The most recent article by Mearls got me thinking about abilities and how they interact with the rest of the rules. I’ve talked in comments on this site how I plan to make everything an ability check plus limited modifiers, so this is a topic that naturally interests me. I also recently talked about how stat raises are a pain.
Let’s take a step back and think about stats. Stats are just a number. Because of convention, that number should generally be in the zone of 3-18 to begin. It isn’t required to be that way, but honestly I think convention is sometimes a great thing. Convention can also be history and honoring one’s past is rarely a mistake. But as game design progressed things like point-buy evolved and so had to be shoehorned onto the existing range of stats. To acknowledge that higher stats are worth more, we make them cost more points. Once the stat is calculated, it gives a modifier. To be frank, the modifier is really all that matters.
From this point on the system begins to break down. Investing a stat raise in a stat of 20 is worth more “point-buy points” than investing a stat raise in a stat of 10. If the higher stat was worth more at character creation, why isn’t it worth more now that I hit fourth level? The fact is that it is worth more, hence the dominant strategy of stat raises.
So why not reverse the relationship between stats and modifiers and push the logic of point buy through the entire game? Here is how it’d look.
Modifier | Minimum stat |
-1 | 8 |
0 | 10 |
+1 | 12 |
+2 | 15 |
+3 | 19 |
+4 | 24 |
+5 | 30 |
For point buy, all stats begin at 8 and players receive a pool of points to allocate. There is no schedule of how a stat becomes more or less expensive to buy—it is a straight one-to-one increase. Stat raises can be given more liberally in game and players are naturally encouraged to invest them in lower stats because lower stats more quickly convert into higher modifiers. Of course, if you’re really committed to that reaching +5 strength, invest away.
Let’s look at how this would play out under my game with just four stats. In this hypothetical, all stats begin at 10 and you get a stat raise every level. We’ll compare two approaches after 20 levels and 20 stat raises.
Ability | Balanced Ben | Focused Frank |
Strength | 15 (+2) | 30 (+5) |
Dexterity | 15 (+2) | 10 (+0) |
Cunning | 15 (+2) | 10 (+0) |
Vitality | 15 (+2) | 10 (+0) |
Totals | 60 pts, (+8 total mods) | 60 pts, (+5 total mods) |
Focused Frank is going to dominate on anything having to do with strength, but is a one trick pony. Because of self-selection, he’ll probably still be a fairly powerful character, but not outrageous. Balanced Ben is not exceptional in any area, but is above average everywhere. In Frank’s narrow area of expertise he is +3 better than Ben. Everywhere else, Ben is +2 better than Frank. The tradeoffs seem reasonable.
Now let’s reconsider the same hypothetical but with stat raises under the current D&D rules.
Ability | Balanced Ben | Focused Frank |
Strength | 16 (+3) | 30 (+10) |
Dexterity | 16 (+3) | 10 (+0) |
Cunning | 14 (+2) | 10 (+0) |
Vitality | 14 (+2) | 10 (+0) |
Totals | 60 pts, (+10 total mods) | 60 pts, (+10 total mods) |
Focused Frank is now so focused on strength that the game begins to break down. If Frank is challenged with regards to strength, the rest of the party cannot hope to succeed. If everyone is challenged, Frank auto passes. If the math of the game expected a balance array of stats (like Ben), then Frank is +7 more likely to hit. That probably means he auto hits. Also, because of self-selection, frank is not just “fairly powerful,” he’s probably damn powerful.
Ben is pretty similar to his description above. The one change, though, is that if the game designers foresaw the Focused Franks of the world and built the math more closely to his build. If they did that (as they did in 4e), then Ben is underpowered, not viable, and no fun. Poor Ben.
So just some quick thoughts. Interested to hear people’s reactions.
Firstly, I think there is too much emphasis on the ability modifier to the point where optimizing is so darn easy and effective that it is almost silly not to max out your "primary" stat. [And perhaps that is the key to the problem... the fact that there is a "primary" ability score.] There should be a greater spread of modifier use rather than less, or even worse a modifier choice such as with 4e defenses (which is optimizer heaven).
ReplyDelete- For example, the Fortitude defense should be modified by strength AND constitution rather than a choice. A simple weapon such as a club only needs strength. A more skilled weapon such as a sword requires both strength and dexterity. A shortbow only requires dexterity while a longbow requires dexterity and strength. Perhaps there could be actions/powers where both strength and charisma are required? By mixing things up like this, you are deliberately going out of your way to ensure that there is no "primary" stat.
Secondly, the plain old ability score should take on more of the burden as Mearls suggests but I'm not too sure I like the idea of ability scores taking on almost all the burden. A character's capacity should always be an interesting blend of natural skill combined with training and experience. Having a particular strength, dexterity, constitution score as a pre-requisite is a good starting point although even this can be finessed slightly in not making it a hard pre-requisite.
- For example, lets say that you can take "levels" in the "Martial" orientation (as against arcane, divine, primal). A character wishes to gain proficiency in wearing heavy armor (as against standard armor), and this requires either: Martial 3 or {Strength 14, Constitution 14 - note here again the use of double-requirements}. In other words, it is not mandatory to have high ability scores but if you do, then you can gain earlier access to desired feats and features.
Thirdly and what ties this altogether as your post highlights is a combination of reduced modifiers and diminishing return on investment. Reducing modifiers is important because I believe to maintain an interesting game using a DC mechanic, you need to keep those DCs between 0 and 40 where 0 is trivial for even the most inept and 40 is at the extreme limits of what a grand master of their craft can do - standardized for PCs (monsters and deities can stretch beyond this). As such, total modifiers for actions need to fit within the +0 to +20 bracket and as such for modifiers to be double-spread as indicated in point 1), they also need to be reduced. Your system does this and does this well.
Fourthly, I think there is another facet that can be done but I'm going to run out of space and so will have to leave it for a future post.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
I like the general idea, but I would be curious to see how this interacts with classes/feats before making a judgement. Mainly if you are going to set prereqs for things at stat levels that are not also ability bonus increases- like say 13 or 16, then I think it could be interesting. Otherwise I think the system really breaks down (at least at the 60 point mark) to having only a few viable options with the math as set now. Looking at it quickly I'd say the 19/19/12/10 is the best dual stat array and something like 24/12/12/12 is a compromise between your two examples.
ReplyDeleteOverall my point is that you have to give players a reason not to follow the dominant strategy. People follow the dominant strategy in 4e because it is a good thing- normally you can raise your attack/damage/rider stat every time you get a set of stat raises. The only time I see people not do that is when you have to raise a different stat to get something else that you value- which there can be things that are more important than a +1 to the above at times. Any system of stats is going to need to include those things, otherwise you will end up with everyone following one of a few cookie cutter builds anyway.
-Mike
Herremann-
ReplyDeleteI think we generally see eye-to-eye on ability scores but we take a different approach. Your general approach (that I've divined from your posts; feel free to let me know that I'm wrong) is to decouple abilities as much as possible to make them less important. My approach is to reduce the number of abilities and more clearly define their importance to different parts of the game.
I think your approach will guarantee that stats are less important, but it might go too far. My approach might fail (because people will still find optimal strategies that break the math) but has potential to better reflect people's expectations of stats. Arguable which is better.
I like the idea of adding stat dependency as complexity increases, but it might compound the impact of complexity to make it unwieldy. I'd need to see some examples to judge it better.
In my approach the character's capacity (from levels and what not) will actually bear more of the burden because stats progress more slowly and therefore stat modifiers have a lower modifier (on average). I think that is a good thing and achieves both of our desires.
The idea that modifiers should mostly drive pre-requisites is more interesting (and also addressed by the comment after yours--I'll address this in more detail later).
I have to say, either I have to slow down or you need to speed up! Almost all your comments end with you running out of characters and I've posted a new article before you can return. I want the rest of your ideas! (All in jest of course, your participation is appreciated at whatever pace it arrives.)
Mike-
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good comment. It is one thing to encourage players to invest in lower stats with stat raises, it is another thing to make players feel reaching that next modifier is hopeless because it is 5 stat raises away. We need incremental rewards to ensure that each investment of resource feels like an investment now and in the future.
Using pre-reqs might be a good solution, but it also carries risks. I am thinking about 3e where feats like "Flick of the wrist" were powerful feats restricted to only characters for whom they'd be extra powerful. That had the tendency to double encourage investment in a single stat and, when achieved, the character was even more powerful than intended.
I actually think this system *does* encourage players to not follow the dominant strategy of stat raises because it changes the dominant strategy. In D&D, a stat raise gives you 50% of a +1 bonus to a modifier. In this variant, a stat raise gives you 50% for a low stat, but only 20% of a +5 stat. That changes the dominance. Moreover, by better balancing the importance of stats, the increase of Cunning from +1 to +2 is more important.
Finally, the example I used started all stats at 10. But that probably isn't realistic. Let's say we use 50 point buy--now the starting positions are less predictable and the progressions are similarly less easy to min/max.
Let's take it a bit farther. A +1/-1 for a race doesn't make sense in a 1:1 exchange because it holds no inherent value. If elf gives you +1 dex, -1 vita, that makes no change on your stats if you know it ahead of time. But what if races give you a +1 to their favored stat at some schedule? For this hypothetical, let's presume it is every 5 levels. Now, again, we've made optimizing the array more complex. At the same time, an elf with low Dex derives great reward from his racial stat because he quickly advances through the modifiers. A highly dexterous elf, however, advances much slower.
Just ideas and rambling--but damn fun rambling. Thanks for the comment.
Just quickly, the fourth idea is one inspired by Rolemaster funnily enough. However it is most likely worth looking at exactly what an ability and ability score represents first.
ReplyDeleteEach of the six abilities is represented by a pair of ability scores: the current ability score and potential ability score.
Current Ability Score: represents how well developed a character is in that particular ability when unhindered and at their prime. It is the score that influences how well a character performs related actions . Over the life of a character, their current ability scores gently fluctuate, increasing as the character trains and gains experience and possibly decreasing with aging and the ravages of time.
Two things to note here:
Firstly is that the current ability score does not represent the immediate facility of the character - for example if they are poisoned, their current strength does not decrease. Instead, the character’s defenses [Fortitude, Reflexes & Willpower] may be decreased; in this case the character’s fortitude. The current Defenses represent the immediate capacity of a character while the ability scores represent a more general and ideal notion.
And secondly, some feats (this is connected to a comment to a different post) such as core or "special" feats also have an ability score increase associated with them. The trick with this is that:
- Constitution and Charisma increases are common, particularly at lower prerequisite levels.
- Strength and Intelligence are slightly less common.
- Dexterity and Wisdom increases are quite rare. Only a very small number of very specialized feats will have a dexterity score increase while wisdom score increases are usually associated with higher prerequisite level feats.
In this way, ability score improvement becomes quite an interesting facet supported by a deep mechanic.
Potential Ability Score: represents the biological or destined limit of the character. This score cannot normally be increased and represents the maximum that the current ability score may be advanced to. Some feats (as previously mentioned), arcane items or rituals of magic may raise a character’s current ability score; but even then, the score may never exceed the potential ability score. The potential ability score for an ability CAN unnaturally be increased; the action of a deity or the darkest enchantment may work in increasing a character’s natural or destined limit. Such tampering with the fabric of the weave may have serious and sinister consequences. :D
Importantly what this allows is 12 scores across 6 abilities, meaning that you get a very interesting dynamic to point buy. My preference in fact is to roll six scores and then pay for the other six. In this way, you still have that nice random buzz but you have a way of lessening the impact of poor rolling. Again though, this is an entirely different topic, along with how race influences all of this.
Again, hopefully lots of food for thought.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise