Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tying ability scores to class
126 views
Skip to first unread message
David Lamb
Sep 25, 2012, 5:30:50 PM9/25/12
to
In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
DM picks a standard array of some sort -- could be the critter array
11/11/11/10/10/10 or the elite array 15/14/13/12/10/8 (IIRC) or anything
else s/he likes for the campaign. It might be appropriate to pick a
lesser array than usual because of the class-specific boosts. At first
CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2 to two particular ability scores,
SAD get +2 to one.
Thus at first character level
- Wizard gets +2 Int
- Sorceror gets +2 Cha
- Fighters get their choice of +2 to any 2 of Str, Dex, Con
- Clerics get their choice of +2 to two of Str, Con, Wis.
- Paladin gets any 2 of Str, Con, Cha
- Monk might get +2 to 3 scores since they're the MADdest of all.
At 4th character level everybody still gets +1 to any one ability score.
At 4th, 8th, etc. CLASS level for the primary classes, everybody gets to
make the same choice as at first level but with +1 instead of +2. Thus
for example fighters get +1 to two of Str, Dex, Con, which can be a
different pair than at first level. Prestige classes don't get this
benefit, to give a little boost to the primary classes.
Parameters for tuning this scheme are
- which standard array to start with
- how big a plus to give at 1st level (+2 above, but could be +3 or
anything else that suits the campaign). Might want bigger 1st level
boosts if one starts with lesser arrays.
- which class level the next boost comes at (could be 5/10/15/20, for
example)
- how big a plus happens for the upper-level boosts (+1 as above, or
something bigger).
- whether to include prestige classes; my preference was to exclude them.
The person who made the original suggestion might have something else in
mind.
scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
DM picks a standard array of some sort -- could be the critter array
11/11/11/10/10/10 or the elite array 15/14/13/12/10/8 (IIRC) or anything
else s/he likes for the campaign. It might be appropriate to pick a
lesser array than usual because of the class-specific boosts. At first
CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2 to two particular ability scores,
SAD get +2 to one.
Thus at first character level
- Wizard gets +2 Int
- Sorceror gets +2 Cha
- Fighters get their choice of +2 to any 2 of Str, Dex, Con
- Clerics get their choice of +2 to two of Str, Con, Wis.
- Paladin gets any 2 of Str, Con, Cha
- Monk might get +2 to 3 scores since they're the MADdest of all.
At 4th character level everybody still gets +1 to any one ability score.
At 4th, 8th, etc. CLASS level for the primary classes, everybody gets to
make the same choice as at first level but with +1 instead of +2. Thus
for example fighters get +1 to two of Str, Dex, Con, which can be a
different pair than at first level. Prestige classes don't get this
benefit, to give a little boost to the primary classes.
Parameters for tuning this scheme are
- which standard array to start with
- how big a plus to give at 1st level (+2 above, but could be +3 or
anything else that suits the campaign). Might want bigger 1st level
boosts if one starts with lesser arrays.
- which class level the next boost comes at (could be 5/10/15/20, for
example)
- how big a plus happens for the upper-level boosts (+1 as above, or
something bigger).
- whether to include prestige classes; my preference was to exclude them.
The person who made the original suggestion might have something else in
mind.
Nicole Massey
Sep 25, 2012, 5:40:10 PM9/25/12
to
"David Lamb" <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:k3t7qg$k5f$1...@dont-email.me...
numbers standpoint.
It also seems to be somewhat meta. And there's no intrinsic reason to base
this on a stat array -- a point buy or some sort of selective die rolling
dynamic would also work just as well.
Shawn Wilson
Sep 25, 2012, 7:43:23 PM9/25/12
to
On Sep 25, 2:30 pm, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
> So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
If I wanted to play Final Fantasy instead of DnD, I would play Final
> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
> So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
Fantasy instead of DnD. The videogamization of DnD has already gone
way too far, it doesn't need to go further still.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Sep 25, 2012, 11:40:18 PM9/25/12
to
in the proposal.
Now, if he mentioned getting special powers like Limit Breaks whenever
you were injured at 25%, 50%,etc., then we're talking.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Keith Davies
Sep 26, 2012, 10:22:33 AM9/26/12
to
Nicole Massey <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>
> "David Lamb" <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote in message
> news:k3t7qg$k5f$1...@dont-email.me...
>> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
>> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
>> So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
>
>
> "David Lamb" <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote in message
> news:k3t7qg$k5f$1...@dont-email.me...
>> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
>> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
>> So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
>
> At first glance this benefits MAD classes more than SAD classes, from
> a pure numbers standpoint.
I see nothing wrong with that. MAD classes usually need the help, in a
> a pure numbers standpoint.
point-buy or array situation.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "chain letter and chain mail...
keith....@kjdavies.org not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org
Keith Davies
Sep 26, 2012, 10:29:05 AM9/26/12
to
David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
> So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
>
> DM picks a standard array of some sort -- could be the critter array
> 11/11/11/10/10/10 or the elite array 15/14/13/12/10/8 (IIRC) or anything
> else s/he likes for the campaign. It might be appropriate to pick a
> lesser array than usual because of the class-specific boosts. At first
> CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2 to two particular ability scores,
> SAD get +2 to one.
A curious idea. It runs into a few problems, though.
> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
> So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
>
> DM picks a standard array of some sort -- could be the critter array
> 11/11/11/10/10/10 or the elite array 15/14/13/12/10/8 (IIRC) or anything
> else s/he likes for the campaign. It might be appropriate to pick a
> lesser array than usual because of the class-specific boosts. At first
> CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2 to two particular ability scores,
> SAD get +2 to one.
> Thus at first character level
> - Wizard gets +2 Int
it at every opportunity.
> - Sorceror gets +2 Cha
> - Fighters get their choice of +2 to any 2 of Str, Dex, Con
> - Clerics get their choice of +2 to two of Str, Con, Wis.
in combat, class abilities are mostly driven by Wis and Cha). However,
clerics rarely need the help.
> - Paladin gets any 2 of Str, Con, Cha
> - Monk might get +2 to 3 scores since they're the MADdest of all.
>
> At 4th character level everybody still gets +1 to any one ability score.
>
> At 4th, 8th, etc. CLASS level for the primary classes, everybody gets to
> make the same choice as at first level but with +1 instead of +2. Thus
> for example fighters get +1 to two of Str, Dex, Con, which can be a
> different pair than at first level. Prestige classes don't get this
> benefit, to give a little boost to the primary classes.
points over twenty levels. Why would they do anything but pump Int?
> Parameters for tuning this scheme are
> - which standard array to start with
> - how big a plus to give at 1st level (+2 above, but could be +3 or
> anything else that suits the campaign). Might want bigger 1st level
> boosts if one starts with lesser arrays.
> - which class level the next boost comes at (could be 5/10/15/20, for
> example)
> - how big a plus happens for the upper-level boosts (+1 as above, or
> something bigger).
> - whether to include prestige classes; my preference was to exclude them.
>
> The person who made the original suggestion might have something else in
> mind.
More and more I expect to ditch ability scores in Echelon. If I must,
I'll group abilities by type (martial, arcane casting, divine
channeling, and so on) and just give _that_ a score.
I was about to say I'd rather see everything made a MAD class or a SAD
class, then realized if they were all SAD classes there's really not
point to having ability scores except a bit of color. AFAICT D&D 4e
went this way, and this model seems to aim for something similar, where
everybody can be good at "all their class stuff".
Shawn Wilson
Sep 26, 2012, 2:06:31 PM9/26/12
to
On Sep 25, 8:40 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
adds per level for class. I play FFTA all the time (because I don't
have anything else, not because I love it that much, though I like it
well enough)
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > If I wanted to play Final Fantasy instead of DnD, I would play Final
> > Fantasy instead of DnD. The videogamization of DnD has already gone
> > way too far, it doesn't need to go further still.
>
> How in the world is this Final Fantasy like? I see nothing of that sort
> in the proposal.
It's how class and attribute work in FF. Base for race,a nd certain
> > If I wanted to play Final Fantasy instead of DnD, I would play Final
> > Fantasy instead of DnD. The videogamization of DnD has already gone
> > way too far, it doesn't need to go further still.
>
> How in the world is this Final Fantasy like? I see nothing of that sort
> in the proposal.
adds per level for class. I play FFTA all the time (because I don't
have anything else, not because I love it that much, though I like it
well enough)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Sep 26, 2012, 2:09:37 PM9/26/12
to
in use for a long time -- maybe even for P&P systems back in the 1980s.
Alcore
Sep 26, 2012, 2:38:46 PM9/26/12
to
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:42:57 PM UTC-5, Nicole Massey wrote:
[snip]
> At first glance this benefits MAD classes more than SAD classes, ...
[snip]
People who want to play "MAD" classess are never satisfied unless their characters are overpowered compared to a "SAD" class of the same level and resource pool (i.e. stat allocation method and other base resources you build a character out of).
Time and again I've seen the debate, and NEVER do I see a concession that character concepts that have a dependency on multiple high stats should have to settle for generally lower, more balanaced stat sets. NEVER is there a concession that a SAD class can have a few optimized really high scores and that such is part of the class power level balance scheme.
Paladin vs Fighter (power attack build): The Paladin SHOULD NOT be able to match the pure fighter in raw combat power over time. But he has other abilities that are assumed to create the balance. His strength and constitution will almost certainly be lower, because he also needs good scores in other "Paladin stats"... If the Paladin didn't have this recource bind, then he really wouldn't fall behind the fighter in any meaningful way. And there would be no point in every playing that fighter.
MAD is a balance thing. It you want one of these characters, you are giving up having the sharpest tools in exchange for having more of them.
[snip]
> At first glance this benefits MAD classes more than SAD classes, ...
[snip]
People who want to play "MAD" classess are never satisfied unless their characters are overpowered compared to a "SAD" class of the same level and resource pool (i.e. stat allocation method and other base resources you build a character out of).
Time and again I've seen the debate, and NEVER do I see a concession that character concepts that have a dependency on multiple high stats should have to settle for generally lower, more balanaced stat sets. NEVER is there a concession that a SAD class can have a few optimized really high scores and that such is part of the class power level balance scheme.
Paladin vs Fighter (power attack build): The Paladin SHOULD NOT be able to match the pure fighter in raw combat power over time. But he has other abilities that are assumed to create the balance. His strength and constitution will almost certainly be lower, because he also needs good scores in other "Paladin stats"... If the Paladin didn't have this recource bind, then he really wouldn't fall behind the fighter in any meaningful way. And there would be no point in every playing that fighter.
MAD is a balance thing. It you want one of these characters, you are giving up having the sharpest tools in exchange for having more of them.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Sep 26, 2012, 2:43:02 PM9/26/12
to
themselves out, as they always do.
Keith Davies
Sep 26, 2012, 4:13:17 PM9/26/12
to
The MAD classes, while they may have a few more tools, _start_ with
tools that aren't as sharp. A paladin, for example, doesn't have nearly
the same spell access or ability to turn undead that a cleric does (and
even clerical turning is pretty crap). He's got a little bit at best of
those things.
Wizards and clerics, on the other hand, have frightfully large toolboxes
to work with... and need really focus on only one ability score. Yeah,
the cleric loses a bit if he chooses to just pump Wisdom, but that's
likely still his best option -- he's got other ways to get hit points,
and turn undead is a crap ability anyway.
_In principle_ I don't have a problem with MAD characters -- built-in
gish, basically -- being more limited in each area than the SAD classes
they are related to... but D&D doesn't seem to do this well.
Nicole Massey
Sep 26, 2012, 6:16:16 PM9/26/12
to
"Alcore" <alc...@uurth.com> wrote in message
news:f3e80c58-627d-4d23...@googlegroups.com...
stat parity with SAD classes, in light of the other abilities MAD classes
get. The goal is balance overall, not in each individual area. Going down
that road leads to bland generic characters.
David Lamb
Sep 26, 2012, 6:27:41 PM9/26/12
to
On 26/09/2012 10:22 AM, Keith Davies wrote:
> Nicole Massey <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>>
>> "David Lamb" <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote in message
>> news:k3t7qg$k5f$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
>>> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
>>> So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
>>
>> At first glance this benefits MAD classes more than SAD classes, from
>> a pure numbers standpoint.
>
> I see nothing wrong with that. MAD classes usually need the help, in a
> point-buy or array situation.
Helping MAD more than SAD was deliberate.
> Nicole Massey <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>>
>> "David Lamb" <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote in message
>> news:k3t7qg$k5f$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
>>> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
>>> So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
>>
>> At first glance this benefits MAD classes more than SAD classes, from
>> a pure numbers standpoint.
>
> I see nothing wrong with that. MAD classes usually need the help, in a
> point-buy or array situation.
David Lamb
Sep 26, 2012, 6:38:22 PM9/26/12
to
On 26/09/2012 10:29 AM, Keith Davies wrote:
whereas MAD get boost to two or more to help "keep up". There's a big
issue in what array you start with, though, which I didn't articulate
very well. If you start with 15/14/13/12/10/8 which IIRC is the elite
array, the 1st level wizard probably gets 17 int, 14 con, 13 dex, the
others spread as you like. The 1st level tank fighter gets 17 con, 16
Str, 13 dex, etc. The 1st level archer gets 17 dex, 16 con or str
(depending on whether they expect ever to be in melee and need that much
con), 13 str or con (the other way around). For DMs who think 17/16 is
overpowered, they can start with a lower "standard array" such as a 12
or 13 for the largest stat in the array.
So the "boost" for wizards and sorcerors in one stat could be set up as
the way to get their one stat to the level they'd do with a higher point
buy, where the MAD classes get boosts to enough other stats that they
can keep up.
And to those who think MAD is "balanced" with SAD already -- I think you
and I live on different planets, and there are plenty of people who live
on mine.
> David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> Thus at first character level
>> - Wizard gets +2 Int
>
> Wizard generally doesn't _need_ +2 Int, since he gets to otherwise crank
> it at every opportunity.
>> Thus at first character level
>> - Wizard gets +2 Int
>
> Wizard generally doesn't _need_ +2 Int, since he gets to otherwise crank
> it at every opportunity.
>> At 4th, 8th, etc. CLASS level for the primary classes, everybody gets to
>> make the same choice as at first level but with +1 instead of +2. Thus
>> for example fighters get +1 to two of Str, Dex, Con, which can be a
>> different pair than at first level. Prestige classes don't get this
>> benefit, to give a little boost to the primary classes.
>
> Wizards win again. Even more now, since they get to add another five
> points over twenty levels. Why would they do anything but pump Int?
The basic idea was that SAD classes get a boost to only one stat,
>> make the same choice as at first level but with +1 instead of +2. Thus
>> for example fighters get +1 to two of Str, Dex, Con, which can be a
>> different pair than at first level. Prestige classes don't get this
>> benefit, to give a little boost to the primary classes.
>
> Wizards win again. Even more now, since they get to add another five
> points over twenty levels. Why would they do anything but pump Int?
whereas MAD get boost to two or more to help "keep up". There's a big
issue in what array you start with, though, which I didn't articulate
very well. If you start with 15/14/13/12/10/8 which IIRC is the elite
array, the 1st level wizard probably gets 17 int, 14 con, 13 dex, the
others spread as you like. The 1st level tank fighter gets 17 con, 16
Str, 13 dex, etc. The 1st level archer gets 17 dex, 16 con or str
(depending on whether they expect ever to be in melee and need that much
con), 13 str or con (the other way around). For DMs who think 17/16 is
overpowered, they can start with a lower "standard array" such as a 12
or 13 for the largest stat in the array.
So the "boost" for wizards and sorcerors in one stat could be set up as
the way to get their one stat to the level they'd do with a higher point
buy, where the MAD classes get boosts to enough other stats that they
can keep up.
And to those who think MAD is "balanced" with SAD already -- I think you
and I live on different planets, and there are plenty of people who live
on mine.
Nicole Massey
Sep 26, 2012, 8:48:05 PM9/26/12
to
news:k40056$a8e$1...@dont-email.me...
This also depends on which version of the game under consideration, too.
And if someone doesn't want to pay the price for a MAD class, then they can
easily take a SAD one. Or, maybe, they can take the class they want and
role-play it in an interesting matter instead of roll-playing what they were
able to "build."
The next step down this road is to just eliminate ability scores and assign
modifiers for different classes, with a system for buying down the negatives
and boosting the neutrals or positives.
And if someone doesn't want to pay the price for a MAD class, then they can
easily take a SAD one. Or, maybe, they can take the class they want and
role-play it in an interesting matter instead of roll-playing what they were
able to "build."
The next step down this road is to just eliminate ability scores and assign
modifiers for different classes, with a system for buying down the negatives
and boosting the neutrals or positives.
tussock
Oct 24, 2012, 9:11:23 AM10/24/12
to
David Lamb wrote:
> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
That may have been me, I should resurrect this.
> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
> So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:
>
> DM picks a standard array of some sort -- could be the critter array
> 11/11/11/10/10/10 or the elite array 15/14/13/12/10/8 (IIRC) or anything
> else s/he likes for the campaign.
classes. When everything runs off one stat, you don't want a 15 there.
> It might be appropriate to pick a lesser array than usual because of
> the class-specific boosts. At first CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2
> to two particular ability scores, SAD get +2 to one.
small amounts of Dex and Con they should start with a 17 (or 19) Int which
is plenty. At least it's not a 20.
You're also confusing the better clases with the SAD ones. Clerics and
Druids are MAD and awesome, they don't need any help at all to compete with
Wizards in any 3e-style game. Bards and Monks are MAD and not so good.
> Thus at first character level
- Brd +2 Dex
- Clr -2 Dex
- Drd ------
- Fgt +4 Str, +2 Con
- Mnk +4 Str, Dex, & Con
- Pal +2 Str, +4 Con
- Rgr +2 Str, +4 Dex
- Rog +2 Dex
- Src ------
- Wiz -2 Str
As a class mod, these do not stack as bonuses, and should probably be
tied to class tropes like a Monk being unarmoured and so on. Many of those
classes are better "fixed" by giving them better class bonus progressions,
like full BAB for Bards and Monks, all good saves for Fighters, and so on,
but that's an aside.
> At 4th character level everybody still gets +1 to any one ability score.
the Wizard +1 Int, the Monk needs +1 to everything to have any chance.
> At 4th, 8th, etc. CLASS level for the primary classes, everybody gets to
> make the same choice as at first level but with +1 instead of +2. Thus
> for example fighters get +1 to two of Str, Dex, Con, which can be a
> different pair than at first level. Prestige classes don't get this
> benefit, to give a little boost to the primary classes.
a growing class bonus if you stick with one class. Ftr 16 can end up with
+12 Str, +4 Dex, +6 Con. Full casters do not need better mental stats, and
you could just take that bonus away from them.
16th level middle-aged Wizard with 22 Int fully buffed? Yay! Fighter
still can't fly? Oh dear.
> Parameters for tuning this scheme are
> - which standard array to start with
> - how big a plus to give at 1st level (+2 above, but could be +3 or
> anything else that suits the campaign). Might want bigger 1st level
> boosts if one starts with lesser arrays.
classes down a bit. With more even classes, the NPC array and everyone
getting big bonuses would work better.
> - which class level the next boost comes at (could be 5/10/15/20, for
> example)
> - how big a plus happens for the upper-level boosts (+1 as above, or
> something bigger).
often seems a good idea.
> - whether to include prestige classes; my preference was to exclude them.
PClass, so pile them on at say 4th, 8th, and 10th. It'd be a nice balancing
mechanism if the designers had it available (and they actually playtested
their stuff properly).
> The person who made the original suggestion might have something else in
> mind.
be mostly in a spreadsheet, as I remember generating a few thousand
characters to test the ideas. Hmm.
--
tussock
David Lamb
Oct 26, 2012, 8:58:05 AM10/26/12
to
On 24/10/2012 9:11 AM, tussock wrote:
> David Lamb wrote:
>
>> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
>> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
>
> That may have been me, I should resurrect this.
> David Lamb wrote:
>
>> In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
>> scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
>
> That may have been me, I should resurrect this.
> Making people use standard arrays already greatly limits the SAD
> classes. When everything runs off one stat, you don't want a 15 there.
>
>> It might be appropriate to pick a lesser array than usual because of
>> the class-specific boosts. At first CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2
>> to two particular ability scores, SAD get +2 to one.
>
> But here that's better for the Wizard, even if you cut them to very
> small amounts of Dex and Con they should start with a 17 (or 19) Int which
> is plenty. At least it's not a 20.
Well, would you compensate with a lesser standard array? a 14 or 13 as
> classes. When everything runs off one stat, you don't want a 15 there.
>
>> It might be appropriate to pick a lesser array than usual because of
>> the class-specific boosts. At first CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2
>> to two particular ability scores, SAD get +2 to one.
>
> But here that's better for the Wizard, even if you cut them to very
> small amounts of Dex and Con they should start with a 17 (or 19) Int which
> is plenty. At least it's not a 20.
the highest stat? I left it up to the campaign (DM in consultation with
players)
> You're also confusing the better clases with the SAD ones. Clerics and
> Druids are MAD and awesome, they don't need any help at all to compete with
> Wizards in any 3e-style game. Bards and Monks are MAD and not so good.
combination with various of the milder nerfs to those classes, but
that's a separate discussion
>
>> Thus at first character level
> - Brb +2 Str, Dex, & Con
Did you mean to all 3 stats?
>> Thus at first character level
> - Brb +2 Str, Dex, & Con
> - Brd +2 Dex
Why not CHA?
> - Clr -2 Dex
NOT giving any bonus, beyond the standard array, to a powerful class
makes some sense. A cleric would want to put the 15 in Wis to be able to
get to 19 by the time the 9th level spells show up.
However, ... Since my proposal based the first set of ability adds on
first character level rather than class level, why wouldn't clerics take
their first level in some other class that avoids the penalty? Or would
people want to start their spell progressions immediately and so not
take a 1-level dip? I've heard at least one person say they consider
taking a 1-level dip in Barbarian at first level for the extra hit
points and speed; depends on the campaign I suppose.
> - Drd ------
> - Fgt +4 Str, +2 Con
> - Mnk +4 Str, Dex, & Con
> - Pal +2 Str, +4 Con
> - Rgr +2 Str, +4 Dex
> - Rog +2 Dex
> - Src ------
> - Wiz -2 Str
No bonus to primary stat for powerful SAD classes might make sense.
> - Pal +2 Str, +4 Con
> - Rgr +2 Str, +4 Dex
> - Rog +2 Dex
> - Src ------
> - Wiz -2 Str
>
> As a class mod, these do not stack as bonuses, and should probably be
> tied to class tropes like a Monk being unarmoured and so on.
than first character level? I'm not quite sure how you mean this to
work. If you stack 4 classes, do you get the best plusses for each stat
(rather than stacking)? Ftr 1 / Rgr 1 gets +$ str, +4 Dex, +2 con? or
just the first-character-level Ftr mods?
>> At 4th character level everybody still gets +1 to any one ability score.
>
> That should almost certainly become +1 to /all/ stats. If you're giving
> the Wizard +1 Int, the Monk needs +1 to everything to have any chance.
> 16th level middle-aged Wizard with 22 Int fully buffed? Yay! Fighter
> still can't fly? Oh dear.
>> - whether to include prestige classes; my preference was to exclude them.
>
> If you had stacking bonuses, you could give them for sticking with one
> PClass, so pile them on at say 4th, 8th, and 10th. It'd be a nice balancing
> mechanism if the designers had it available
was the vague idea that there ought to be more benefits to sticking with
a primary class.
>
>> The person who made the original suggestion might have something else in
>> mind.
>
> I've got stuff written down /somewhere/ about this sort of thing. Should
> be mostly in a spreadsheet, as I remember generating a few thousand
> characters to test the ideas. Hmm.
not right away.
tussock
Oct 27, 2012, 7:47:34 AM10/27/12
to
David Lamb wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>> David Lamb wrote:
>>
<snips>
> tussock wrote:
>> David Lamb wrote:
>>
>> Making people use standard arrays already greatly limits the SAD
>> classes. When everything runs off one stat, you don't want a 15 there.
>>
>>> It might be appropriate to pick a lesser array than usual because of
>>> the class-specific boosts. At first CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2
>>> to two particular ability scores, SAD get +2 to one.
>>
>> But here that's better for the Wizard, even if you cut them to very
>> small amounts of Dex and Con they should start with a 17 (or 19) Int
>> which is plenty. At least it's not a 20.
>
> Well, would you compensate with a lesser standard array? a 14 or 13 as
> the highest stat? I left it up to the campaign (DM in consultation with
> players)
I like the familiar base, the size of bonuses it needs are fairly small
>> classes. When everything runs off one stat, you don't want a 15 there.
>>
>>> It might be appropriate to pick a lesser array than usual because of
>>> the class-specific boosts. At first CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2
>>> to two particular ability scores, SAD get +2 to one.
>>
>> But here that's better for the Wizard, even if you cut them to very
>> small amounts of Dex and Con they should start with a 17 (or 19) Int
>> which is plenty. At least it's not a 20.
>
> Well, would you compensate with a lesser standard array? a 14 or 13 as
> the highest stat? I left it up to the campaign (DM in consultation with
> players)
and you can throw the odd penalty at it. Not a problem.
>> You're also confusing the better clases with the SAD ones. Clerics
>> and Druids are MAD and awesome, they don't need any help at all to
>> compete with Wizards in any 3e-style game. Bards and Monks are MAD and
>> not so good.
>
> You're right; I did confuse that. I suppose this could be done in
> combination with various of the milder nerfs to those classes, but
> that's a separate discussion
classes too, there's more room to throw about mental stat bonuses and
penalties and let the multiclass stuff stack.
>>> Thus at first character level
>> - Brb +2 Str, Dex, & Con
>
> Did you mean to all 3 stats?
>> - Brd +2 Dex
>
> Why not CHA?
and are a moderately good class. 16 Dex, 15 Cha?
>> - Clr -2 Dex
>
> NOT giving any bonus, beyond the standard array, to a powerful class
> makes some sense. A cleric would want to put the 15 in Wis to be able to
> get to 19 by the time the 9th level spells show up.
caster nerf into it. 8]
> However, ... Since my proposal based the first set of ability adds on
> first character level rather than class level, why wouldn't clerics take
> their first level in some other class that avoids the penalty? Or would
> people want to start their spell progressions immediately and so not
> take a 1-level dip? I've heard at least one person say they consider
> taking a 1-level dip in Barbarian at first level for the extra hit
> points and speed; depends on the campaign I suppose.
defense, Ftr for the AC and various feat combos, .... Simply put, your old-
school Elven Fighter/Mage is one level behind in Wizarding, has a few more
hit points, and is much better with swords: but is *one level behind in
Wizarding*.
That's awesome. If I could think of a way to trick them into going two
levels down, the monsters would stand up much better. 8]
>> - Drd ------
>> - Fgt +4 Str, +2 Con
>
> I gather you didn't like my "+2 to (choose 2 of Str, Dex, Con)"?
Ranger for the cheap feats and assorted other goodness. My strait Fighter
builds tend to be low-Dex tanky types, maybe dip something for wand use.
>> - Mnk +4 Str, Dex, & Con
>> - Pal +2 Str, +4 Con
>> - Rgr +2 Str, +4 Dex
>> - Rog +2 Dex
>> - Src ------
>> - Wiz -2 Str
>
> No bonus to primary stat for powerful SAD classes might make sense.
caster's numbers under control is handy. I'd like to use some mental
penalties on the grunts, +Cha and Wis for a Paladin, +Wis Monk.
But negatives just kills the classic multiclass options like F/M, and
bonuses could make the dip compulsary for full casters.
>> As a class mod, these do not stack as bonuses, and should probably
>> be tied to class tropes like a Monk being unarmoured and so on.
>
> Hmm. Do you mean you're tying them strictly to first class level rather
> than first character level? I'm not quite sure how you mean this to
> work. If you stack 4 classes, do you get the best plusses for each stat
> (rather than stacking)? Ftr 1 / Rgr 1 gets +$ str, +4 Dex, +2 con? or
> just the first-character-level Ftr mods?
keeping multiclassing reasonable without needing to care about what came
first or why my Ftr/Rgr doesn't have a Dex bonus when my Rgr/Ftr does.
>>> At 4th character level everybody still gets +1 to any one ability score.
>>
>> That should almost certainly become +1 to /all/ stats. If you're
>> giving the Wizard +1 Int, the Monk needs +1 to everything to have any
>> chance.
>
> Hmm. I recall Keith making the same suggestion in a long-ago discussion.
>
>> 16th level middle-aged Wizard with 22 Int fully buffed? Yay! Fighter
>> still can't fly? Oh dear.
>
> I guess you mean that even with these changes, fighters are behind?
a /lot/ to do with a little cooperation from the casters. To some extent
they don't need any bonuses at all if everyone plays along at piling spells
on them and keeping the monsters in reach (at least up to around 15th level
where Pathfinder tops out it's adventures for that very reason).
But then there's so many things in the MM that are just flat out better
at standing in melee than a Fighter can ever be, or crazy-fast and just
immune to your bow. The high level Fiends, played for keeps, are basically
/impossible/ to kill with a Fighter even if you are all buffed up.
Unless the DM puts them 20' from an unlocked door and lets you sneak up
on their super-genius ass and cut them down before they can act.
>>> - whether to include prestige classes; my preference was to exclude
>>> them.
>>
>> If you had stacking bonuses, you could give them for sticking with
>> one PClass, so pile them on at say 4th, 8th, and 10th. It'd be a nice
>> balancing mechanism if the designers had it available
>
> Part of the that suggestion about not giving boosts in prestige classes
> was the vague idea that there ought to be more benefits to sticking with
> a primary class.
bonuses every 2nd or 4th level anyway, so rather than drop into a PClass
after 6 or 7 levels of Wizard and wait untill 11th, 15th, and 17th level for
any more bonuses, or "worse" grab dip levels in three PClasses, you hang
around with your Wizard.
Like, if you get into modding the typical stat bonuses from Wishes and
Enhancement bonuses, you can fit more into the core classes aswell. Rather
than a +6 hat, +4 from level, and +5 wishes, a 17th level Wizard could have
had +1 Int /every even level/ (more at higher levels), which the PClasses
get less often.
I sort of assume that's to be part of any such package.
>>> The person who made the original suggestion might have something else in
>>> mind.
>>
>> I've got stuff written down /somewhere/ about this sort of thing.
>> Should be mostly in a spreadsheet, as I remember generating a few
>> thousand characters to test the ideas. Hmm.
>
> I'd love to see the ideas, albeit not the spreadsheet itself! At least,
> not right away.
--
tussock
tussock
Oct 30, 2012, 3:51:39 AM10/30/12
to
tussock wrote:
<snip>
really got anywhere interesting (other than in understanding better how 3e
changed some of the game's basic odds).
Using something like the standard array (or dice) and 3e's stat mods,
it'd be about half the size for stat adjustments ... so
Fighter: +2 Str, +1 Con, -1 Int.
-Ranger: +1 Str, +1 Dex.
Paladin: +1 Str, +1 Cha.
---Mage: +2 Int, +1 Dex, -1 Str.
Illusio: +2 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Con.
-Cleric: +2 Wis, +1 Cha, -1 Dex.
--Druid: +1 Wis, +1 Cha.
--Thief: +2 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Wis.
Assassi: +1 Str, +1 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Cha.
---Monk: +1 Dex, +1 Wis.
I've come to appreciate odd adjustments in 3e anyway, nothing wrong with
gamist application of adjustments. The negative adjustments there are an
attempt to model the 1st edition bit where Str < 6 has to be a Mage and so
on without using those sort of limiting rules, which may not be desirable
for others.
That stacks with similar small race and age adjustments, like AD&D's.
NPC Dwarves can all have average 16 Con while PCs have only a +1 Con
adjustment, Ogres with 20 Str NPCs only need +2 Str for PCs. It's fine.
Depends how many rules you want to touch to get this sort of effect, but
switching to +1/-1 types gives you more room to show differences without
forcing everyone into the steriotypes.
The simplest implimentation of this ramble is to say every character
(after choosing a class) gets +1 to any two stats, and may choose to add +1
and -1 to any two as well, using the above as recommendations.
--
tussock
<snip>
>> I'd love to see the ideas, albeit not the spreadsheet itself! At least,
>> not right away.
>
> I'll have to have a dig around.
OK, found it. It's in my little "AD&D 3rd edition" project, which never
>> not right away.
>
> I'll have to have a dig around.
really got anywhere interesting (other than in understanding better how 3e
changed some of the game's basic odds).
Using something like the standard array (or dice) and 3e's stat mods,
it'd be about half the size for stat adjustments ... so
Fighter: +2 Str, +1 Con, -1 Int.
-Ranger: +1 Str, +1 Dex.
Paladin: +1 Str, +1 Cha.
---Mage: +2 Int, +1 Dex, -1 Str.
Illusio: +2 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Con.
-Cleric: +2 Wis, +1 Cha, -1 Dex.
--Druid: +1 Wis, +1 Cha.
--Thief: +2 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Wis.
Assassi: +1 Str, +1 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Cha.
---Monk: +1 Dex, +1 Wis.
I've come to appreciate odd adjustments in 3e anyway, nothing wrong with
gamist application of adjustments. The negative adjustments there are an
attempt to model the 1st edition bit where Str < 6 has to be a Mage and so
on without using those sort of limiting rules, which may not be desirable
for others.
That stacks with similar small race and age adjustments, like AD&D's.
NPC Dwarves can all have average 16 Con while PCs have only a +1 Con
adjustment, Ogres with 20 Str NPCs only need +2 Str for PCs. It's fine.
Depends how many rules you want to touch to get this sort of effect, but
switching to +1/-1 types gives you more room to show differences without
forcing everyone into the steriotypes.
The simplest implimentation of this ramble is to say every character
(after choosing a class) gets +1 to any two stats, and may choose to add +1
and -1 to any two as well, using the above as recommendations.
--
tussock
David Lamb
Oct 30, 2012, 5:53:38 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 3:51 AM, tussock wrote:
> The simplest implimentation of this ramble is to say every character
> (after choosing a class) gets +1 to any two stats, and may choose to add +1
> and -1 to any two as well, using the above as recommendations.
Well, yes, but that's another step away from tying ability scores to class.
> The simplest implimentation of this ramble is to say every character
> (after choosing a class) gets +1 to any two stats, and may choose to add +1
> and -1 to any two as well, using the above as recommendations.
I suppose the most fanatical form of tying ability scores to class is to
start with 11/11/11/10/10/10 or 13/13/11/10/8/8 (specific 15-point buys
but disallowing any extreme SAD variants like 17/10/8/8/8/8), and then
some *big* mods to stats like fighters at character level 1 getting
+4/+3/+2 to Str, Dex, Con in some chosen order, and enough plusses to
spellcasting classes' primary attributes that they can cast their Nth
level spells at class level 2N-1 given the other progressions. Whatever
numbers get picked should take into account the "+1 to all scores at
character level 4/8/10/..." and also whether there are additional
plusses to a class' scores at other levels, like plusses at every Class
level that's a multiple of 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever.
So suppose we take 13/13/11/10/8/8 and extra +1s in appropriate stats at
class levels that are multiples of 5.
Ftr (tank) 0: 13/11/13/8/10/8
1: 16/13/17/8/10/8
4: 17/14/18/9/11/9
5: 18/15/19/9/11/9
8: 19/16/20/10/12/10
10: 20/17/21/10/12/10
12: 21/18/22/11/13/11
(if this looks too good, bear in mind that by Keith's reasoning level 12
is beyond normal human ability).
Mage 0: 8/11/10/13/13/8
1: 8/11/10/15/13/8
4: 9/12/11/16/14/9
5: 9/12/11/17/14/9
8: 10/13/12/18/15/10
10: 10/13/12/19/15/10
12: 11/14/13/20/16/11
Everybody does really, really well for at least one class, and MAD
classes do well at all their relevant stats. Multiclass and prestige
classes do less well because of the multiple-of-5 applying only to class
levels and the big boosts only at first character level.
David Lamb
Oct 30, 2012, 6:03:06 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 5:53 PM, David Lamb wrote:
> Everybody does really, really well for at least one class
I meant "stat" of course.
> Everybody does really, really well for at least one class
Rast
Oct 30, 2012, 10:23:00 PM10/30/12
to
tussock wrote on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:51:39 +1300:
> I've come to appreciate odd adjustments in 3e anyway, nothing wrong with
> gamist application of adjustments.
>
> I've come to appreciate odd adjustments in 3e anyway, nothing wrong with
> gamist application of adjustments.
>
> Depends how many rules you want to touch to get this sort of effect, but
> switching to +1/-1 types gives you more room to show differences without
> forcing everyone into the steriotypes.
Agreed.
> switching to +1/-1 types gives you more room to show differences without
> forcing everyone into the steriotypes.
--
There walked into the lethal quicksands a very old man in tattered
purple, crowned with withered vine-leaves and gazing ahead as if upon the
golden domes of a fair city where dreams are understood. That night
something of youth and beauty died in the elder world. - H P Lovecraft
tussock
Oct 31, 2012, 5:41:49 AM10/31/12
to
David Lamb wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>> The simplest implimentation of this ramble is to say every character
>> (after choosing a class) gets +1 to any two stats, and may choose to add
>> +1 and -1 to any two as well, using the above as recommendations.
>
> Well, yes, but that's another step away from tying ability scores to
> class.
True that. Reading back, I've seen the /specific problem/ I ran into
> tussock wrote:
>> The simplest implimentation of this ramble is to say every character
>> (after choosing a class) gets +1 to any two stats, and may choose to add
>> +1 and -1 to any two as well, using the above as recommendations.
>
> Well, yes, but that's another step away from tying ability scores to
> class.
with all that sort of thing is being unable to support classic multi-class
combinations.
In particular, the Elven F/M where they all but negate each other.
I don't want them to stack, that does horrible things. I can add them
and halve it, round down for nothing, but why must you get weaker by taking
a Wizard level? Luckily I can let the player do it so they start with +Str
and +Int no matter how multiclassing is handled, becuase _that works_.
I can trust players to tie their stats to the optimal arrangement for
their /particular/ character better than I can do it for them with class
mods. Want a high Str+Cha Rog/Ftr/Brd with a full-casting bard prestigue
class to model 1e? Go to it.
It's the same deal with racial mods. NPC dwarves can be dour and tough
and PC dwarves can have a +/- they can put wherever they want. Players don't
want to follow the archetype? Good for them: Sneezy, Sleepy, and Doc were
Dwarves too.
Where was I? Right. 3e, start with 11/11/11/10/10/10.
+2 to any four stats, because you're a PC. = 13/13/13/12/10/10.
+1 to two stats by class. = 14/14/13/12/10/10.
+1/-2 at player's option. = 15/14/13/12/10/08.
LOL, standard array in disguise. 8]
--
tussock
David Lamb
Nov 1, 2012, 2:25:03 PM11/1/12
to
On 31/10/2012 5:41 AM, tussock wrote:
> Where was I? Right. 3e, start with 11/11/11/10/10/10.
>
> +2 to any four stats, because you're a PC. = 13/13/13/12/10/10.
>
> +1 to two stats by class. = 14/14/13/12/10/10.
> +1/-2 at player's option. = 15/14/13/12/10/08.
I like the idea of allowing an optional "+1 here for -2 there" trade.
> Where was I? Right. 3e, start with 11/11/11/10/10/10.
>
> +2 to any four stats, because you're a PC. = 13/13/13/12/10/10.
>
> +1 to two stats by class. = 14/14/13/12/10/10.
> +1/-2 at player's option. = 15/14/13/12/10/08.
>
> LOL, standard array in disguise. 8]
Cute, but... seems like a lot of work for no gain. I know you're more
> LOL, standard array in disguise. 8]
creative than that!
I suppose alternatives include a different starting array (maybe one
with some 8s and 9s). Then some people might be inclined to "fix" an 8
or 9 with one of their "+2 to 4 stats" bumps rather than push one stat
extra high.
I'm not sure I mind letting a SAD class push its prime stat slightly
above 15, as long as a MAD one gets something more meaningful to them
like a comparable boost to multiple stats.
tussock
Nov 4, 2012, 9:17:26 AM11/4/12
to
David Lamb wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>> Where was I? Right. 3e, start with 11/11/11/10/10/10.
>>
>> +2 to any four stats, because you're a PC. = 13/13/13/12/10/10.
>>
>> +1 to two stats by class. = 14/14/13/12/10/10.
>> +1/-2 at player's option. = 15/14/13/12/10/08.
>
> I like the idea of allowing an optional "+1 here for -2 there" trade.
Indeed.
> tussock wrote:
>> Where was I? Right. 3e, start with 11/11/11/10/10/10.
>>
>> +2 to any four stats, because you're a PC. = 13/13/13/12/10/10.
>>
>> +1 to two stats by class. = 14/14/13/12/10/10.
>> +1/-2 at player's option. = 15/14/13/12/10/08.
>
> I like the idea of allowing an optional "+1 here for -2 there" trade.
>> LOL, standard array in disguise. 8]
>
> Cute, but... seems like a lot of work for no gain. I know you're more
> creative than that!
work into polishing something like this.
1st Multiclassing: where you don't want a big bonus locked in by your
first level class choice.
Can work around that with /small/ class bonuses, never more than +1 per
stat per level, and net +0 or +1 at 1st level. Which suits 3e style
multiclassing because you just add everything from all your classes like you
do for BAB and saves (fix those while you're at it).
2nd Class flexibility: where there's a wealth of stat arrangements that
work well (if not optimally) on /some/ of the classes. If you push a Rogue's
Dexterity by level automatically, you destroy the Strength-based Rogue
option. Maybe that's fine, make everyone optimise a certain way. But ewwww.
I'm thinking, if you're still bothering with 3e's build complexity for
characters, leave it flexible, that's the point. But then, your stats aren't
tied to your class at all, for at least half the classes.
Which leads to ... can I give up trying to balance casters and just have
something interesting? Not with that, I don't think.
Interesting stats /to me/ are when the Wizard ends up with 16 Con and 14
Int, or the bow oriented Fighter ends up taking the Expertise chain because
he had 15 Int anyway. NB: "organic" rolling is kinda neat like that.
But that doesn't support what a lot of people want out of complex
character building, and certainly doesn't mesh with a Fighter getting
compulsary "free" bonuses in Strength.
So I'm left with a set of /tiny/ class bonuses that are mostly flexible
anyway. Which is not really tying stats to class any more, as you noted. So
I'm stuck, doing cheap tricks like the above.
> I suppose alternatives include a different starting array (maybe one
> with some 8s and 9s). Then some people might be inclined to "fix" an 8
> or 9 with one of their "+2 to 4 stats" bumps rather than push one stat
> extra high.
up because it's a /very/ powerful trick. Getting to 30 in your prime stat is
basically winning. Something like the impact of finding a +5 sword at 1st
level in AD&D, or an item that gave everything -5 to all saves vs your
spells (on top of every other trick for that).
They playtested the game with characters who barely reached a 20 at high
levels. The monsters just can't take the extra +5 on the PC's side.
> I'm not sure I mind letting a SAD class push its prime stat slightly
> above 15, as long as a MAD one gets something more meaningful to them
> like a comparable boost to multiple stats.
give them whatever stats you like. God-like int? Who cares, when it's the
same DC! ... I should post my 3e versions of AD&D classes and magic rules
(when I'm awake and can check for math). The casters still kick ass, it just
leaves something for the Fighters to do.
--
tussock
tussock
Nov 16, 2012, 8:58:06 AM11/16/12
to
David Lamb wrote:
> Cute, but... seems like a lot of work for no gain. I know you're more
> creative than that!
Eventually a solution presents itself.
> Cute, but... seems like a lot of work for no gain. I know you're more
> creative than that!
I stumbled on an old idea (by noting it elsewhere with a sense of deja)
for a /different/ set of house rules I'd looked into a few years back.
If you want the heavy hit and damage mods to be linked to the Warrior
classes, take those "class-like" bonuses out of the stats and put them in
the class progressions. Same for bonus spells, DCs, missile and light weapon
attacks, anything that adds to your class-based offence. No major stat mods
to attacks.
If you want the remaining things like "can break down doors and carry
fallen comrades" or "has lots of skills, particularly lore" to be linked to
the classes, feel free to give them stat mods. Just keep them small, so you
can have smart, gun-totin' colledge girls and hulking ogre hurlers built off
the same Fighter class.
3e level / prime (other) modifier
1 +3 (+1)
2-3 +4 (+2)
4-5 +5 (+2)
6-7 +6 (+3)
8-11 +7 (+3)
12-15 +8 (+4)
16+ +9 (+4)
Approximate and smoothed, no wishes, NPC array base, includes a PC-like
race, level, and enhancement bonus. Allows you to throw out most of the
sillier level adjustments and whatnot. Fixes Polymorph, give or take.
Pick a primary stat for your character, it uses the "prime" bonus for
attacks, damage, spells, and so on as appropriate to the stat. All other
stats use the "other" modifier. Probably needs a middle option for certain
two-stat dominant characters, but meh, just let them use the one stat.
TL:DR; try again, it's not a bad idea.
--
tussock
David Lamb
Nov 18, 2012, 10:13:52 AM11/18/12
to
On 16/11/2012 8:58 AM, tussock wrote:
> If you want the heavy hit and damage mods to be linked to the Warrior
> classes, take those "class-like" bonuses out of the stats and put them in
> the class progressions. Same for bonus spells, DCs, missile and light weapon
> attacks, anything that adds to your class-based offence. No major stat mods
> to attacks.
Do you mean stats don't affect attacks? No STR mod to melee, DEX to
> If you want the heavy hit and damage mods to be linked to the Warrior
> classes, take those "class-like" bonuses out of the stats and put them in
> the class progressions. Same for bonus spells, DCs, missile and light weapon
> attacks, anything that adds to your class-based offence. No major stat mods
> to attacks.
missile, but instead push BAB and damage up a little faster for the
fightery classes? Eliminates MAD entirely, which might be good.
That certainly fits with "tying <stuff> to classes". I should also note
that the latest version of Keith'd EchelonD20 eliminates stats entirely
in favour of tying stat-like bonuses to "talents" (not gonna explain
more of echelon; interested parties can look at www.echelond20.org and
be prepared for an afternoon of following around a lot of links).
> If you want the remaining things like "can break down doors and carry
> fallen comrades" or "has lots of skills, particularly lore" to be linked to
> the classes, feel free to give them stat mods. Just keep them small, so you
> can have smart, gun-totin' colledge girls and hulking ogre hurlers built off
> the same Fighter class.
part of the game? Since skills get used less often in standard play than
fighting abilities, this makes stats matter less, which could be a good
thing.
> 3e level / prime (other) modifier
> 1 +3 (+1)
> 2-3 +4 (+2)
> 4-5 +5 (+2)
> 6-7 +6 (+3)
> 8-11 +7 (+3)
> 12-15 +8 (+4)
> 16+ +9 (+4)
>
> Approximate and smoothed, no wishes, NPC array base,
15/14/13/12/10/8?
> includes a PC-like race, level, and enhancement bonus.
the +1 every 4 levels to one state, I guess, but what did you mean about
the enhancement bonus?
> Allows you to throw out most of the
> sillier level adjustments and whatnot.
> Fixes Polymorph, give or take.
I don't understand this bit. How does it (approxmately) fix polymorph?
> Pick a primary stat for your character, it uses the "prime" bonus for
> attacks, damage, spells, and so on as appropriate to the stat. All other
> stats use the "other" modifier. Probably needs a middle option for certain
> two-stat dominant characters, but meh, just let them use the one stat.
and damage bonuses, depending on whether they wanted to emphasize melee
or missile. But I'd be unhappy about INT contributing to either of those
for a mage character -- though I'd be willing to consider having the INT
mod improve damage from spells.
Keith Davies
Nov 19, 2012, 1:32:33 PM11/19/12
to
tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Take a big ol' nerf stick to the full caster classes, eh, then you can
> give them whatever stats you like. God-like int? Who cares, when it's the
> same DC! ... I should post my 3e versions of AD&D classes and magic rules
> (when I'm awake and can check for math). The casters still kick ass, it just
> leaves something for the Fighters to do.
A while ago (http://www.kjd-imc.org/2008/12/24/recalibrating-saving-throws/)
>
> Take a big ol' nerf stick to the full caster classes, eh, then you can
> give them whatever stats you like. God-like int? Who cares, when it's the
> same DC! ... I should post my 3e versions of AD&D classes and magic rules
> (when I'm awake and can check for math). The casters still kick ass, it just
> leaves something for the Fighters to do.
I wrote a post that recalibrated saves by simply using higher of spell
level and ability modifier.
Save DC = 10 + max( spell level, ability modifier)
Even at the top end at Int 29 and ninth-level spells things are
manageable: save DCs are pretty much always 19 at that point, or a
little higher if you have Spell Focus. Poor saves will have trouble
(only save on 13+), Good saves are happier (save on 7+), and a cloak of
resistance is nice, but no longer critical to have a chance.
Keith Davies
Nov 19, 2012, 1:39:10 PM11/19/12
to
David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> On 16/11/2012 8:58 AM, tussock wrote:
>> If you want the heavy hit and damage mods to be linked to the Warrior
>> classes, take those "class-like" bonuses out of the stats and put them in
>> the class progressions. Same for bonus spells, DCs, missile and light weapon
>> attacks, anything that adds to your class-based offence. No major stat mods
>> to attacks.
>
> Do you mean stats don't affect attacks? No STR mod to melee, DEX to
> missile, but instead push BAB and damage up a little faster for the
> fightery classes? Eliminates MAD entirely, which might be good.
>
> That certainly fits with "tying <stuff> to classes". I should also note
> that the latest version of Keith'd EchelonD20 eliminates stats entirely
> in favour of tying stat-like bonuses to "talents" (not gonna explain
> more of echelon; interested parties can look at www.echelond20.org and
> be prepared for an afternoon of following around a lot of links).
Heh, from time to time I see that in my logs - small number of links
> On 16/11/2012 8:58 AM, tussock wrote:
>> If you want the heavy hit and damage mods to be linked to the Warrior
>> classes, take those "class-like" bonuses out of the stats and put them in
>> the class progressions. Same for bonus spells, DCs, missile and light weapon
>> attacks, anything that adds to your class-based offence. No major stat mods
>> to attacks.
>
> Do you mean stats don't affect attacks? No STR mod to melee, DEX to
> missile, but instead push BAB and damage up a little faster for the
> fightery classes? Eliminates MAD entirely, which might be good.
>
> That certainly fits with "tying <stuff> to classes". I should also note
> that the latest version of Keith'd EchelonD20 eliminates stats entirely
> in favour of tying stat-like bonuses to "talents" (not gonna explain
> more of echelon; interested parties can look at www.echelond20.org and
> be prepared for an afternoon of following around a lot of links).
into the site that day, followed by a huge number of pages hit a small
number of times.
I've been working it pretty hard for National Game Development Month
(NaGaDeMon), posted a status report this morning at
http://www.echelond20.org/2012/11/19/nagademon-2012-status-check-november-19/
And yeah, I saw no real point to keeping ability scores. I am no longer
interested in lots of small-value, high-resolution numbers. Take a +4
and go away.
>> Pick a primary stat for your character, it uses the "prime" bonus for
>> attacks, damage, spells, and so on as appropriate to the stat. All other
>> stats use the "other" modifier. Probably needs a middle option for certain
>> two-stat dominant characters, but meh, just let them use the one stat.
>
> I'd be happy with having fighters choose either STR or DEX for to-hit
> and damage bonuses, depending on whether they wanted to emphasize melee
> or missile. But I'd be unhappy about INT contributing to either of those
> for a mage character -- though I'd be willing to consider having the INT
> mod improve damage from spells.
ability score and a defensive ability score. I don't remember if this
is chosen per-class or if the player gets to choose regardless of class.
From there, feats and the like tend to use the offensive or defensive
score and be done with it.
tussock
Nov 29, 2012, 11:42:14 PM11/29/12
to
David Lamb wrote:
> tussock wrote:
Oh, hi. Thinking is hard with flu and post-flu infections, getting back
> tussock wrote:
on my feet again. Mmm, math and rpgs.
>> If you want the heavy hit and damage mods to be linked to the
>> Warrior classes, take those "class-like" bonuses out of the stats and
>> put them in the class progressions. Same for bonus spells, DCs, missile
>> and light weapon attacks, anything that adds to your class-based offence.
>> No major stat mods to attacks.
>
> Do you mean stats don't affect attacks? No STR mod to melee, DEX to
> missile, but instead push BAB and damage up a little faster for the
> fightery classes? Eliminates MAD entirely, which might be good.
well with attack bonuses in-class like that, you need a "level" bonus (as
you get bonus feats and stat increases) external to the classes, but it's
the same basic idea.
> That certainly fits with "tying <stuff> to classes". I should also note
> that the latest version of Keith'd EchelonD20 eliminates stats entirely
> in favour of tying stat-like bonuses to "talents" (not gonna explain
> more of echelon; interested parties can look at www.echelond20.org and
> be prepared for an afternoon of following around a lot of links).
and break castle walls by pushing on them without also having +25 to hit and
damage. "Large, Str 60."
An epic Wizard with functionally unlimited knowledge via Int 90 and all
skills, but save DCs you can still make.
>> If you want the remaining things like "can break down doors and
>> carry fallen comrades" or "has lots of skills, particularly lore" to be
>> linked to the classes, feel free to give them stat mods. Just keep them
>> small, so you can have smart, gun-totin' colledge girls and hulking ogre
>> hurlers built off the same Fighter class.
>
> So, keep stats and stat mods, but apply them only to the skill-related
> part of the game? Since skills get used less often in standard play than
> fighting abilities, this makes stats matter less, which could be a good
> thing.
being able to carry heavy armour or make tumble, endurance, or intimidate
checks still matters.
>> 3e level / prime (other) modifier
>> 1 +3 (+1)
>> 2-3 +4 (+2)
>> 4-5 +5 (+2)
>> 6-7 +6 (+3)
>> 8-11 +7 (+3)
>> 12-15 +8 (+4)
>> 16+ +9 (+4)
>>
>> Approximate and smoothed, no wishes, NPC array base,
>
> which base is that? 11/11/11/10/10/10? or the Standard Array
> 15/14/13/12/10/8?
characters and monsters have in 3e. The typical characters start at +3 to
+5, and end up around +5 higher from +2 level and +3 gear.
> > includes a PC-like race, level, and enhancement bonus.
>
> OK, so you keep something like the existing racial first-level bonuses,
> the +1 every 4 levels to one state, I guess, but what did you mean about
> the enhancement bonus?
strength, hat of intellect, cloak of charisma, .... You can still take those
things, but they're not boosting your attacks any more.
>> Allows you to throw out most of the
>> sillier level adjustments and whatnot.
>
Ogre gets his +2 LA for reach, +10 Str, +4 Con, and +3 AC. But as a PC
you shift him onto the above table and he gets +5 strength attacks for being
4 HD as an Ogre or a Human.
>> Fixes Polymorph, give or take.
>
> I don't understand this bit. How does it (approxmately) fix polymorph?
but at 6th level you can already have reach and three attacks.
>> Pick a primary stat for your character, it uses the "prime" bonus
>> for attacks, damage, spells, and so on as appropriate to the stat. All
>> other stats use the "other" modifier. Probably needs a middle option for
>> certain two-stat dominant characters, but meh, just let them use the one
>> stat.
>
> I'd be happy with having fighters choose either STR or DEX for to-hit
> and damage bonuses, depending on whether they wanted to emphasize melee
> or missile. But I'd be unhappy about INT contributing to either of those
> for a mage character -- though I'd be willing to consider having the INT
> mod improve damage from spells.
just use the stat for what they're used for.
e.g. a level 6 Monk can be primary Dex with Weapon Finess for +6 Dex to
hit and +3 Str to damage, +6 Dex and +3 Wis to AC, +3 Wis to save DCs (+3
Con to HP, etc). /Or/ you could allow Monks to use Wis to attack when using
Flurry of Blows or something, if they need the help (which they do).
--
tussock
Rast
Dec 1, 2012, 2:09:49 AM12/1/12
to
tussock wrote on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:42:14 +1300:
> Then some Hulk character can have the ability to throw 60-tonne dragons
> and break castle walls by pushing on them without also having +25 to hit and
> damage. "Large, Str 60."
That breaks my WSOD with regard to basic physics. If someone can exert
> Then some Hulk character can have the ability to throw 60-tonne dragons
> and break castle walls by pushing on them without also having +25 to hit and
> damage. "Large, Str 60."
the force needed to lift and throw a dragon, the damage he deals when he
uses that same amount of force to swing a sword is going to be immense.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Dec 1, 2012, 7:32:35 AM12/1/12
to
On 12/1/12 2:09 AM, Rast wrote:
> tussock wrote on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:42:14 +1300:
>> Then some Hulk character can have the ability to throw 60-tonne dragons
>> and break castle walls by pushing on them without also having +25 to hit and
>> damage. "Large, Str 60."
>
> That breaks my WSOD with regard to basic physics. If someone can exert
> the force needed to lift and throw a dragon, the damage he deals when he
> uses that same amount of force to swing a sword is going to be immense.
>
Dunno if I would say "basic physics", because if he can lift and throw
> tussock wrote on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:42:14 +1300:
>> Then some Hulk character can have the ability to throw 60-tonne dragons
>> and break castle walls by pushing on them without also having +25 to hit and
>> damage. "Large, Str 60."
>
> That breaks my WSOD with regard to basic physics. If someone can exert
> the force needed to lift and throw a dragon, the damage he deals when he
> uses that same amount of force to swing a sword is going to be immense.
>
a dragon rather than lifting and throwing HIMSELF when he tries, physics
is already being severely beaten and left for dead.
I'd say it seems very inconsistent to me, in the same sense that a
videogame seems very broken when my character can take on giant mechs or
monsters and hit them hard enough to back them up, but a locked door is
an invincible barrier that even a bazooka cannot defeat.
Tetsubo
Dec 1, 2012, 7:38:46 AM12/1/12
to
Unbreakable Door. So there's your answer! Duh!
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
tussock
Dec 2, 2012, 7:42:09 AM12/2/12
to
Rast wrote:
as to how well muscles work at different speeds. A chimp can lift far more
than us, but they can't throw spears anywhere near as hard as we can.
There should be some combat benefit to dropping railway engines on
people besides them getting suddenly overburdened, but the game doesn't deal
well with that anyway. And fair enough too, dragons are tough enough without
being high-altitude city-destroyers.
--
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> Then some Hulk character can have the ability to throw 60-tonne
>> dragons and break castle walls by pushing on them without also having
>> +25 to hit and damage. "Large, Str 60."
>
> That breaks my WSOD with regard to basic physics. If someone can exert
> the force needed to lift and throw a dragon, the damage he deals when he
> uses that same amount of force to swing a sword is going to be immense.
That's not strictly true, as there's big differences even in us hominids
>> Then some Hulk character can have the ability to throw 60-tonne
>> dragons and break castle walls by pushing on them without also having
>> +25 to hit and damage. "Large, Str 60."
>
> That breaks my WSOD with regard to basic physics. If someone can exert
> the force needed to lift and throw a dragon, the damage he deals when he
> uses that same amount of force to swing a sword is going to be immense.
as to how well muscles work at different speeds. A chimp can lift far more
than us, but they can't throw spears anywhere near as hard as we can.
There should be some combat benefit to dropping railway engines on
people besides them getting suddenly overburdened, but the game doesn't deal
well with that anyway. And fair enough too, dragons are tough enough without
being high-altitude city-destroyers.
--
tussock
Rast
Dec 3, 2012, 2:49:24 AM12/3/12
to
tussock wrote on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 01:42:09 +1300:
> That's not strictly true, as there's big differences even in us hominids
> as to how well muscles work at different speeds. A chimp can lift far more
> than us, but they can't throw spears anywhere near as hard as we can.
Their arms might not be arranged well for throwing, but they can still
> That's not strictly true, as there's big differences even in us hominids
> as to how well muscles work at different speeds. A chimp can lift far more
> than us, but they can't throw spears anywhere near as hard as we can.
deal horrific damage in melee with just their natural weapons.
tussock
Dec 5, 2012, 5:15:23 AM12/5/12
to
Rast wrote:
want to bet much on the chimp.
Anyhoo, you're half right, I'm just hiding behind irrelevant facts.
Heavyweight boxers can knock you out in one punch, every time. A lightweight
will also knock you out in one punch, every time. Boxers can do that. In a
contest between them though, the heavyweight is almost impervious if he
keeps his stance and doesn't chase. Which D&D can't model at all.
But with knives, what does bulk matter? The same key blood vessels are
still right at the surface for both guys, light or heavy, the liver still in
easy reach of an upward thrust. What matters for the big guy in both is his
*reach*, while the lightweight guy maybe has better "foot-speed endurance".
Ideally strength might be modelled as some sort of burst function, where
your peak oxygen consumption goes up higher, cutting back on endurance. So
heavyweights pace around slowly and try and pick their moment to explode,
then struggle to catch breath; while the lightweights dance about and throw
punches all night long.
Unfortunately EGG started with strength that primarily sought to model
combat endurance, the ability to keep hitting in heavy armour with a long
sword and shield.
--
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> That's not strictly true, as there's big differences even in us
>> hominids as to how well muscles work at different speeds. A chimp can
>> lift far more than us, but they can't throw spears anywhere near as
>> hard as we can.
>
> Their arms might not be arranged well for throwing, but they can still
> deal horrific damage in melee with just their natural weapons.
1d6 slam attack, easily kill commoners. Give a man a mace and I wouldn't
>> That's not strictly true, as there's big differences even in us
>> hominids as to how well muscles work at different speeds. A chimp can
>> lift far more than us, but they can't throw spears anywhere near as
>> hard as we can.
>
> Their arms might not be arranged well for throwing, but they can still
> deal horrific damage in melee with just their natural weapons.
want to bet much on the chimp.
Anyhoo, you're half right, I'm just hiding behind irrelevant facts.
Heavyweight boxers can knock you out in one punch, every time. A lightweight
will also knock you out in one punch, every time. Boxers can do that. In a
contest between them though, the heavyweight is almost impervious if he
keeps his stance and doesn't chase. Which D&D can't model at all.
But with knives, what does bulk matter? The same key blood vessels are
still right at the surface for both guys, light or heavy, the liver still in
easy reach of an upward thrust. What matters for the big guy in both is his
*reach*, while the lightweight guy maybe has better "foot-speed endurance".
Ideally strength might be modelled as some sort of burst function, where
your peak oxygen consumption goes up higher, cutting back on endurance. So
heavyweights pace around slowly and try and pick their moment to explode,
then struggle to catch breath; while the lightweights dance about and throw
punches all night long.
Unfortunately EGG started with strength that primarily sought to model
combat endurance, the ability to keep hitting in heavy armour with a long
sword and shield.
--
tussock
0 new messages