|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I really don't care if it measures up to real-life or not. Dex already has plenty of things it effects (ranged combat, finesse melee, melee damage with the right feat[s], AC, reflex saves, a lot of useful skills, and probably one or two more things I'm not remembering at the moment) and Strength does not (really just melee combat, melee damage, carry capacity, and a much smaller array of skills, many of which are less useful except in niche situations [looking at you Swim]). I'm not interested in taking one from the latter and moving it to the overloaded former.
I would say "combine Strength and Constitution", but that has already been suggested to death, and if you kept the current Point-Buy mechanics would lead to some very overpowered characters. In addition, some races might become particularly unbalanced; like if they have a +2 to strength and a +0 to con, suddenly they have both, or if they have a -2 to strength they would also have a -2 to con. There is also the fact that some races might have a positive to strength and a negative to con, which would cancel out.
A square is a square, diagonal or not. It's SO much faster and simpler, and who cares about Pythagoras? It's a game.
If 3-D is needed, I find it close enough to add the long side plus half the short side. You only have to get within the closest 5ft square anyway.
That's one of the reasons I am such an avid supporter of Hexagons, which mesh well with Combat Facing rules.
I limit the class skill bonus to +1 with 1 rank, +2 with 2 ranks or not at all with 3+ ranks. I think that helps restrain skill bonuses for "inch-deep, mile-wide" characters (of which I've created a few myself).
I use Hero Points, and am very generous with them. In addition to the normal rules, I also give everyone a "Session Hero Point" that renews once per game session. It can't be stockpiled.
Doesn't the argument above suggest that Dex and Str naturally shouldn't be far from each other? Taken to it's logical extension it would support Str Dex and Con to either go up at a fractional rate as the other stats or be one 'body' stat.
...and support for my "condense physical ability scores from three stats to two" house rule-set continues to amount at an alarming rate:D
That's one of the reasons I am such an avid supporter of Hexagons, which mesh well with Combat Facing rules.
When outside, I like hexes, and it certainly works well for Battletech. Inside, however, it makes the buildings look funny. : (
...and support for my "condense physical ability scores from three stats to two" house rule-set continues to amount at an alarming rate:D
For symmetry, Wis could be merged into either Int or Cha, depending on the function, and then you have just a four-stat game. You'd need to adjust point-buy and racial modifiers, but that would be the consistent way to go.
Ultimately, why do we even HAVE ability scores?
Well, tradition.
But they also represent "aptitude" well by creating categories of related skills and rolls. If you're good at x, you're more likely to be good at y.
It's not necessary, really, but nor is it meaningless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ability scores are supposed to be the foundation upon which everything else builds. They influenced anything else derived from them (DEX for Stealth; STR for carry weight; CHA for influencing people; etc.).
As EL says, it's largely tradition. D&D had no skills, aside from thieving skills, really - everything was based on your Attributes.
And they helped give you a better definition of your character. Is he strong? Smart? Likable? If so, how much?
They were a gauge to compare one person's character or NPC against another.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And they helped give you a better definition of your character. Is he strong? Smart? Likable? If so, how much?
They were a gauge to compare one person's character or NPC against another.
So if you and I are each building fighters using the heroic NPC array (15/14/13/12/10/8), the fact that I put my 15 in STR while you put yours in DEX sets us apart. Or the fact that my wizard has 15 INT but only 8 STR sets him apart from the 15 STR, 8 INT barbarian.
So what if my fighter has 10 WIS and yours has 13 WIS? Does that help differentiate them? How much do the three ability scores that aren't the lowest or the two highest help to "compare one person's character or NPC against another"? If you and I both build fighters whose two highest stats are STR and CON, how much do the other two-thirds of the ability scores actually serve to do the thing you cite as being their purpose?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you and I are each building fighters using the heroic NPC array (15/14/13/12/10/8), the fact that I put my 15 in STR while you put yours in DEX sets us apart. Or the fact that my wizard has 15 INT but only 8 STR sets him apart from the 15 STR, 8 INT barbarian.
So what if my fighter has 10 WIS and yours has 13 WIS? Does that help differentiate them? How much do the three ability scores that aren't the lowest or the two highest help to "compare one person's character or NPC against another"? If you and I both build fighters whose two highest stats are STR and CON, how much do the other two-thirds of the ability scores actually serve to do the thing you cite as being their purpose?
Perhaps this comes down to how much you're thinking about mechanics, and how much you're using the mechanics to fuel your imagination.
It makes a difference to me. I think of my brother-in-law when I think of a high STR-average DEX person. He's good at wrestling, but I can kick his bottom at anything to do with running, or video games or things to do with fine motor coordination (darts, pool). I consider myself to have above-average DEX and average STR.
I like six stats because it gives me more information about a character. 10 WIS vs 13 WIS absolutely means something to me. Maybe everyone reads the attributes a little differently; that's fine, as long as the mechanics are consistent and it's helping people imagine a vareity of characters.
Also, there are plenty of games with less stats; if Pathfinder changed that, it would be a HUGE shift in the structure of the game, and they would risk a foundational departure from the most popular RPG system ever developed. I don't think you're going to see that happen. The six stats are the basis of the character's definition. In my opinion, removing even one would require adding other mechanics (like more formalized Traits and Personality descriptors) to round out a character.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perhaps this comes down to how much you're thinking about mechanics, and how much you're using the mechanics to fuel your imagination.
Nope, just poking people's brains because I find value in how different people articulate thoughts on a given subject. :D
It makes a difference to me. I think of my brother-in-law when I think of a high STR-average DEX person. He's good at wrestling, but I can kick his bottom at anything to do with running, or video games or things to do with fine motor coordination (darts, pool). I consider myself to have above-average DEX and average STR.
Seems in line with what I was saying earlier, yes.
10 WIS vs 13 WIS absolutely means something to me.
What about 12 vs 13? Say you're building your character and you've already placed four of your scores. You've got two left, and one will be a 12 and the other will be a 13. How often is there a material difference in that distinction? When the key distinctiveness of your character (i.e., "he's strong/fast/smart/charming") is represented by the difference between an 18 and a 12, how significant can the difference between a 10 and a 12 in the same character really be? And is the latter truly a meaningful element of that character's identity?
Let me give an example:
My favorite character I ever played was a certain heroic battle cleric named Thomas. Played him from 2nd level to the end of 11th. One decision I made when I built him was for him to be smarter than most clerics: I gave him a 12 INT.
By 11th level, his INT was still 12 (compared to his STR and WIS in the low 20s). When he made Knowledge checks, he was getting +1 from INT and +16 from not-INT. When he wasn't making Knowledge checks, his INT was entirely irrelevant.
Book-smarts (in a generalized sense) were not a key element of his identity. His identity included many things (both combat-related and not), and indeed included knowledge of the planes and their denizens, but had nothing to do with his overall intelligence.
His identity would not have been changed one bit by the removal of the concept of INT as a stat. The very few things that technically involved INT were only barely affected by it, in comparison to how much they were affected by things other than INT.
Same goes for everything but STR/WIS. Heck, one big element of his concept was his habit of trying to settle things peacefully when possible, but that was done with only a 10 CHA, getting by with Diplomacy ranks, class skill bonus, and a domain power to add his level to a social check X/day.
Everything that his (non-STR/WIS) stats contributed to were determined primarily by things other than his stats: his AC was in the 30s by the end, with only 2 points being from DEX; his Diplomacy could hit mid-20s, without any contribution from CHA at all; his Fort save was usually something like +13 or so, with only 2 of that being from CON; and as I said before, his Knowledge(planes/religion) were something like +17-ish, with only +1 from INT.
So, what were all those (non-STR/WIS) stats actually accomplishing? Sure, if I just looked at his list of ability scores while the rest of the character sheet was blank, then it painted a certain picture; but ironically, that picture is not representative of what the fully-fleshed-out character was actually like (for instance, you'd never guess how diplomatic he was). So what are the four stats other than STR/WIS doing to help define my cleric? And what are the four stats other than STR/DEX doing to differentiate you from your brother-in-law?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stats are a really poor way to inform roleplaying. A thirteen in wisdom could mean any number of things to different people. Not to mention the fact that people equivocate frequently when they talk about ability scores.
his Knowledge(planes/religion) were something like +17-ish, with only +1 from INT.
Out of curiosity. Where would he have been getting those skill points to spend on those knowledge ranks if not for that +1 INT bonus and thus +1 skill point every level?
He might have had to split spending ranks between those knowledges, resulting in half their total values, or he might have had to reduce some other skill he'd put a lot of focus into... say, perhaps, that Diplomacy score you got a lot of mileage out of. Or he might have had to spend a feat on Skill Focus to make up for not having the skill points otherwise to spend.
It's one thing, at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what were all those (non-STR/WIS) stats actually accomplishing? Sure, if I just looked at his list of ability scores while the rest of the character sheet was blank, then it painted a certain picture; but ironically, that picture is not representative of what the fully-fleshed-out character was actually like (for instance, you'd never guess how diplomatic he was). So what are the four stats other than STR/WIS doing to help define my cleric? And what are the four stats other than STR/DEX doing to differentiate you from your brother-in-law?
In your case, the INT stat made no difference to how you interpreted the character. In someone else's case, it may have informed the character. For some (including myself), -all- the attributes are a baseline that you start to imagine a character from. Surely your 12 INT helped you imagine Thomas the heroic battle cleric as quite sharp - not a genius, but not an idiot either? (Maybe not, but it would for me.) No matter how stats adjusted in the game, I would still think about that basic personality. I might reinforce it with attribute bonuses later on, or let it sit because it's not the focus of the character.
I agree, there is little difference between 12 and 13 as scores (this is a different conversation than reducing the number of stats though). That's what we get with a 3D6 / 4D6 curve though.
The big picture for me is that arguing for a change in the attributes, the chassis of the Pathfinder and D&D system is like asking for a different game system overall. We can nitpick about which stats are too similar, etc, but at the end of the day changing one single stat is going to cause an avalanche of other shifts. I don't if any of us would like that new game. And sticking with the theme of the thread, it's definitely NOT a minor house rule. :)
There are plenty of RP systems out there with reduced numbers of stats and less differentiation between your 'skill' at a stat. Those work really well (and maybe better in a lot of cases) at supporting story-driven characters.
I appreciate the way D&D 5e re-worked and smoothed out the game and managed to keep the underlying systems and the feel of the game intact. Pathfinder is super new to me (although I'm very familiar with 3.5), but I'm loving it as well for the amazing diversity of character options, the crunchy tactics, and the rad Adventure Paths!
DISCLAIMER: I think I'm at the 99th percentile on these forums in terms of a role-play focussed RPG-er. So our styles of play might be very different. But neither is wrong, either. :)
So if you and I are each building fighters using the heroic NPC array (15/14/13/12/10/8), the fact that I put my 15 in STR while you put yours in DEX sets us apart. Or the fact that my wizard has 15 INT but only 8 STR sets him apart from the 15 STR, 8 INT barbarian.
So what if my fighter has 10 WIS and yours has 13 WIS? Does that help differentiate them? How much do the three ability scores that aren't the lowest or the two highest help to "compare one person's character or NPC against another"? If you and I both build fighters whose two highest stats are STR and CON, how much do the other two-thirds of the ability scores actually serve to do the thing you cite as being their purpose?
On a similar note, why are we even rolling or buying a number that then is only used to determine another number? That 10 WIS vs 13 WIS is meaningless. The +0 WIS bonus vs +1 WIS bonus is meaningful. It tells you something that is mechanically represented by the rest of the system.
If all the system ultimately cares about is the bonus, why not skip the step of rolling/buying attributes and just directly determine what the bonus is for each attribute?
On a similar note, why are we even rolling or buying a number that then is only used to determine another number? That 10 WIS vs 13 WIS is meaningless. The +0 WIS bonus vs +1 WIS bonus is meaningful. It tells you something that is mechanically represented by the rest of the system.
If all the system ultimately cares about is the bonus, why not skip the step of rolling/buying attributes and just directly determine what the bonus is for each attribute?
The bonuses are determined on a 3d6 bell-curve, so the base attributes could be removed from a character sheet, but they'd still be a part of the system.
Also (as you know), there are plenty of mechanics that grant +/- 1 to an ability, and you need that twice to change a bonus. That's so hard-wired into the system that it would be crazy to change. You could rewrite everything to give +/- 1/2 bonus instead, but you'd be doing the same thing as we are now, just dividing everything by half. And I think people prefer whole numbers to fractions.
Some people in D&D 5e put the attribute in a smaller box on the character sheet (where the bonus was supposed to go), and the bonus on the larger box.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big picture for me is that arguing for a change in the attributes, the chassis of the Pathfinder and D&D system is like asking for a different game system overall. ... And sticking with the theme of the thread, it's definitely NOT a minor house rule. :)
Never claimed it would be minor; I do have a tendency to go off-topic sometimes. ;)
I think I'm at the 99th percentile on these forums in terms of a role-play focussed RPG-er. So our styles of play might be very different.
Not so much. I like RP, and I feel that (to a point) RP that isn't backed by mechanics is dishonest. (I often use the example that if the barbarian is deferring to the rogue to pick the lock, but both characters have the same odds of success, then something's gone wrong.) On the other hand, sometimes I think differentiation can get too granular. For instance, I'm a big believer in differentiating between a rapier, a longsword and a greatsword; but do we really need to have slightly different stats for five different kinds of one-handed, curved-bladed swords (scimitar, cutlass, katana, wakizashi, saber)?
That's sort of where I'm at with ability scores. The high ones (and sometimes, the low ones) are what stand out to help define the character (much like the difference between a greatsword and a rapier), but in many cases the rest serve as little else but a baseline against which to compare the stand-outs and themselves hardly seem worth defining (much like the difference between a scimitar and a katana).
Now, granted, this is in the context of Pathfinder. In, say, 5E, your ability scores are a much larger relative proportion of your math, and therefore all your stats really make a difference (which is in my mind a point in favor of 5E over Pathfinder). But I guess I'm getting (more) off-topic now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
here's an oldy but a goody
Halve the # of skill points each class get's per level. So, Fighters/Wizards get 1, Rogues get 4, Bards get 3, etc.
Grant everyone skill points equal to their stat bonuses that can only be spent on skills associated with that stat.
So, someone playing a fighter with the following stats :
Str : 16 (+3)
Dex : 14 (+2)
Con : 16 (+3)
Int : 10 (+0)
Wis : 12 (+1)
Cha : 8 (-1)
Would have the following skill points to distribute :
Class : 1
Str : 3
Dex : 2
Wis : 1
Cha : -1
So they'd be very good at physical stuff, not so good at mental, and awful at charisma things.
You were allowed to trade 2 of one stat skill points to get 1 of another (so 2 str's to get one cha for example) to indicate concentrating more on diplomacy than on climbing or swimming.
Finally, if you had a negative stat, and you wanted to spend points on it, you had to spend enough that level to 'overcome' the negative. So from our example, if you wanted to put a point into diplomacy, you had to put spend your class point (1) to negate the -1 charisma skill level, then trade in two attribute skill points (1 str/1 dex, 2 str, 1 dex/1 wis, etc) to get another Cha skill point.
This worked really well, it gave people more skill ranks overall, but it also meant they usually ended up with skill curves that fit their stats, those who were smart ended up with lots of INT based skills, those who were really strong but not so bright (18 str/8 int) usually ended up with lots of climb and swim and not so many Knowledge skill.
EDIT : Note class skill points were 'unaligned' and could be spent on any skill.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You realize that you just re-invented Mutants and Masterminds, right?
@Cristos Gurd I take it the missing Con points are a typo?
I really like that system too, but I feel it needs more tampering with. It levels out skill levels between classes, but some classes are suppose to have far more skills than others. The fighter there is getting 10 points per level while a rogue is probably only getting 13, pretty unbalancing for the rogue, who would have normally gotten 10 or 11 while the fighter got 2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You realize that you just re-invented Mutants and Masterminds, right?
Yeah, when the discussion became about abilities and what they mean started thinking; These are games that I've played before. Heck I've homebrewed a system based on some of the logic in this tangent. Which probably means we should stop because that is far from being minor house rules when we're going into entire other systems.
@Cristos Gurd I take it the missing Con points are a typo?
There are no CON-based skills in Pathfinder.
@Cristos Gurd I take it the missing Con points are a typo?There are no CON-based skills in Pathfinder.
Yep. The only one at all that existed in 3.5 was Concentration, and it was removed as a skill in the 3e -> PF conversion.
Doesn't the argument above suggest that Dex and Str naturally shouldn't be far from each other?Most of what strength and dex do are the same stat. It's almost all fast twitch. There's a little dexterity in late renaissance civilian fencing, but almost everything else in combat is gross motor control and fast twitch musculature. Moving a sword quickly and moving it with force are exactly the same thing. F=MA. Hitting an enemy with a sword requires the same kind of muscle response as moving yourself out of the way of his sword which is the same kind as parrying.
Since there is no smallsword or epee or even spadroon in D&D/PF there is no melee attack not at the intersection of strength and dexterity. Rapiers are a bit thrusty, but against armor force is freaking important and they are not light. They're narrow, but they're long and thick and almost as heavy some of the lighter longswords or bastard swords. Where longsword means longsword, not arming sword.
Archery is also in there, at least the only kind of archery anyone uses. The chief difficulty is holding the bow steady, not pointing it where you want it. Well, and knowing how arrows behave and how to loose properly and stuff that's skill not stats. Crossbows don't need to be brought on target extremely quickly like a thrusting sword because there isn't someone right in front of you slapping your crossbow off target if you take too long to line up a shot and fire.
Can you use unseen servant for that?
It's probably outside of the purview of minor houserules, but I've often considered just combining the rogue and fighter in to one class.
Straight gestalt except that:
1. Sneak attack is only triggered when DEX to AC is denied, not on flanks.
2. At even levels you get your choice of a fighter feat or a rogue talent.
3. Evasion works in all armors with which you are proficient.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until the second session, you can change whatever character details you want. You'd be surprised how much this one is useful.
@Cristos Gurd I take it the missing Con points are a typo?There are no CON-based skills in Pathfinder.
I know, I was just testing you. You passed.
Lol, jk jk. I dont know how that went over my head
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until the second session, you can change whatever character details you want. You'd be surprised how much this one is useful.
I tend to take this one step further, with my new players. If they choose something that they find useless, and it hasn't meaningfully impacted game play at all, then I allow them to swap. For example, if someone chooses improved steal, and never once uses it... then I'll let them swap it out between session for something more useful.
Until the second session, you can change whatever character details you want. You'd be surprised how much this one is useful.I tend to take this one step further, with my new players. If they choose something that they find useless, and it hasn't meaningfully impacted game play at all, then I allow them to swap. For example, if someone chooses improved steal, and never once uses it... then I'll let them swap it out between session for something more useful.
Same here.
Here's a minor houserule: Any endurance based use of a skill uses Con modifiers to the check instead. Say, swimming for more than a minute, or hanging onto a ledge for longer than a couple rounds, etc.
Perhaps making it so you combine the Str, Dex, and Con modifiers to apply to physical skills, and do the same for mental ones.
That was Con isn't left behind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until the second session, you can change whatever character details you want. You'd be surprised how much this one is useful.
We allow for rebuilds during the first three sessions. Session four, you come to the table with a final character sheet.
My most minor of houserules: There is no magic weapon enhancement equivalent to bypass DR. You have to bypass DR with exactly what it calls for.
I started doing this too... despite my love of martials and hatred of casters, I don't regret my choice.
In all future games I GM, there is no minimum enhancement bonus for weapons and armor. This dovetails in with giving characters a bonus normally restricted to items every even level. Thus they could take +1 to hit and damage each time till they reach the max. They could also have a vorpal, flaming burst, weapon with a bane quality. It would just use the owners bonus, if any.
Rebuilds should be granted when the character needs it. Thus when they finally realize a tiny pixie barbarian is dumb, they can rebuild as a spellcaster of some sort.
We use 20-20-hit as the instant kill roll, which is still 1 in 500 at best.
@Cristos Gurd I take it the missing Con points are a typo?
I really like that system too, but I feel it needs more tampering with. It levels out skill levels between classes, but some classes are suppose to have far more skills than others. The fighter there is getting 10 points per level while a rogue is probably only getting 13, pretty unbalancing for the rogue, who would have normally gotten 10 or 11 while the fighter got 2.
while I'm just quoting the person who wrote it I would say from experience that rogues get more flexibility to round themselves out than anyone else, although I've yet to try it with unchained rogue, who I suspect will skew the results differently. Honestly reducing the disparity isn't really a huge issue because it promotes people being good at things they should already be good at.
I came across a line in a Jim Butcher Dresden story where he describes how a "veil" (an invisibility spell) limits his vision while obscuring him from any potential viewers.
It made me think: Maybe more magic could be handled in this way? A spell has both benefits and drawbacks - though the benefit is clearly strong enough to warrant any repercussions.
For now, I'm going with the Spheres of Power route, but it seemed an interesting idea.
We use 20-20-hit as the instant kill roll, which is still 1 in 500 at best.1 in 400 I think... are you confirming hit *after* the second nat 20?
After two natural 20s, if the third roll hits the target's AC, then they die. Requiring three 20s for a hit-crit-kill routine means you might as well not have the rule at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen the 3-20 rule kill both an NPC and a BBEG.
I've taken out a boss enemy with it... at which point everyone in the group went "That sucked" or "what if it happens to me next" and we promptly discontinued using it >_>
Well, there you go then. :)
I've been on the receiving end of a 3-20 rule kill, from a sahuagin mook, ignoring both blur and mirror image
T'was not fun.
Death from extreme damage, or multiple 20s, sounds cool in theory... but we stopped using it a while back... It can result in sudden character death. :D
Recently, we have put it back in the game as a rule only PCs get to use, it does make combat a bit easier, but it's fun when you randomly hack your opponent in half with an unexpected double 20. :D
Death from massive damage, or triple 20, would in my opinion best be replaced by staggered by massive damage/x20s. Instant kill, despite all precautions, because of freak die results, just aren't any fun.
But as it has been said, turning an epic battle into a 1 hit kill also pretty much destroys the session. Increasing the critical multiplier seems ok, though.