|
In one of the earliest 3rd edition articles I read, one of the developers advised against creating feats that required low stats - he wanted to avoid "jar-jar" type situations where it would seem that you were rewarding a character for being stupid/clumsy/Jamaican.
I interpreted that to mean at the time that all the rules of the game should be based on encouraging high ability scores, which would allow balanced point-buy systems to keep the game from going haywire.
I didn't like the 25-point buy system, because that single 18 would cripple your character if it was a certain class, and had no drawbacks if you were another class. So I went with the 72-point system (balanced around the idea of 12 in every stat, total 72 points, minimum 6 in any stat, max 18) which I later took a step further, and said that your racial modifiers couldn't put a stat below 6. (so a dwarf would have to spend 8 points in cha, to get a 6, etc.)
Now I'm looking at the stat system, and thinking, Really, a player should just be able to play a character with low stats and not feel crippled - especially not if someone else in the group can't help but powergame, but they really want to roleplay.
Thus I am beginning Operation Jar-Jar.
The goal is to find some way to give something to players with low stats so that their character is not crippled, and they can play new versions of all the classes they love.
some concepts:
A wizard with a 7 in intelligence is hopelessly forgetful and relies on their spellbook more than other wizards would. They have no choice but to prepare their "normal" allotment of daily spells in the form of scrolls in their spellbook, but for all intents and purposes, they get a save dc appropriate to someone that might have a 14-16 in intel, and can rummage through their packs once a day to find a scroll that might be helpful, where other wizards would just have an extra spell prepared.
A fighter with low strength was once strong, but after pissing off a local witch doctor, he was cursed with low strength. Many trials and tribulations later, having miraculously survived fights he should not have, he's got the hit points to last longer than even the strongest warriors, and can 'spend' some of them for short burst of strength that leave him not only tired, but wounded.
A monk with low wis seeks to learn the many wisdoms of the world through experience, and has memorized many combat moves through study, using int instead of wisdom for a couple monk abilities, and hoping to unlock the powers within through a series of challenges that would kill other lesser beings.
Hopefully You guys can offer suggestions on the idea, maybe even offer help as I round out the stats and balancing for some of this stuff.
|
|
Sword & Sorcery had it's own 'Epic Handbook' that had a set of rules that gave people who had a high stat in one place and a corresponding low stat in another place some sort of minor bonus, but, while it was a neat thought, I felt that it rewarded min-maxing and 'dumping' stats that don't matter as much to your class.
The current point buy system, gaining extra 'points' to buy other stats by taking a 7 in something, already 'rewards' characters to dump stats (or min/max), in a way, and that's about as much incentive as I'm comfortable with.
If I were going to 'reward' a character for a lower than normal stat in a particular area, I'd do it at the table with extra roleplaying opportunities brought about by their spectacular clumsiness or horrible judgement or whatever.
It's not a bad idea.
I would be extremely appalled to see such a rule make it into the core, but I have also played many games where these kinds of characters, and these kinds of character options would be welcome.
Some suggestions:
Reckless: A feat that allows characters with a low wisdom bonus to get better initiative.
Savant: A feat allows characters with a low intelligence bonus to take ten (maybe 20) on a single int-based skill.
Let's see some more suggestions and hold off on the criticism of the OP's idea. If it ain't for you, it ain't for you!
|
|
Operation Jar-Jar, very amusing.
Having recently played a Goblin Druid with a STR of 3, I can understand this. I've also, not very recently, played an Elven Druid with an INT of 6.
Both were incredibly fun to RP to their strengths (pun intended) and weaknesses. But I don't really see the need for granting bonuses to low stats.
I do, however, like the idea of alternative stat-ing for classes. Wizard + Low INT as you describe. Interesting.
Not sure I'd ever do it, but interesting.
+1
For me, Jar-jar characters are amusing so long as they're kept within the context of a Jar-jar campaign. Jar-jar becomes less amusing and more of a problem when things are serious, and the DM is trying to TPK.
Honestly I've always felt that the comic relief should come from the player's role play abilities. Personally I feel rewarding low stat characters in anything but a total Jar-jar campaign is just creating problems for the system
In an all out comic campaign, you would need these feats to offset the horrible ability scores, so that while the scores reflect the incompetence of the PC's the feats activate in a trigger mechanism sort of way to turn disadvantages in advantages. Kinda like missing on an attack roll, but missing so badly that you throw your knife, which misses the orc, but hits the rope holding up the chandelier, causing it to fall upon your enemies, and allowing you to roll for cover/concealment.
Its a Wiley Coyote vs the Road Runner type game where combat is less about skill, and more about luck, situations, and using your poor stats to make the world around you conspire against your enemies.
If that's the context of your game then great, have fun.
But if you're looking to put these mechanics into a game that is not based in comedy, I'd personally think twice. Not only will you be rewarding high stat PCs, but now you're rewarding PCs who min-max their stats by providing advantages to poor ability scores. Now fighter has no reason to to push 18 into his Strength and Con, while dumping his social stats because he can take feats (and now he has plenty of them) to offset the penalties.
So please, just really think about the setting you're going to be using these in. They're fun house rules, so long as you know in advance how they are going to impact your group and campaign.
AK
|
|
For me, Jar-jar characters are amusing so long as they're kept within the context of a Jar-jar campaign. Jar-jar becomes less amusing and more of a problem when things are serious, and the DM is trying to TPK.
Honestly I've always felt that the comic relief should come from the player's role play abilities. Personally I feel rewarding low stat characters in anything but a total Jar-jar campaign is just creating problems for the system
In an all out comic campaign, you would need these feats to offset the horrible ability scores, so that while the scores reflect the incompetence of the PC's the feats activate in a trigger mechanism sort of way to turn disadvantages in advantages. Kinda like missing on an attack roll, but missing so badly that you throw your knife, which misses the orc, but hits the rope holding up the chandelier, causing it to fall upon your enemies, and allowing you to roll for cover/concealment.
Its a Wiley Coyote vs the Road Runner type game where combat is less about skill, and more about luck, situations, and using your poor stats to make the world around you conspire against your enemies.
If that's the context of your game then great, have fun.
But if you're looking to put these mechanics into a game that is not based in comedy, I'd personally think twice. Not only will you be rewarding high stat PCs, but now you're rewarding PCs who min-max their stats by providing advantages to poor ability scores. Now fighter has no reason to to push 18 into his Strength and Con, while dumping his social stats because he can take feats (and now he has plenty of them) to offset the penalties.
So please, just really think about the setting you're going to be using these in. They're fun house rules, so long as you know in advance how they are going to impact your group and campaign.
AK
Doesn't sound like you guys are getting the gist of it.
It's not intended to reward characters for creating characters that shouldn't exist, but to help find creative outputs for characters, and to eliminate the need to have high stats to create a character.
What I'm aiming for is something like this:
If you're making a fighter, and your strength is...
6: you gain weapon finesse as a bonus feat and you become immune to strength ability score damage.
7-8: You can, a few times a day, treat your strength score as if it were much higher, perhaps at the cost of hp. Also, strength ability damage done to you is halved, rounded down.
9-10: You can as a special power, use your charisma or dex score instead of strength a few times per combat.
11-12: You aren't that tough but you gain bonuses to attack and damage versus certain enemies, or when attacking from higher ground, or during certain phases of the moon, etc.
13-14: You gain bonuses to skill checks for being more of a skilled warrior than a strongarm. Essentially, you played hookie away from fighter school one too many days. +2 skill points, or something like that.
Anything beyond that, and your fighter won't be suffering at all. This system would allow you to create fighters that weren't ruled by stats.
As an added bonus, you could give the character +1d4 hp for each strength category below what you'd consider optimum.
not for every game. ;)
For me, Jar-jar characters are amusing so long as they're kept within the context of a Jar-jar campaign. Jar-jar becomes less amusing and more of a problem when things are serious, and the DM is trying to TPK.
Honestly I've always felt that the comic relief should come from the player's role play abilities. Personally I feel rewarding low stat characters in anything but a total Jar-jar campaign is just creating problems for the system
In an all out comic campaign, you would need these feats to offset the horrible ability scores, so that while the scores reflect the incompetence of the PC's the feats activate in a trigger mechanism sort of way to turn disadvantages in advantages. Kinda like missing on an attack roll, but missing so badly that you throw your knife, which misses the orc, but hits the rope holding up the chandelier, causing it to fall upon your enemies, and allowing you to roll for cover/concealment.
Its a Wiley Coyote vs the Road Runner type game where combat is less about skill, and more about luck, situations, and using your poor stats to make the world around you conspire against your enemies.
If that's the context of your game then great, have fun.
But if you're looking to put these mechanics into a game that is not based in comedy, I'd personally think twice. Not only will you be rewarding high stat PCs, but now you're rewarding PCs who min-max their stats by providing advantages to poor ability scores. Now fighter has no reason to to push 18 into his Strength and Con, while dumping his social stats because he can take feats (and now he has plenty of them) to offset the penalties.
So please, just really think about the setting you're going to be using these in. They're fun house rules, so long as you know in advance how they are going to impact your group and campaign.
AK
Doesn't sound like you guys are getting the gist of it.
It's not intended to reward characters for creating characters that shouldn't exist, but to help find...
No I get the gist of it. Just saying be careful. The math of the 3.5 system was never designed to be beneficial to PCs with low stats. When you create mechanics that turn these disadvantages into benefits you're changing the game on a fundamental level. Like any experiment this works best if you and said PCs are aware that these new "house rules" should be subject to change should unforeseen problems develop.
I wish you the best of luck with this endeavor.
I've experimented with changing fundamental aspects of the D&D game myself, but mine was tinkering with alignment rules, and that was messy enough. We more or less decided to give relative alignment a try. (This is Alignment bases on what society perceives as the norm. Thus in a culture where rape, incest, murder ect are normal, these actions fall under "Lawful Good", and your "Paladin" just became that societies "black guard" as he stands for the antithesis of everything they believe in). The results were mixed if anything. Honestly under this system alignment almost goes out the window because what society decrees as its norms, may differ from your characters perceived views of right and wrong.
It became less about alignment and more about personal/social codes of behavior.
We've also tried throwing alignment out and replacing it with World of Darkness aspects such as: Nature and Demeanor.
(for those who don't know)
-Nature: Whom your character is on the inside. Your own personal beliefs, ect. Its what makes up your core personality.
-Demeanor: The external view of you that is presented to the world. This can vary drastically from your nature. Thus you can get people who first seem very cruel, cold and rude, but underneath they are truly caring people.
The problem always came down to the rules, because Alignment was one several fundamental systems that the game is based on. The moment you change it, it effects class features, spells, ect.
In a lot of ways you're doing the same thing, but on an even more basic scale because you're tinkering with how the math of the system works. Like I said, this can be a lot of fun :), just be aware that these types of changes often have a ripple effect which is not seen at first. So just keep your eyes open for any problems, and be willing to change what was first conceived as a great idea.
But in general I do like this idea, just pursue it with a bit of caution.
like anything with D&D I say follow these guidelines and you really can't go wrong:
-If it doesn't work in your world, bend it.
-If it still doesn't work in your world, break it.
-If it still doesn't work in your world, pick up book, toss over shoulder and make it up as you go.
-The rules and books are all just guidelines.
So have fun
-AK
|
|
Savant: A feat allows characters with a low intelligence bonus to take ten (maybe 20) on a single int-based skill.
Contradicting my previous opinion ('cause it's a new day, so I can have a totally different opinion now), I love the idea of a Savant feat or Trait that allows someone with a crappy score in one attribute to use another attribute for that one skill.
Intuitive Understanding (Wis-based Knowledge skill for someone with an Int 9 or less) or Menacing Brute (Str-based Intimidate for someone with Cha 9 or less) or Agile Climber / Swimmer (Dex-based Climb, or Swim, or whatever, for someone with a Str 9 or less) would be cool options. Not even Feat worthy, really, I'd probably make them Traits.
|
|
Oh, definitely, Kane. This isn't something to take lightly, especially if there are powergamers in the party.
Undoubtedly the sheer amount of game mechanics built on the idea of mandatory high stats will cause the endeavor to fail, But I'll try and work stuff into the system to compensate.
I mean what kind of fighter could ever live without power attack? it's not just powerful on its own, it's a prerequisite for other feats, and it requires str 13. Crazy stuff like that, people won't be able to see when they're creating their character. Especially not if, later on, the party ends up fighting something like a gelatinous cube, where that power attack becomes all plus, and might actually be necessary for the fight.
Still, it should present some interesting low-level interactions. If nothing else, it allows a player to build a much more interesting character, which would later get the gear and enhancements needed to be on equal footing.
I was considering working out a fighter "spell" system like in 4e, where they pick and choose special attacks that they'd use instead of regular old swing, and I was considering taking the character's strength, dex, int, and wisdom, and using all 4 of those modifiers to determine how many special abilities a player would be able to purchase. In the event that a player had a low ability score in one area, that would come with a free ability appropriate to it (like the things I mentioned above) and so a player with low total stats wouldn't be suffering from less abilities, they'd get a few that were mandatory, plus some extras.
technically a character with a 6 in everything but con or cha would be most likely a sorcerer, so I'd have to worry about giving them too many abilities that would be all plus.
Also, alignment is a very touchy subject. There are players who can't seem to grasp thaht it's a cartoony way of describing whether someone's a good guy or a bad guy.
You can just do what I do, if anyone brings up an alignment-based argument, just start chewing on a few brains, and they'll eventually shut up. All plus.
Being in the field of computer programming, it's very easy for me to see the difference between a very lawful person and a very chaotic person. Just take a look at the source code. Comments, braces, and nicely-organized code? lawful. Braces don't line up? indentation off? lots of quickly-hammered out quick fixes to get something working? No way to tell why the compiler does what it does? Chaotic.
Which pretty much leaves aeveryone as neutral or chaotic. It's all just zeroes and ones, man! ZEROES AND ONES. And nobody gets it! *Mind Blast*
4e's alignments changes pissed me off. except the "unaligned" thing. That was the best they could have done.
|
I do like the concept of "max level stat" feats. This wouldn't be a reward for running what would normally be a character who would best be served as fodder, but could be more of a response to those feats that require exceptionally high stat requirements.
The savant and reckless feats are good examples. Sure, my character has a 6 INT and wouldn't know brick if it hit him, but in one area, he may absolutely shine.
The biggest problem I see with this concept though is if a player uses the bonus ability points as they advance in level in that stat, or it is magically raised, and exceed the "upper max". Do they lose the feat? Do they keep the feat even though they are no longer in the group to which it would apply. The same question applies to magic items or spells granted a temporary increase to a stat (cat's grace, etc). This would be a scenario completely unlike the current feat system (with the exception of certain class aspects ... monks, I'm looking at you). Though it is possible to lose ability points to drain, those points can be returned by a restoration spell, so it is a slightly different scenario there.
I guess I'm too used to the idea that adventuring heroes should be of somewhat heroic proportion - not superhuman or flawless, certainly, but generally in better condition than your average pig farmer or street urchin.
To me, a character who can barely comprehend language, is oblivious to the world around them, who can't cross a room without difficulty, and is prone to fatigue and sickness, wouldn't be much fun to play.
|
|
I guess I'm too used to the idea that adventuring heroes should be of somewhat heroic proportion - not superhuman or flawless, certainly, but generally in better condition than your average pig farmer or street urchin.
To me, a character who can barely comprehend language, is oblivious to the world around them, who can't cross a room without difficulty, and is prone to fatigue and sickness, wouldn't be much fun to play.
No, no ... I envision these feats would be more along the lines for developing a hero character along the lines of Groo or the Tick.
Honestly, I think what the problem is is the point-buy system.
Point-buy is fine for making balanced characters relative to the other members of the party, but encourages min-maxing, because every point counts. By definition, you have to have a "dump stat" and there's no space for various classic concepts.
One of the classics is the character who would make a superb X but due to family expectations, vows, or personal desires, is pursuing another class and is not planning to immediately switch to their optimal class for min-max powergaming reasons.
My solution is to go old school 1st ed for character creation, tell players to tell me what character class and concept they want to play, then have them roll their stats up in order. I then as DM declare whether the "coathanger of the gods" will be used on a particular character.
The result? Characters that read more like real people, with unexpected strengths and unexpected weaknesses.
|
|
I guess I'm too used to the idea that adventuring heroes should be of somewhat heroic proportion - not superhuman or flawless, certainly, but generally in better condition than your average pig farmer or street urchin.
To me, a character who can barely comprehend language, is oblivious to the world around them, who can't cross a room without difficulty, and is prone to fatigue and sickness, wouldn't be much fun to play.
This is why I set the bare minimum to 6. There's plenty of room to say "Int 2 is bestial, int 3 is the dumbest sack of bricks in a big pile of bricks, int 4 is about what you'd expect of a genetically superior rock, bred for intelligence, int 5 is about where an npc orc incapable of telling friend from foe, int 6 is dumb but definitely not on the bottom of the ladder, fully capable of seeing friends for what they are and contributing to the team, but definitely, DEFINITELY someone that every once in a while would make your skin crawl with something stupid they say, and that's the bare minimum I'd expect out of a playable character."
of course, I tend to associate intelligence with memory (including memorized languages, skills, and encyclopedic knowledge, example: Dr. Sheldon Cooper)
and Wisdom is creativity, quick-wittedness, and the ability to use something for non-intended purposes or to reinvent the wheel on the fly (example: Jackie Chan)
Charisma is a completely internal superforce that causes you to radiate a supernatural aura of empathy, which makes you appear more beautiful and intimidating to all beings. example: me. You may worship me now, fetch me more brain-bons.
But anyways, yeah, I can see people reacting with distaste to anyone that makes their character deliberately flawed, but I can see it creating a much more memorable character and party.
I tend to have lots of fun creating characters and I'm working on a "pallette" of 18 human characters, two of each alignment, 9 pseudohuman characters (genasi, tieflings, aasimars, elves, dwarves, etc.), one of each alignment, and 9 'weird' characters (like goblins, half-orcs, dryads, animated suits of armor, half-ghouls, dopplegangers without their shapeshift, etc.), one of each alignment.
Those characters, complete with bio and an explanation of their alignment, will serve as guidelines for characters to make their own. And for most of them I was going to use stuff like the system above to make them illustrate how not to break it.
Well, it's not so much that characters have a deliberate flaw, but that there's an expectation of benefitting from it. A flaw should be a flaw, not a disguised benefit.
Well, it's not so much that characters have a deliberate flaw, but that there's an expectation of benefitting from it. A flaw should be a flaw, not a disguised benefit.
In the core rules, yes.
I see room for this kind of rule in a certain kind of game, though.
I think this thread should focus on what works with this idea and new ideas, not just tearing down the concept.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I seem to remember somewhere (perhaps an old Dragon magazine article) where there was a class of items called "charms." They were like low-level magic items, giving bonuses on saves, curing ailments, etc.
However in order to use them, a character had to *fail* a will save. The idea being that the item actually wasn't magical, but if the character *believed* it was, they would get a placebo-like bonus.
Well, I think the trouble is that there are "Flaws" and then there are "Mixed Blessings."
The "Traits" from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana worked this way, with a plus to this and a minus to that.
Even point buy basically does this: You take Flaws to get extra points to spend on Feats.
What the OP is proposing is basically a system where if your class's main stat is below a certain threshold, there's a certain benefit.
Take for example Draco Malfoy: Not the most brilliant wizarding student ever, but he has a huge perk in that daddy has money and can buy his way into anything he needs.
Looking at it in Pathfinder terms, there has to be a reason why a wizard with a 9 Intelligence would go into wizardry. Maybe he's from a magical bloodline and gets a free Magical Aptitude feat. Maybe it's a variant of "Daddy haz $$$" and he gets an allowance from his family every level to buy spells and expensive material components. Maybe it's both. Yeah, it's fine to have the great schools of wizardry be pure towers of learning and art, taking only the best and the brightest, but once these castles aren't floating on clouds but are instead rooted in real world soil with all its problems, you're going to find the same realities as any university. There will be substandard students, kids whose parents bought their way in, kids who really aren't academic material except that they have some particular talent in one area, kids who are basically mediocre but driven, and so on.
Now personally I think that stuff like this can be accomplished with old school stat rolling, but if you want to do it with point buy instead, you simply have the DM award feats of his choosing to characters with suboptimal stat distribution for their given class.
There are also some house rules that might be applied. For example, Spell Focus might reasonably raise your ability to learn spells of a particular school even if your main stat is not up to the task, like with the dead average kid who's still amazingly good at one particular thing through a combination of talent and hard work.
Of course, this may break "point buy" but let's face it: Given the same number of points, it is possible to build some characters who are more optimal than others. Giving bonuses to the suboptimal ones is fine so long as you don't go overboard.
Doesn't sound like you guys are getting the gist of it.
It's not intended to reward characters for creating characters that shouldn't exist, but to help find creative outputs for characters, and to eliminate the need to have high stats to create a character.
What I'm aiming for is something like this:
If you're making a fighter, and your strength is...
6: you gain weapon finesse as a bonus feat and you become immune to strength ability score damage.
7-8: You can, a few times a day, treat your strength score as if it were much higher, perhaps at the cost of hp. Also, strength ability damage done to you is halved, rounded down.
9-10: You can as a special power, use your charisma or dex score instead of strength a few times per combat.
11-12: You aren't that tough but you gain bonuses to attack and damage versus certain enemies, or when attacking from higher ground, or during certain phases of the moon, etc.
13-14: You gain bonuses to skill checks for being more of a skilled warrior than a strongarm. Essentially, you played hookie away from fighter school one too many days. +2 skill points, or something like that.
Anything beyond that, and your fighter won't be suffering at all. This system would allow you to create fighters that weren't ruled by stats.
As an added bonus, you could give the character +1d4 hp for each strength category below what you'd consider optimum.
If I recall correctly, Twilight 2000 had something similar -- the worse your stats were, the more skill points you got. So you could try a similar thing with stats and feats:
- If your character has no stat above 16, you get a free feat.
- If your character has no stat above 14, you get two free feats.
- If your character has no stat above 12, you get two free feats and some cool ability.
etc.
(Side note: For the only Twilight 2000 game I played in, the GM decided that characters with high stats should have MORE skill points, not less. So my character ended up being an ugly, stupid midget with no skills. :-)
|
Can't say I'd recommend this for a point-buy campaign, for the reasons listed above (encouraging more dump-stats, by mitigating the drawbacks).
If you're playing point-buy, and someone can't bear having a low stat, then he shouldn't take one. Simple as that. It's his choice to take one, so as to bump another. So he should live with the consequences of his own choices.
In campaigns with rolled stats, that's another matter entirely.
The player has no input in the result, except to maybe choose one set over another, and swap their order.
Rolling for stats does result in parties with large variation in scores. In a mature, friendly, cooperative group, this isn't a problem, but in a game with lots of Player-vs-Player action, or when one of the players wants to be a spotlight hog, envy and disillusionment could set in.
In games where stats are rolled, it could be worthwhile calculating how many points would have been spent, if the PCs had been point-buy, subtracting that from some suitably unlikely score (like say 40 point-buy), and converting the result to a pool of points that could be spent on benefits, to reflect dumb luck, fated destiny, or kindly guardian angel looking over his shoulder.
Options like:
More starting cash (you survived so long by having better gear)
Circumstance bonus on some social skill (people overlook your shortcomings due to your breeding)
Action Points
More skill points
Ability to spend over your level on a skill (2 ranks at level 1, etc)
XP bonus (+%age over time, not one-off)
NOT bonus ability scores! (Kind of defeats the point, really).
Which of these options people like, and how much these should cost can be tweaked, but it should be a way to give a helping hand to someone playing a crappy-statted PC through no fault of their own, rather than give players more of a reason to blindly stick an 18 in their prime stat, and sod the rest.
In games where stats are rolled, it could be worthwhile calculating how many points would have been spent, if the PCs had been point-buy, subtracting that from some suitably unlikely score (like say 40 point-buy), and converting the result to a pool of points that could be spent on benefits, to reflect dumb luck, fated destiny, or kindly guardian angel looking over his shoulder.
My game I have everyone roll up stats, but I then have them add them up and tell me what the total value is. Truly awful stats will be offered a chance to swap with what the DM rolls, and merely eh stats may be allowed to switch one or two stats around or add a couple points to one. Really superlative stats, on the other hand, get to be played as rolled, even if they're not the most optimal arrangement. Having a wizard with a 17 strength can be highly entertaining and unexpectedly useful.
In one of the earliest 3rd edition articles I read, one of the developers advised against creating feats that required low stats - he wanted to avoid "jar-jar" type situations where it would seem that you were rewarding a character for being stupid/clumsy/Jamaican.
I interpreted that to mean at the time that all the rules of the game should be based on encouraging high ability scores, which would allow balanced point-buy systems to keep the game from going haywire.
Clarification:
That was from the "How to Design a Feat" article by Jonathan Tweet and myself.The point was that you shouldn't allow feats that require a character to have a low stat, such as "Stupidly Brave, you're too stupid to know when you should be afraid, +4 on all fear saves, Prerequisite: Intelligence less than 9."
Also, I think you're confusing that with a separate point of the article, which was, "It's better to have a feat with easy prerequisites than difficult ones, because that means more characters can take it, and the characters who really need it aren't excluded from its benefits; it might make sense that only a high-Dex character could take Lightning Reflexes, but the low-Dex character is the one who needs that feat, as the high-Dex character already has a good Ref save; you could always explain the low-Dex character stumbling around and accidentally dodging out of the way of various attacks, a.k.a. "the Jar-Jar effect."
Here's the thinking behind the original point of the section you're quoting:
If you create a feat such a Stupidly Brave, you're allowing low-Intelligence characters to take that feat, but not high-Intelligence characters. So you may be creating a situation where a superior character is actually worse at something than an inferior character. Which seems weird.
And if you allow the high-Int character to take a different feat with the same game effect, like "Logically Brave, your brilliant intellect lets you push aside fear and confront challenges with your mind, not your primitive instinct, +4 on all fear saves, Prerequisite: Intelligence 13+" you've created two feats with the same game effect (+4 on fear saves). It's redundant. You should just make one feat, "Extreme Bravery, +4 on all fear saves," and not bother restricting it to high- or low-Int characters. Just like how we have Lightning Reflexes, which anyone can take, regardless of whether they're clumsy or agile.
I now return you to your actual discussion, which doesn't really have anything to do with the How to Design a Feat article... I just wanted y'all to understand the reasoning behind it.
|
|
... So you may be creating a situation where a superior character is actually worse at something than an inferior character. Which seems weird...
Aha! (and holy crap I aggroed the big guy!)
See, my thinking here is that it's just wrong to have one clear-cut build that's best for a character.With random stats, every player always feels cheated except the guy that chose to play a class that only needs one stat, who is polishing and caressing his shiny 18. He doesn't have to worry about anything because all his other stats are icing on the cake. If he's a sorcerer, with an 18 and 5 3's, he's set. He'll do just as well as one that had 6 18's.
With point-buy, every player absolutely must put their points into their class correctly, because a single point put into the wrong attribute costs them tons, not to mention that on a class-by-class basis, a class like sorcerer could do fine with an 18, but a paladin could never spend points like that, and requires high stats in at least 4 areas. Thus, even the point buy system favors certain classes (and eliminates possibilities for certain character concepts).
However, if characters get something to compensate for lower stats, players might even be willing to roll their 3d6 in order, just to see what they get, since that wouldn't create crippled characters.
I mean honestly, if you play a level one caster, and your prime ability stat is less than 18, you're a failure, and willingly suffering a massive penalty to all your rolls. There should be something out there to make up for that so that casters aren't railroaded into playing the same character every time.
It's like the olde-timey He-Man figures, where they changed the color of the props on the figures to disguise the fact that nearly half of the figures they sold were recolored figures used for another guy.
|
I mean honestly, if you play a level one caster, and your prime ability stat is less than 18, you're a failure, and willingly suffering a massive penalty to all your rolls.
(I think you're being purposely hyperbolic here, but I'm going to respond as if you were being serious, just for argument's sake)
Really? "Woe is me, I'm a first-level wizard with naught but a lowly 16 Intelligence!" Rubbish. I'm fairly certain all the 3.x adventures were based around an assumed party of four adventurers (cleric, rogue, fighter, wizard) all built using the elite array (8,10,11,12,14,16). Now, in Pathfinder, it is possible to get a +2 to your spellcasting stat by selecting the right race, thus opening the possibility of an elite array elven wizard with an 18 Int...but I can't imagine Pathfinder has changed things so much from 3.x that the wizard would be a "failure" if he had a 16 or 17 instead.EDIT: I just realized I was misremembering the elite array. It's actually (8,10,12,13,14,15), which has a lower maximum score than I had thought. So, actually, even in Pathfinder, where you can get a racial +2 to your casting stat, an elven wizard wouldn't even be able to have an 18 Int at first level (assuming we're using the elite array, which is supposedly the basis for the iconics and the adventure paths).
Personally, it's my belief that the "I must have the maximum casting stat possible to be competent" mindset grew out of the char-op/min-max environment of 3.x message boards, and that it can be detrimental to game balance (i.e. "power creep") as well as personal play experience.
It's like the olde-timey He-Man figures, where they changed the color of the props on the figures to disguise the fact that nearly half of the figures they sold were recolored figures used for another guy.
"Olde-timey" doesn't even enter into it. Have you seen some of the recent D&D Miniatures? "Meet the new mold; same as the old mold."
|
|
I mean honestly, if you play a level one caster, and your prime ability stat is less than 18, you're a failure, and willingly suffering a massive penalty to all your rolls.(I think you're being purposely hyperbolic here...
*snip* yes.
However, you're talking about a whopping 20% increase to just about all your bonuses from going with an 18 in the ONE stat you need, to a 20.Going from a 16 to an 18 is 25%.
Going from 15 to 17 is 33%.
And this is THE bonus for your class. I mean If someone asked you if you wanted to increase your dps by 1/3rd, what would you say?
Granted it's not quite that drastic an effect, but when you're rolling to see if you paralyze them or they kill you, each and every point is just too precious to give.
It's like giving someone a free feat if they spend their ability scores wisely, but there's no 'skill' behind that. Just like tic-tac-toe, if you do it wrong, you're doing it wrong, because there IS a right answer.
"Olde-timey" doesn't even enter into it. Have you seen some of the recent D&D Miniatures? "Meet the new mold; same as the old mold."
If you're referring to stuff like the chainmail minis being re-used for the D&D miniatures, it's not the same. (those actually got cheaper, factoring out randomness and cost of paint and time)
The he-man figures were literally the same model, but one was painted a different color and called a different character from the show.
I suppose my rants are just too out there for you guys.
What I want is to be able to build a character, look at the difference between that character and a "better" version of the same character, and get a rough estimate of what kind of feats, abilities, skills, or other traits I'd have to add to the weaker one to balance it out, without having to go in and perform surgery on the characters to make sure one doesn't blow everybody else out of the water.
|
|
"Olde-timey" doesn't even enter into it. Have you seen some of the recent D&D Miniatures? "Meet the new mold; same as the old mold."If you're referring to stuff like the chainmail minis being re-used for the D&D miniatures, it's not the same. (those actually got cheaper, factoring out randomness and cost of paint and time)
The he-man figures were literally the same model, but one was painted a different color and called a different character from the show.
No, I'm talking about 4e DDM using the same molds from original DDM. I haven't bought any in a while, so when I checked out the new ones last week, I was surprised to recognize 4 or 5 of the figures...just with different paint.
What I want is to be able to build a character, look at the difference between that character and a "better" version of the same character, and get a rough estimate of what kind of feats, abilities, skills, or other traits I'd have to add to the weaker one to balance it out, without having to go in and perform surgery on the characters to make sure one doesn't blow everybody else out of the water.
Have you thought about using magic items as a baseline? Look at what it costs for a magic item that grants ability score bonuses compared to ones that grant virtual-feats or skill bonuses. It wouldn't be exact, but it's a place to start.
|
|
What I want is to be able to build a character, look at the difference between that character and a "better" version of the same character, and get a rough estimate of what kind of feats, abilities, skills, or other traits I'd have to add to the weaker one to balance it out, without having to go in and perform surgery on the characters to make sure one doesn't blow everybody else out of the water.Have you thought about using magic items as a baseline? Look at what it costs for a magic item that grants ability score bonuses compared to ones that grant virtual-feats or skill bonuses. It wouldn't be exact, but it's a place to start.
That's brilliant. I should have known it would be very simple. I'll let you know how well it goes, but it'll be a while before I can test it.
if you play in a game were you roll your stats you really don't have a choice some times to have a dump stat and second I've always like the idea of max stat feats, I've had an idea for a feat that gives you a better bonus to will saves for having a low int. coming from the idea that your so thick headed that your mind is distant but that's just me