Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9317853" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I am a strong proponent of what soviet mentions. If the fundamental thing a character is good at is gated behind a specific attribute, then all members of that character-type will have that stat very high*. If other game-central components like HP and vital saves also are gated by attributes, then there will often be very little variation even in second- and third-highest stats. EDIT: And thus you end up with very little variety in character implementation, which I think is why people want attributes in the first place. I would much prefer a system where class choice and level determined 80%+ of how good you were at doing the things that class regularly did. Attributes could then be devoted to those character-defining qualities other people mention (maybe through skills, or other qualities secondary to the main game loops, such as encumbrance, natural healing, or languages known). Want a traditional brawler type fighter? Give them high Str and have them break down doors and carry everyone's stuff. Want instead a Taran the pig-handler from the Chronicles of Prydain (or a non-anthro Puss in Boots)? Give them a weak-to-moderate Str but side attributes like Wis/Cha or skills like Animal Handling/Deception. By actually decoupling the two, you can** play to type, against type, or orthogonal to it. *with 'how high?' a question of optimization and opportunity-cost**reasonably. I know someone has played a low-int wizard or low str/dex/con fighter in 5e and it turned out alright.With regards to OP's idea of removing attributes and instead adding qualities, I'm not wholly against it. While I think it is important to know if your fighter is a hulking bruiser or a lithe tiger or a fighter or a thinker or a charmer, I don't know that affixing a relative numeric scale to the side of it is overly important. Things like Bugbear/Goliath's powerful build honestly speak more to me about a character's brawniness than a number does. I certainly don't feel I know what two distinct stats both in the 'low', 'mid', or 'high' bands are supposed to feel like (how does a 16 Int differ from an 18? or worse, how does 18 differ from 19?). That said, it (getting rid of the numbers and building a bunch of "qualities") is another step that maybe isn't needed. I guess my position changes based on whether we are theoretically updating 5e or theoretically making a 5e replacement.</blockquote>

Verification