will wind up with several ability scores worth dumping and one worth pumping as high as it can go bar-no-expense. Once you've chosen a path such as brawny rogue or trickster rogue, the apragmatic build for a given character will be obvious and ubiquitous. To deviate from that build is to trade off a degree of practical effectiveness for conceptual satisfaction.

This thread is for people who share my sentiment of distaste for that kind of trade-off. If you don't mind such a design element in the new edition, this is not the thread for you. I don't want to argue about what ultimately amounts to personal taste, and for those that do, there are many other fine threads to choose from. This thread is also for people who like to plan their escape routes ahead of time, so please nobody offer the obligatory "gee, here's a thought: why don't you just wait for the system to come out" posts.

I share your distaste, but disagree with your conclusion. I think the system needs to provide an additional benefit to being both Strong and Healthy, both Smart and Quick or both Wise and Charming. My inclination is to think that there should be feats and class abilities that either require or benefit from high score in both abilities within a pair.

For example, a Lightning Reflexes feat might add extra if you have bonuses in Int and Dex. Alternatively, there could be an exploit that uses Str for damage and Con for the secondary benefit. Or, an Cha-based spell with a minimum Wis requirement. In some respect this would be like MtG - spreading over multiple abilities (or colors) is disadvantageous because you lose focus, but it can also certain combinations (or multi-color cards) that are otherwise unusuable.

(And, because someone else will say it if I don't: powers or feats based on multiple attributes are a more elegant solution than off-attribute minimum requirements.)

 

[Fallen Seraph]

While I don't think it is D&D to not have all 6, I do prefer 3 Ability System.

However, I prefer it though, with the idea that these 3 Major Ability have Sub-Ability below them. Just like how I like Major Skills and below them Sub-Skills.

So with your system, it would be for me:

Major Ability: Brawn Sub Abilities: Strength and Constitution

Major Ability: Technique Sub Abilities: Dexterity and Intelligence

Major Ability: Instinct Sub Abilities: Wisdom and Charisma

So with this general things like the Save Defences can be handled by Major Ability while other things say Skills or Feats/Powers are handled by Sub-Abilities. The Major Ability would give bonuses to the Sub, but for the specific thing the Sub is more important.

 

[Felon]

Hmm....I'm not entirely sure which is diminished.

OK, perhaps this thread is not for you.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I share the OP's distaste for the way they're handling attributes in 4e. Not only does it completely dispense with any sense of believability and verisimilitude, it encourages attribute dumping and min-maxing. I was hoping that in 4e they would further reinforce the different roles of each attribute, while making every attribute as valuable as possible to every class. Instead, what we're getting is the exact opposite. You can now dump 3 of your attributes, leaving them at 8 (or less) without any negative consequence (save for a couple skills). Not only that, some builds, like dextrous Wizards, will be absolutely ludicrous, since Intelligence can substitute for Dexterity for AC and Reflex defense. Want to make a strong ranger? Don't bother. Get Con instead, since it gives you more healing surges, and you apply your Dex instead of Strength to your damage anyway. Want to make a wise Warlock? Don't bother with that either.

And there's also the part about just how utterly ridiculous this all is. Intelligence makes you better at dodging things? And don't give me the "you can calculate the trajectory of the incoming fireball" crap. All the brainpower in the world won't help you move quickly and be well-coordinated. Intelligence is, by its very definition, a *mental* attribute. Using it for physical defenses is about as utterly absurd as anything can get. And even from a game design perspective, this is a bad move, IMO. Why even have 6 different attributes when characters can ignore 3 of them? As the OP said, you might as well just have 3 attributes and be done with it (not that I'd like that either).

This is definately the worst change in 4e, from what I've heard so far. I can rationalize the part about people progressing in every single skill as they level. I can find some dramatic explanation to justify healing surges. I can roll my eyes and simply accept that resting from 6 hours is a cure-all. But this attribute nonsense really crosses the line. Not only does it completely mock verisimilitude, it will lead to cookie-cutter characters to a far greater degree than what we've seen before. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what I can do about it. It's probably something that is so thoroughly ingrained in the system that it can't be house-ruled without a major overhaul (and editing every single monster, NPC, etc in the books).

 

[small pumpkin man]

So the impression that I'm left with is that many if not most characters will wind up with several ability scores worth dumping and one worth pumping as high as it can go bar-no-expense. Once you've chosen a path such as brawny rogue or trickster rogue, the apragmatic build for a given character will be obvious and ubiquitous. To deviate from that build is to trade off a degree of practical effectiveness for conceptual satisfaction.

This thread is for people who share my sentiment of distaste for that kind of trade-off.

What about people who agree that overly cookie cutter characters are a bad idea, but think that you're jumping to conclusions? Who think that having having two abilities tied to the same defense creates a very good "safety net" allowing you give your characters appropriate weaknesses without overly gimping the character, who think that providing "tactics" to emphasize a mechanical stat based choice you've already made is a good idea? Should they "keep out" too?

 

[Felon]

I share your distaste, but disagree with your conclusion. I think the system needs to provide an additional benefit to being both Strong and Healthy, both Smart and Quick or both Wise and Charming. My inclination is to think that there should be feats and class abilities that either require or benefit from high score in both abilities within a pair.

Well, I agree with you as to the system that I'd like to have, but what I'm trying to now is deal with the reality of the hand that we're being dealt.

What about people who agree that overly cookie cutter characters are a bad idea, but think that you're jumping to conclusions? Who think that having having two abilities tied to the same defense creates a very good "safety net" allowing you give your characters appropriate weaknesses without overly gimping the character, who think that providing "tactics" to emphasize a mechanical stat based choice you've already made is a good idea? Should they "keep out" too?

Yes, please. Thanks. In general, most folks don't welcome snark.