Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Trimming the Fat: Three Ability Scores
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 4087988" data-attributes="member: 8158"><p>I've heard that AC, Reflex, Fort, and Will Defenses are going to allow for cherry-picking between the best of two different scores (Dex or Int for Reflex and AC, Con or Str for Fort, Wis or Cha for Will). I also see in our preview builds that the various powers seem to allow classes to function largely off of one ability score. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Now, my thoughts on the matter of ability scores has always been that they should be more than a conceptual descriptor for a character--after all, you could have twenty or fifty general descriptors that could be considered applicable to all characters. There's got to be a better reason to bother assigning a numeric value to it. If an ability score isn't providing some general value to any character that invests in it, then the justification for that ability score to exist independently of other ability scores is in question. This leads me to think that there might be some room for streamlining in 4e. </p><p></p><p>Taking a cue from how defenses are distributed in 4e, let's try slimming down from six to three ability scores:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> One that condenses the functions of Strength and Constitution. I tentatively call it <strong>Brawn</strong>. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> One that combines the functions of Dexterity and Intelligence. This was a tough one for me, but I think <strong>Technique</strong> covers both physical coordination and analytical thinking. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> One that combines Wisdom and Charisma. Still a little undecided, but I'm currently going with <strong>Instinct</strong> since it denotes both passive perception and active projection of attitude.</li> </ul><p></p><p>I'm wondering if this will fly at the game table, so I'm running it up the flagpole here. Incidentally, I try to stay up-to-date on 4e news, but I am never going to be as in-the-loop as some folks in this forum, so please feel free to enlighten if I'm working from old, inaccurate data.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Felon, post: 4087988, member: 8158"] I've heard that AC, Reflex, Fort, and Will Defenses are going to allow for cherry-picking between the best of two different scores (Dex or Int for Reflex and AC, Con or Str for Fort, Wis or Cha for Will). I also see in our preview builds that the various powers seem to allow classes to function largely off of one ability score. 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. Now, my thoughts on the matter of ability scores has always been that they should be more than a conceptual descriptor for a character--after all, you could have twenty or fifty general descriptors that could be considered applicable to all characters. There's got to be a better reason to bother assigning a numeric value to it. If an ability score isn't providing some general value to any character that invests in it, then the justification for that ability score to exist independently of other ability scores is in question. This leads me to think that there might be some room for streamlining in 4e. Taking a cue from how defenses are distributed in 4e, let's try slimming down from six to three ability scores: [list][*] One that condenses the functions of Strength and Constitution. I tentatively call it [B]Brawn[/B]. [*] One that combines the functions of Dexterity and Intelligence. This was a tough one for me, but I think [B]Technique[/B] covers both physical coordination and analytical thinking. [*] One that combines Wisdom and Charisma. Still a little undecided, but I'm currently going with [B]Instinct[/B] since it denotes both passive perception and active projection of attitude. [/list] I'm wondering if this will fly at the game table, so I'm running it up the flagpole here. Incidentally, I try to stay up-to-date on 4e news, but I am never going to be as in-the-loop as some folks in this forum, so please feel free to enlighten if I'm working from old, inaccurate data. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Trimming the Fat: Three Ability Scores
Top