|
Since the first time I played D&D (and any similar system) over ten years ago to now, I have hated Strength and Constitution.
It doesn't make any sense. Why would a guy who is built like a brick house not be able to take a hit, or better yet, how can a little geek of a guy be able to take a fireball straight to the chest and live?
It doesn't make any sense, and it is a mechanic that I find old and funky. While I am sure many of you will leap to it's defense with any number of explanations, I am more interested in discussing a game mechanic I've been using for over two years now with no consequences:
Physique.
The Ability Scores Physique and Constitution have been combined into one score called Physique. For the purposes of what Strength and Constitution did, Physique does it all.
Simple, right? And when it comes to spells like bull's strength plus bear's endurance, think of it like this: Normally, if you cast Bull's Strength on yourself twice, does it stack? No, of course not, it just resets. Same principle here.
But, that eliminates a physical ability score, and a bit of an unbalance.
Well, the other problem I've had since day one was Strength being what you used to hit in melee with. How does that make sense? Did the game developers every actually fight each other? When you hit a guy, it isn't because you put more muscle behind it, it's because you used what we attribute to the dexterity score.
The Armor system also makes no sense. Armor usually doesn't make a blow not hit, but it does make it hurt less.
First, I make armor and natural armor work as a Damage Reduction. Simple.
Next, we make melee attacks (not damage) based on a Dexterity based attribute.
I split Dexterity into two attributes:
Agility
&
Coordination
Agility is your ability to move your whole body in quick, precise motions.
Coordination is your hand-eye coordination.
Think of it this way, if it helps: RaW, Dexterity says a person who is good at video games is also good at being an Acrobat. Well, that certainly doesn't make sense. So, we split it up.
Now, however, the general AC of all characters has fallen quite a bit. So, I bring in one final Attribute.
Luck.
This is one I am still playing with, but for now, I've been adding it's modifier to the players' AC and, if using action points, adding it's modifier to how many action points you receive at each level.
*Breathes*
Thoughts and comments please?
|
Constitution - Marathon runners come to mind. They can go forever but definitely are not built like a brick house. I view constituion as endurance not brick housiness.
Strength - Go swing a 20 lb hammer; it takes strength to hit accurately.
I do agree though that a strong person should be able to shrug off hits better than a weak person. Maybe take a page out of Hero and have (STR Bonus + CON Bonus)/2 be the modifier to HPs.
Dex I have no problem the way it is.
Just my thoughts, but feel free to play the way you like :]
|
|
Strength - Go swing a 20 lb hammer; it takes strength to hit accurately.
No, it takes strength to lift the thing. It takes hand-eye coordination to actually hit a moving target. No matter how hard you swing, if you are very clumsy, you won't hit a thing. You could even miss the broadside of a barnyard if your depth perception isn't good. But boy can you swing at it.
Anyways, I am more interested in talking about mechanics and possible balance issues than what it means to be strong or agile.
|
I think they used strength as the ability to hit because they wanted one attribute to determine melee attack and damage. It's just simple.
I have no problem with the attributes as they are, but some of the other things you have suggested have been houseruled before- The armor as DR and such. I toyed around with the notion of using a Class-Based Defense system and Armor as DR, but my warlock player rebelled because that meant touch AC's were going to go up. This would also be an issue with what you suggest, as it seems like the only way that your AC will go up is through things that raise your touch AC as well. This will have a major impact on people that use rays or melee touch attacks, which generally have low bonuses due to the low BAB of classes that use these.
In my experience, it's actually training that really kicks in for attempting to hit something. Strength is a starting point, because the lighter it seems (to you as a person, based off of your strength), the easier it is to aim. From there, Training takes over (which is your BAB). It definitely takes a different kind of aiming in ranged verses melee, wouldn't you agree? That's why it's covered by different stats, and also why there is an option for finesse fighters in the form of a feat if they want to use their Dex for melee.
|
|
So luck as a "stat" effectively is used in non action point games as a mathematical adjustment to AC discrepancies, am I reading that right? Does it serve no other purpose?
Edit:
The vast majority of your breakdown makes sense to me as something that was done at one point in a game I played during my AD&D days: each major stat has two derivative stats that changed your values for the keyed stats (like Strength was related to damage and load capacity and you could have a character who could carry more but didn't hit as hard r some such thing...) I think that was from a Player's Option book but I can't remember which one...
I find the concept interesting but I would need to know more about which new stat affects -what- to really comment effectively.
|
|
This would also be an issue with what you suggest, as it seems like the only way that your AC will go up is through things that raise your touch AC as well. This will have a major impact on people that use rays or melee touch attacks, which generally have low bonuses due to the low BAB of classes that use these.
Ah, yes I addressed this issue with ease (I think) with wands. I allowed ranged touch attacks to be made with/through wands, which can then be given an enchantment bonus like any other weapon. It's worked out so far.
So luck as a "stat" effectively is used in non action point games as a mathematical adjustment to AC discrepancies, am I reading that right? Does it serve no other purpose?
Oh yeah! I love using it to see how lucky a character is. I use it to see if the player gets lucky and the guard is asleep, or the goblin forgot his crossbow, or just to see which character the dragon attacks first. I have also been thinking of adding it to saving throws, but I haven't done this yet. It does sound a little powerful, but the goose/gander rule applies. However, it would make the other saving throw stats look a little less appealing, so I'm still debating this.
I find the concept interesting but I would need to know more about which new stat affects -what-
Well, Physique is the easiest to explain. It effects melee and thrown weapon damage, Fortitude Saves, Climb, Swim, and hit points, and anything else Strength or Constitution affected, except for Climb, which is now affected by Agility. Physique measures your character’s raw physical power and endurance.
Agility affects armor class (as dexterity did), melee attack rolls, Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Ride, Stealth, Initiative and Reflex saves. Agility represent your character's balance, limberness, gross motor abilities and reaction time. Characters who can climb well or walk a tightrope has a high Agility score.
Coordination affects ranged attack rolls, Disable Device, Escape Artist and Sleight of Hand. Coordination is a measure of fine motor skills, manual dexterity, and hand-eye coordination. A character who is a great shot or can easily pick a lock has a high coordination.
The splitting of Dexterity seems to hose rogues a bit more when it comes to attributes. I initially thought the same of Monks, but consolidating Physique might counteract that. Same for Fighters and Barbarians... I think there's going to be a lot of nimble fighters and barbarians now (higher to-hit also now means higher reflex saves), which seems odd given your "built like a brick" thought process.
Which feats have you altered the prerequisites for (two-weapon fighting, combat expertise, dodge etc?)
|
|
which seems odd given your "built like a brick" thought process.
Which feats have you altered the prerequisites for (two-weapon fighting, combat expertise, dodge etc?)
Can you explain that first comment?
Anyways, feat conversion, I think, is pretty easy. Two-weapon fighting and dodge use gross motor skills, so that is agility. Combat Expertise doesn't change, because it needs intelligence. I haven't really sat down and converted all the feats, but go by a gross motor skill or fine motor skill thought process.
Huh, I just saw I didn't remove Climb from Physique in my description. Why doesn't Paizo allow edits after awhile I wonder?
Did you do this only with physical stats? I mean ... for professing "simplification" I see needless complication.
Initially I thought you were saying you just made 4 stats PERIOD! That, IMO, sounded like a good idea, but I'm not sure I'm exactly following the nature of your changes fully.
Physique = str and con
Agility = 1/2 of Dexterity (that no longer exists) - FAR more complicated the issue vs. simplification, IMO)
Coordination = 1/2 of Dexterity
Luck = ?? everything else??
I mean ... you mucked around plenty with the "core" stats of physicality, made it more complicated, and then ... made the other "mental" ones go away?
Please, take the tone of anything as curiosity looking for clarification rather than as an attack (I'm just trying to read you right).
In premise, I'm down with the idea of simplifying core stats and such. Regarding your actual application - I'm just not following it exactly.
Overall note: D&D does *NOT* play well with "reality" at all. So, while I follow the Str/Coordination breakdown thing you're running with (it makes sense) note that D&D's "Str RULES melee" is just a pure abstraction in a system LAYERED with abstractions. To hold it to any degree of "real" is sort of missing much of the thought behind the design in the first place. Case in point - you could (ala: 4e) assign ANY ability as the "attack" stat for any given class - it won't change much of anything (other than let class A "attack" as well as class B, etc). Just more to the "why str" in the first place, in abstraction, what the system assumes is that stronger people will tend to do more lasting damage/break through resistances or defenses more often - because they hit harder. In a system where HP =/= physical damage, this makes as much sense as giving it to any other stat (ie: coordination, b/c if you're accurate, you'll manage the hit better and get past defenses/hit vitals/etc). Follow? Think abstract first and then move forward with any changes.
All in all, I like the idea of simplification of stats, BUT I think you should do so keeping in mind the central "abstract" nature of the system's assumptions.
Strength - Go swing a 20 lb hammer; it takes strength to hit accurately.
No, it takes strength to lift the thing. It takes hand-eye coordination to actually hit a moving target. No matter how hard you swing, if you are very clumsy, you won't hit a thing. You could even miss the broadside of a barnyard if your depth perception isn't good. But boy can you swing at it.
Anyways, I am more interested in talking about mechanics and possible balance issues than what it means to be strong or agile.
I think his point may have been (and if it wasn't, I apologize and make a different point) that coordination isn't meaningful unless you have the requisite control, which demands strength. Bowling offers a good illustration of this. You can be a champion bowler with incredible coordination, but if the ball is much too heavy for you your coordination isn't worth anything. If you don't have the muscle power to lift the ball and perform the task comfortably, in a controlled way, it doesn't matter.
|
|
Lots of stuff
Oh no! You don't remove the mental stats at all! No a sheet would have:
Phy
Agi
Coo
Lck
Int
Wis
Chr
As far as your other point made, I have been able to use Physique for two years without any fallout. I have found, again, a goose/gander relationship with Physique. When looking at statistics for monsters, I simply make their highest of Str or Con their Physique, and the lower one Luck. It balances out nicely. Also, I find people are really scared of Stirges now.
If you don't have the muscle power to lift the ball and perform the task comfortably, in a controlled way, it doesn't matter.
So, again, it takes physique to lift it and the force of your heft (damage) is based in your physique, but to aim it takes hand-eye-coordination, not strength in any way.
Goblins Eighty Five, I think the Pirate has the right idea here. Go online and see if you can get a copy of those Player's Option books from e-bay or something like that. Those rules might be what you're looking, and I for one would be VERY interested to see those rules altered for Pathfinder.
Those Player's Options books were the best and worst things about 2.5 ed- great rules, good ideas all consigned to a book very few people would read and some of which made the game a little tedious.
|
|
I think his point may have been (and if it wasn't, I apologize and make a different point) that coordination isn't meaningful unless you have the requisite control, which demands strength. Bowling offers a good illustration of this. You can be a champion bowler with incredible coordination, but if the ball is much too heavy for you your coordination isn't worth anything. If you don't have the muscle power to lift the ball and perform the task comfortably, in a controlled way, it doesn't matter.Strength - Go swing a 20 lb hammer; it takes strength to hit accurately.
No, it takes strength to lift the thing. It takes hand-eye coordination to actually hit a moving target. No matter how hard you swing, if you are very clumsy, you won't hit a thing. You could even miss the broadside of a barnyard if your depth perception isn't good. But boy can you swing at it.
Anyways, I am more interested in talking about mechanics and possible balance issues than what it means to be strong or agile.
Yes that was my point exactly :]
Just go pick up a 2nd edition skills and powers, it broke every stat into 2 separate stats...
Just go pick up a 2nd edition skills and powers, it broke every stat into 2 separate stats...
Do you think it would work for what G85 is trying to do?
|
|
Just go pick up a 2nd edition skills and powers, it broke every stat into 2 separate stats...Do you think it would work for what G85 is trying to do?
So, here is what I'm trying to (or actually already did) do:
I hate Strength and Constitution, so I combined them into one stat that makes more sense in my head: Physique. I also at this time made Dexterity the melee attack modifier, and changed armor to DR and introduced the Luck stat to compensate for the AC drop.
However, after two years of playing with only two physical stats, I ran into power problems, based around the fact that there really needs to be three physical stats. I have less problems with motor skills being split up than raw physical power, so...Agility and Coordination.
I didn't come up with these myself. I borrowed these concepts from West End Games's DC Universe RPG.
I think they work best in my Pirate games, personally.
Anyways, I just wanted to have a discussion about them. Does anyone sees these being really powerful or no?
I'm with Sir Frog and jocundthejolly on the strength front - controlling the swing of a heavy object requires strength no matter how you look at it. I'm sure we all agree that, once you've got the whole 'lifting and swinging' bit down, coordination is essential for landing a hit. Both factor in, and the abstraction of which does how much is a fairly academic exercise that most of us would probably sooner gloss over.
If you're into splitting stats, though, consider splitting wisdom into insight and willpower. I hate hate hate that strong-willed characters are also innately perceptive. That's darn silly.
If you're into adapting rules from other game rulesets, I can't recommend Savage Worlds enough. In that, you work from 5 core attributes:
Agility = Dexterity
Smarts = Intelligence
Spirit = Force of will and personality
Strength = Strength
Vigor = Constitution
With charisma as a side note denoting particular attractiveness or an especially sociable nature.
Now, I'll grant you it maintains the separation of strength and vigor you've been trying to eliminate, but combat skills in that system operate off of agility for accuracy. In exchange, strength plays a much greater role in melee damage dealt.
|
|
If you're into splitting stats, though, consider splitting wisdom into insight and willpower. I hate hate hate that strong-willed characters are also innately perceptive. That's darn silly.
Yeah, I did that once. Insight and Reason. But they didn't effect enough stuff between the two of them. And which one effects spells? I had to put them back together. I liked making Willpower a skill more, but that is a whole nother' mother.
I've always seen the mixture of willpower/perception as being rather accurate, actually. The person that has good perception also happens to be good at seeing through the veil of illusions and recognizing what is real and what is false.
Call me dense, but when I read that, I don't see anything that screams 'willpower'. Just a lot of perceptiveness.
Break it down this way:
Willful people are driven, work harder than others to achieve their goals, and won't take no for an answer. They are no more difficult to trick than the average person, but they resist temptation, corruption, and coercion with their conviction.
Insightful people are perceptive, pick out details that other people miss, and process those details in a more sophisticated fashion. They're more likely to see through a bluff, but that's irrelevant when you put on the thumb screws.
|
|
I just don't see why you need to split wisdom into two parts- Having wisdom is described as having insight and strength of will (among other things), so why would those two things (that are both attributed to wisdom) be split? Do you see a lot of people that are perceptive that get fooled easily?
Most Will saves are against illusions and enchantments. Which stat (insight or willpower) do you use for those saves? How would you justify willpower being the stat used for these saves? Do you split will saves into categories (willpower vs fear, insight vs illusions), and if so, how does that help?
I just don't see why you need to split wisdom into two parts- Having wisdom is described as having insight and strength of will (among other things), so why would those two things (that are both attributed to wisdom) be split? Do you see a lot of people that are perceptive that get fooled easily?
Most Will saves are against illusions and enchantments. Which stat (insight or willpower) do you use for those saves? How would you justify willpower being the stat used for these saves? Do you split will saves into categories (willpower vs fear, insight vs illusions), and if so, how does that help?
Oh heck, I wouldn't actually be inclined to split them in the present system. Everything that could be either insight or willpower is lumped into wisdom and will saves, and it'd be crazy tedious to separate them out.
G85 is the one who wants to start parceling out stats, and I'm simply pointing out that wisdom one of the ones that really begs for that kind of treatment, if he's already doing the work.
Still, doesn't it ever bother you that a character can interact with an illusion, discern it's falseness, but still fail the will save? I always found that one a bit hard to deal with.
Do you see a lot of people that are perceptive that get fooled easily?
I see a lot of people that are perceptive and yet cannot resist any type of temptation, get side-tracked easily and cannot show any backbone...
As for saving throws, I could see how one could be brave enough to resist most saves against fear without being unfoolable by illusions, or virtualy immuned to the witch's charms.
Armor bonus to AC, shield bonus and natural armor bonus are not viewed as the ability to not get hit in so much of a literal sense. You can imagine as being hit, but your armor/shield/skin deflected a nasty blow. Deflection bonus will be different kind of thing.
It encourages more storetelling durign battles at my table, while some people think it could be DR indeed, noone can be bothered here to try it out or make a conversion, specialyl since the current system can work perfectly fine if you want it to.
|
|
Armor bonus to AC, shield bonus and natural armor bonus are not viewed as the ability to not get hit in so much of a literal sense. You can imagine as being hit, but your armor/shield/skin deflected a nasty blow.
First, I still allow a Shield bonus to AC, because a shield is actively being used to deflect a hit.
However, being a Medieval History student (not to toot my own horn, but it's true) I've worn armor (mainly chain and ring), and can tell you that it almost never deflects a damn thing. It does turns a deadly blow into a tolerable one. Therefore, armor as DR. It just makes sense. Especially some of those weaker ones, like Leather and Padded. How does that 'deflect' a blow?
1st Ed D&D (white box we're talking here) was based around a strong blow going through a person's armor, that was it. The game assumed all of your attacks automatically hit someone, but the armor slowed down the blow enough that it didn't count. A high Dexterity enabled a fighter to dodge a blow, but this wasn't related to AC, it was related to just plain dodging it (I believe the rule was for every point over 14 a fighter's dexterity score was, their ability to dodge a blow was increased by 5%)
When the next edition came out, Armor Class got reworked, but they added a dexterity score to the AC. Now, the pure strength of your blow was working to go through the person's armor and...their ability to not get hit? Wait, I thought this was called ARMOR class?! You can't expect me to believe the force of your swing, the strength behind it, can be negated by dodging it. That doesn't make sense. Armor Class was about a blow moving through armor, and once you add in dexterity, and deflection bonuses, it isn't about that anymore. It's about a blow actively hitting a person, meaning AC is now about not getting hit, not absorbing a blow. But armor doesn't stop you from being hit, it takes a hit and makes it hurt less. So, again, Armor is Damage Reduction.
Armor Class has remained in roleplaying games for far too long. This is a very old rule that needed to be removed long, long ago. So, I have.
Nice. Do you have a armor bonus- natural armor bonus to AC as DR covnersion table or something? What are the specifics :)?
Though since it sort of seems plausible and 'yeah, whatever, let's just play' to most of my players and we prefer to spend the time on creative stuff instead of number crunching, am afraid that will not be used :(.
Strength - Go swing a 20 lb hammer; it takes strength to hit accurately.
The heaviest weapon in the game designed for humans is 12 lbs. Then there's the orc double axe at 15. Fighting with a 20 lb hammer is just stupid, and most people trying to (even strong people) would probably lose to someone with a common knife (not to talk about someone with a dagger).
And note that both a greataxe and ranseur probably weighted a lot less historically, but that's on another note.
@Goblins: I did much of what you're going through/have already done a while back. For many of the same reasons - the longer you hold onto "real life" when approaching D&D, the further you get from the assumptions of the game. EVERYTHING is an abstraction - if you can't get on board with that, honestly, you'll just be happier in a different game system.
For me, I modded, and modded, and modded things to be more "real" and I just kept getting frustrated at each turn. Eventually I encountered this game system called GURPS - it did everything I wanted it to do up front, and it was "real" and it made sense in ways that D&D made me cringe.
I've run GURPS for a long time, it fully replaced D&D for me for a long time. It's still my favorite game for 90% of anything I'd want to play, especially with "reality" as a factor to the tone I want to set, and I've got it so I can run it like a well oiled machine. If you've any interest in it, I can elaborate more for you, but in that system, everything works just about how you expect it to given these posts you've thrown up.
I play D&D now, not for reality, but for the crazy "un-reality" it pushes, and because it's easier to find players for it, than for GURPS. However, I've accepted that at it's core the whole thing revolves around abstractions (saves = dodge/resistance/whatever of various things, not just spells), from combat (where "hit" doesn't really mean HIT, and health points are more like combat savvy or endurance; Armor Class doesn't just mean "armor" at all; etc). When I work with D&D stuff, I work from those design assumptions first. When I work with GURPS, I work from it's assumptions first. Given your tone and goal of posts, I think you'd enjoy GURPS quite a bit. Combat is lethal, stats are simple, and the dynamic of skil/power/use works out just as you think it should (ie: weapons have a minimum Str score for using them effectively - based on weight, they factor most in calculating damage, but have NOTHING to do with striking potential; Striking is handled by a base Dex score, and then skill in combat rises as you invest in it, Armor IS DR, etc, etc. Really, everything you've said from the mechanic end of things GURPS does by default).
That said, PF is THE BEST rendition of D&D I've been exposed to of the recent 3.x crop (and the 4e malarky). I *might* edge it out over 2e, but maybe 1/2 of that is nostalgia, and the other half is non-standardization of everything under the sun (like the 3.0 design started us on).
Armor bonus to AC, shield bonus and natural armor bonus are not viewed as the ability to not get hit in so much of a literal sense. You can imagine as being hit, but your armor/shield/skin deflected a nasty blow.First, I still allow a Shield bonus to AC, because a shield is actively being used to deflect a hit.
However, being a Medieval History student (not to toot my own horn, but it's true) I've worn armor (mainly chain and ring), and can tell you that it almost never deflects a damn thing. It does turns a deadly blow into a tolerable one. Therefore, armor as DR. It just makes sense. Especially some of those weaker ones, like Leather and Padded. How does that 'deflect' a blow?
1st Ed D&D (white box we're talking here) was based around a strong blow going through a person's armor, that was it. The game assumed all of your attacks automatically hit someone, but the armor slowed down the blow enough that it didn't count. A high Dexterity enabled a fighter to dodge a blow, but this wasn't related to AC, it was related to just plain dodging it (I believe the rule was for every point over 14 a fighter's dexterity score was, their ability to dodge a blow was increased by 5%)
When the next edition came out, Armor Class got reworked, but they added a dexterity score to the AC. Now, the pure strength of your blow was working to go through the person's armor and...their ability to not get hit? Wait, I thought this was called ARMOR class?! You can't expect me to believe the force of your swing, the strength behind it, can be negated by dodging it. That doesn't make sense. Armor Class was about a blow moving through armor, and once you add in dexterity, and deflection bonuses, it isn't about that anymore. It's about a blow actively hitting a person, meaning AC is now about not getting hit, not absorbing a blow. But armor doesn't stop you from being hit, it takes a hit and makes it hurt less. So, again, Armor is Damage Reduction.
Armor Class has remained in roleplaying...
You might want to take a look at what I put up in this thread. It may prove enlightening or enraging, depending on how well I did with realism.
|
|
Nice. Do you have a armor bonus- natural armor bonus to AC as DR covnersion table or something? What are the specifics
My conversion of Armor was very very simple.
Old Armor Bonus=Damage Reduction Dice
---------------------------
+1=1
+2=1d2
+3=1d3
+4=1d4
+5=1d4+1
+6=1d4+2
+7=1d4+3
etc...
Enchanting armor made it go up this conversion chart, as did natural armor.
The Speaker in Dreams, I can't lie, I think my yuck factor for GURPS is only beaten by my yuck factor for 4ed and my outright hatred for Palladium. It has that ridiculous division of Strength and Health, and lumps all mental ability, including Social abilities, into one stat: IQ. Stack that on top with the fact that rounds take place in a period of 1 second and in that 1 second you can do more than the flash, and you've got yourself a game system that is pretty darn silly. Actually, my biggest problem is when your core system uses 3d6, your average rolls are going to be 9-12, and a 'self-actualizing roll-under' system where, unlike D&D, you are always competing with yourself; in D&D, there is a rock. To jump over said rock, you must roll higher than the rock's DC; you must leap over it. In GURPS, to leap over the rock, you must roll under your own skill, and the rock no longer affects how hard it is to leap over."Visualize yourself leaping over the rock," Sure, maybe it imposes a negative, but you are still trying to beat yourself, not reality. It sounds like the Matrix.
-----------
I'm sorry, my intention is not to be mean or dog anybodies play style. I just hate Strength/Con and the way attacking works in D&D, but otherwise, yes, it is all an abstraction. Even though historically, axes were for shield-killing combat and morningstars were used to penetrate armor, I like a smooth, simplified combat, so they just do damage to HP, which is also a fake thing that doesn't exist. If it takes longer than 30 seconds, I look for a faster workaround. These systems might not work for everyone, but they do work at my game table.
Well ... take a look at the 4e GURPS revisions. STR and HT have been changed quite a bit - pretty much along the exact line of complaint you use. Same with the IQ being de-emphasized especially for "will" in particular.
Most of those options were there in 3rd ed, revised as well (version I'm most familiar with), and I made liberal use of the options for exactly your same reasons.
I've got nothing on the 1 second/round rule, but whatever. The actual length of time was never that much of a problem to me anyway. GURPS being "real" 1 second/character action seemed reasonable enough. Exact "ticks" are really irrelevant to the action of the game, IMO.
If you're not a fan of the resolution mechanic, there's always the option of simply making it into a "roll high" one - easy enough to manage. You could even play w/a D20 if you want. Clearly, house rules are not a problem for you - so why stop there? ;-)
{Just informative here - NOT a pusher, really! Why are you calling the DEA, man? Dude, PUT DOWN THE PHONE!!! It's an RPG - an RPG!!!!}
Hah, man, I hate to dog you again Speaker, but I'm with G85: I can't stand roll-under systems. Barring wacky indie games whose whole point is self-conflict, making a check whose against one's own statistics to accomplish external actions is insufferably silly. I've played a number of systems using it (gurps, tri-stat, etc), and it has never played naturally.
--Ok, that's not true; a friend once ran a pokemon tri-stat game for laughs, and every check was to see whether or not you believed in yourself enough to succeed. It made all kinds of sense there.
At any rate, if I come to the rules section of a book and find out that's the primary mechanic, I usually just put the thing down, because clearly the designers and I are not going to get along. It just isn't worth the effort of retooling those kinds of systems.
... and I am totally off topic. Whoops.
I don't really have an opinion on the other stats, but I've been using Luck in my games for about 3 years now. I run it as it's own stat that gives no specific bonuses. Here's how I do it;
-At the beginning of the first session each player rolls a d20 to determine their luck score. (yeah that means some lucky bastards get a 20) Luck checks are still run 2nd edit. style; match or under on a d20 is a success nat. 1 critical success, nat. 20 is critical fail.
Each player gets one time per session they may choose to use their Luck. With a successful check they can re-roll any one roll or even in certain circumstances a roll made against them. Also I allow players to make their luck roll for other party members (or even NPC's) as luck as it's in the interest of the character that the "target" gets lucky.
Beyond that I will sometimes have the players roll a Luck check when I think it most factors into a situation or to give them a final chance. (Depending on situation this doesn't "use" their luck.) Example; A character has failed his/her rolls while climbing a cliff and is falling to their certain death. If I'm feeling generous I will allow a Luck check to see if there is something that breaks their fall, like a outcrop or something.
And every so often I make players re-roll their Luck (as fortunes turn) or specifically in a certain situation. eg. seeing a unicorn, catching a leprechaun, touching a particularly vile book of dark arts, etc...
I will even give specifics at certain such as; cannot be above 10 (the evil book would be such a situation)
Nice. Do you have a armor bonus- natural armor bonus to AC as DR covnersion table or something? What are the specificsMy conversion of Armor was very very simple.
Old Armor Bonus=Damage Reduction Dice
---------------------------
+1=1
+2=1d2
+3=1d3
+4=1d4
+5=1d4+1
+6=1d4+2
+7=1d4+3
etc...Enchanting armor made it go up this conversion chart, as did natural armor.
The Speaker in Dreams, I can't lie, I think my yuck factor for GURPS is only beaten by my yuck factor for 4ed and my outright hatred for Palladium. It has that ridiculous division of Strength and Health, and lumps all mental ability, including Social abilities, into one stat: IQ.
So apparently people getting hit constantly/all the time due to low AC is not an unbalancing factor? A high DR is not unbalancing for people hitting several times and little hits? (i.e two-weapon fightning finesse build vs SMASH power attack barbarian with vital strike?
Hmm I don't mean to challenge you or something, just wondering.
And this IQ thing is totally ridiculous =)). I've got a very high IQ and that never helped me with social, concentration or perception skills which I have to learn separately... Also there is a lot of logical thinking stuff not covered by IQ...
I use a luck stat in my games.
Every +1 of a luck stat can be used as follows :
Auto-confirm a hit.
Auto-confirm a crit.
Negate a hit.
Negate a crit.
Auto-confirm a check.
Negate a check.
Negate a critical failure.
Auto-confirm a critical failure.
Obviously, negating a crit is done against an opponent, while auto-confirming a crit is used on your own attacks. Each +1 can be used once per game session. So, someone with a 16 LUCK (+3) can use their luck 3 times per game session.
Every -1 of a luck stat is used by the GM in reverse order, the same # of times per game session (So, Auto-negate the character's hit, or crit, or auto-confirm against them). Granted, usually the NPCs end up with the negative luck because the players boost their luck up to at least 10 to avoid the negative issues.
It has worked very well, and the players like having a 'get out of jail' card to pull out of the karmic hole. Just last session my wife saved her character by burning 2/3rds of her luck in one round (she had 8 hps left, and negated a harpy's crit, then negated her hit entirely to avoid that multishot double arrow damage that would have at min damage left her with negative 8). I also had one poor player who couldn't roll to save his life one night. Literally. He needed a 10 reflex save (as a 3rd level rogue, and had +5). He couldn't roll a 5 or higher at all, and burned through all four of his +Lucks just getting over a rickety old bridge without falling in to the river full of undead pirhana.