So I want to throw out a random idea I've been thinking about a while: can you scrap or edit the 6 d&d stats and keep - more or less - the same game? If you do so, what aspects of the game are going to be altered by a given change, and what are the upsides and downsides.
The main change I have considered making is to combine Strength and Constitution into a single stat - I would just call this strength, but to avoid confusion I'm going to call it Might.
This would be a strict upgrade for all martial classes, but also possibly opens the door for interesting/weird builds for classes that might have a reason to invest in Con but normally couldn't justify investing in str. Additionally, it reduces MAD across the board, and consolidates two stats, that while both do powerful things, are much narrower in scope than many others.
Classes that need strength basically always need con, but classes that need con but don't use str (such as casters) aren't really changing much except for outside case builds. Additionally, by improving Strength, it increases the fairness of things like Dex to damage, as dumping Might now also means having fewer hit points.
I can see there being some balancing issues, for example creatures with a huge strength needing to be revised. Some builds also might get weirder/more unbalanced - for example Alchemists popping strength mutagens and polymorphs. It's possible you could add rules text stating that temporary Str doesn't provide hitpoints, or by altering the text of those abilities, but either way it'd be a bit of a hassle.
If you only have 5 stats, point buy values probably need to change at least a bit.
Alternatively, you could possibly fit in a new 6th stat. One I have considered implementing is a 'Cunning' or 'Clever' type of stat, to contrast Intelligence - however this seems harder to break out. If there was a cunning, it could possibly absorb some int, cha, and dex skills, and would sort of increase MAD for certain casters, especially Int-based casters. However I'm not sure how critical/interesting Cunning would be.
Has anyone else considered such edits? Whether or not you like it or would use it, what do you see as possible problems or benefits? Do you think one could make a new stat interesting and relevant, or would it just muddy the water?
I would probably just create a pretty powerful feat requiring BAB +6 or something that allows you to add 1/2 your Strength modifier (minimum +1 if positive) to your Con mod to calculate bonus hit points, Fortitude saves and Constitution checks. That would give a nice boost to STR builds over DEX builds, be primarily accessible to full BAB characters, and disrupt the game less (since monster rebuilding wouldn't be necessary). I also think it seems fair to make it a feat since STR martial builds tend, quite often, to have a one or two feat slots to spare. In addition, archers, the most powerful kind of pure martials, would benefit from this feat less on average since they tend to be feat-starved and their STR scores are rarely as high as those of pure melee STR martials.
Just my 2cp.
Cheers,
- Gears
Ability scores are an integral part of the game. Changing them will have massive consequences.
Ability scores are an integral part of the game, but some are less integral than others. Constitution only interacts with hit points, Fortitude saves and Constitution checks, outside of class features. I think my solution is a far more balanced way of making STR more relevant than simply lumping it together with CON into a single massive ability score. The latter, for instance, would play merry hell with the kineticist base class. The only other consideration that springs to mind are undead, although as written I daresay it's questionable whether the feat I proposed would even do anything for them. That would be easy to houserule one way or another, anyway, and at any rate undead tend primarily to be controlled by the GM, and so it doesn't matter that much.
I think the more important question we need to ask ourselves is whether or not Strength, as an ability score, is in need of some kind of a boost to make it more relevant. In my home games I've never found that people playing STR-focused characters over DEX-focused ones feel like they're not getting their money's worth out of STR, so I would not personally want to include a feat such as the one I proposed in my own games. I merely put it forward as a less disruptive alternative to consolidating STR and CON.
Cheers,
- Gears
I think the more important question we need to ask ourselves is whether or not Strength, as an ability score, is in need of some kind of a boost to make it more relevant. In my home games I've never found that people playing STR-focused characters over DEX-focused ones feel like they're not getting their money's worth out of STR
This aligns with my observations. The most powerful PC in my 3-year campaign is a Dex-based magus and even she doesn't do anywhere as much damage as the Strength-based fighters in the group. Mathematically, as long as Dexterity-based fighters don't reap the same benefits as Strength-based fighters for two-handing weapons, Strength is still valuable.
Also keep in mind that if you lump Strength and Constitution together, this is also a huge buff to ranged fighters and Dexterity-based fighters because now they don't get to suffer the drawbacks of their builds.
|
Then again, there is Microlite20, which really really strips down the d20 system to its bare necessities. You only have three* stats, four races, four classes, and four skills**.
*Expert Rules add Charisma as a stat, otherwise you still have Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence.
**Expert Rules also add Survival as a skill, otherwise you still have Physical, Knowledge, Communication, and Subterfuge.
I don't think the OP's goal is to strip PF down to some kind of rules lite system with only the minimum required variables. If I am understanding the OP correctly, the idea is that pooling STR and CON together might be desirable, because the combined stat would be more balance, in terms of power and versatility, with DEX.
As noted above, my personal experience is that STR is a very good stat, not in need of any boosting. A Str-based melee character needs fewer feats to excel compared to a Dex-based one and, as noted by Cyrad, they will almost always excel in the damage game. I don't think the feat I described above would horribly unbalance the game (although it is definitely way more powerful than most other feats), but I also don't think it's really necessary in order for Str and Con to be viable as separate stats.
Cheers,
- Gears
I've had a similar idea before. I called the str-con stat brawn, armor was DR, attack was always dex based (even for twohanders) and all damage was either brawn based or didn't have any extra bonuses (like for crossbows and firearms). For mental, I only had cunning and magic.
I scrapped it because it was too big a change and I might as well have just written and published my own rulebook. I think it'd work for a simple d6 system.
@Ana L'ayley: When I've been fiddling around ideas for a completely new d20 system, I've often thought along similar lines. I've always felt that since attack rolls simulate your ability to hit things accurately, they should always be Dex-based, whereas damage should be based on how strong you are (unless using a mechanical weapon like a crossbow or firearm). But that only truly makes sense in a system where armor functions like DR. In such a system, I wholly agree that a Brawn stat (very good name, I think!) makes sense. I do agree it's probably too big a change to wedge into PF though.
Combining strength and constitution would have the rather odd effect of encouraging all wizards to be super swole (since constitution is the only physical stat full casters care about they tend to dump all of their extra points in it).
Also on the subject of STR vs. DEX damage: dexterity based fighters require hefty feat investment to do so, so the fact that it has a number of advantages over strength based martials shouldn't be a surprise (feat investment SHOULD come with obvious advantages). Besides, it locks you out of other, very good feats; while Dexterous Dan is burning feats on Weapon Finesse and Slashing Grace, Swole Sandra is picking up Cornugon Smash and Hurtful.
I learned a new word today.
That word is "swole". :)
My younger siblings tend to abuse the word... the habit seems to be rubbing off on me a bit >.>
@Ana L'ayley: When I've been fiddling around ideas for a completely new d20 system, I've often thought along similar lines. I've always felt that since attack rolls simulate your ability to hit things accurately, they should always be Dex-based, whereas damage should be based on how strong you are (unless using a mechanical weapon like a crossbow or firearm). But that only truly makes sense in a system where armor functions like DR. In such a system, I wholly agree that a Brawn stat (very good name, I think!) makes sense. I do agree it's probably too big a change to wedge into PF though.
One thing I've always wanted in a dnd-like system is where you can play a character that relies on martial skill instead of raw strength or dexterity. BAB kind of does this, but there aren't rules to have a higher BAB at the cost of lower ability scores.
Combining strength and constitution would have the rather odd effect of encouraging all wizards to be super swole (since constitution is the only physical stat full casters care about they tend to dump all of their extra points in it).
Two points:
1) I understand the whole "casting ability score and constitution, screw everything else" thing. However, people are strange and can have somewhat unique motivations. In assigning ability scores, I am always surprised at how many of the people I have played with leave their Con at 10 - even those playing melee combatants.
2) It is a strange situation, where wizards and such start getting stronger. But similar to #1, PCs tend to endup with strange arrays of ability scores anyways (almost every character I have ever played has an Int and Con of at least 12). And if we're being "realistic", anyone - even wizards - who spends time exploring dungeons while monsters try to kill them would be physically fit. Why would someone explore dangerous places with someone who has trouble carrying their own backpack? People who are durable tend to also be strong. I don't have a problem with wizards sporting a 12 Strength.
2) It is a strange situation, where wizards and such start getting stronger. But similar to #1, PCs tend to endup with strange arrays of ability scores anyways (almost every character I have ever played has an Int and Con of at least 12). And if we're being "realistic", anyone - even wizards - who spends time exploring dungeons while monsters try to kill them would be physically fit. Why would someone explore dangerous places with someone who has trouble carrying their own backpack? People who are durable tend to also be strong. I don't have a problem with wizards sporting a 12 Strength.
Maybe the wizard curls weights while he reads his spellbook.
Well, I think someone might be inclined to explore dangerous places in the company of a comparatively frail and weak (physically speaking) person if that person's min-maxed Intelligence will allow them to more effectively boost their defenses with magic, as well as ensure that the only way a monster is not going to fall prey to their spells is by rolling a natural '20' on its save or being completely immune to its effects.
If you are looking at it from a gamist point of view (not being derogatory, but rather descriptive), then I could see combining ability scores in such a way.
However, in my perspective, I prefer ability scores allowing a wide-range in describing different characters and creatures. To allow a Strong, but physical unhealthy character, you need to have Strength and Constitution as two separate aspects of a character.
I've actually been looking at balancing things in a different direction: breaking apart the ability scores.
In my gamist/balancing rules sense, these were my goals:
1. Break up Dex into two stats, making physical skills all roughly equal in performance.
2. Fix mental stats such that spellcasters become more multi-ability dependant.
Here's how I've considered doing it:
1. Split into Dexterity and Agility ability scores.
Dexterity is for fine motor skills, and includes things such as hand-eye coordination. This includes ranged and finesse attack bonus, precision based damage bonus, and fine motor skills (Sleight of Hand, Disable Device, Escape, etc).
Agility is for gross motor skills, dodging (AC bonus) and combat maneuver defense, Reflex saves, and full body motion skills such as Acrobatics or Fly, Ride and Stealth, etc.
Note: I'd have Constitution be used for any physical skill check that is applied whenever you are using said skill over a long period of time (typically movement checks like swim, ride or fly, but can apply to others).
2. Add an Awareness mental score, and hard-code some magical aspects into the ability scores.
Awareness would be the primary stat for Initiative bonus, increasing range increment maximums, increasing sensory range maximums (in non-perfect lighting, etc), and take over all the current Wisdom skills (Heal, Sense Motive, Survival, etc).
Spellcasting-wise, I'd been thinking of making Intelligence apply to magic spell attack rolls, Charisma apply to magical damage bonus, and Wisdom be used when using any mental skill check while under duress (including concentration checks for spellcasting).
.
While it would take some getting used to, and definitely require an updated stat generation process, I suspect it would still feel pretty close to current gaming.
The biggest change might be to SAD classes, but that's kind of the point.
*Edit*
I have a lot more stuff I'd add to these ability scores, but it would definitely change the game at that point. Things like:
- No more bonus skill points, but instead "downtime points"
- Morale attack/save system for Charisma/Wisdom to have a more clearly defined process in said situations (especially fear and intimidation effects, etc).
- Mana points (similar to hitpoints) being added as a "general" power system that all classes abilities draw from. Including a spell slot system that builds from said points (so it's ALL interchangeable). Wisdom granting bonus points, etc.
- Splitting up skills so you have general "Action" skills (Stealth, Swim, Acrobatics, etc), specific "Technique" skills (Craft, Spellcraft, Performance, etc), and the "Knowledge" skills that techniques require.
Action skill have multi-functions (Acrobatics is used for balance, break fall, and tumble checks), while technique skills do specific things based on ranks in specific knowledges; example: Ride would need part of it's bonus from knowledge ranks in specific Bestiary (such as bestiary:horse or griffon). Knowledge ranks are small (only 4 points, basic - common - expert - master), and can be gained with downtime points (so not capped by level).
The weird thing is, thing have gotten *very* symmetrical with this concept: I have exactly 32 skills (not counting the knowledge), 16 action and 16 technique, 8 mental and 8 physical skills in each.
Not sure if that's a sign, or just a strange coincidence.