Instead of your spell save DC=8+ability+proficiency, make it 12+proficiency
Instead of weapon damage being base+ability make it base+proficency, and to hit can be base+proficiency x 2
(and so on…)
There would be minimum ability scores for each class (much like the multi class minimums) but beyond that you don’t have to pump some main stat up to 20 and dump something else.
Skill and ability checks woukd still use ability modifiers
What this would do IMO is make the game less dependent on optimization, increases the diversity of builds (a strong wizard, a smart fighter, or a charismatic cleric are now not somehow a build liabilty). It would also decrease the gap between optimizers and everyone else while simplifying the game (two supposed goals of the designers).
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
My impression was that any combat function would be separated from ability scores, so I figured that AC would be determined differently (like weapon damage) and that restrictions on armor would follow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Presumably still used for skill checks, saving throws, restrictions on armour, AC, carrying capacity, etc.
That would be worse than min maxing now. Fighters would never go over what’s needed for their Armor. It makes Str even more of a dump stat. Dex becomes a stat that still needs a 20 under this format.
My impression was that any combat function would be separated from ability scores, so I figured that AC would be determined differently (like weapon damage) and that restrictions on armor would follow.
This is how I understand their suggestion. It make ability scores completely useless. The only purpose would be to limit multiclass options, but at that point why limit multiclass options at all.
Ability scores would still impact things like skills, but it wouldn't be so vanilla "oh look a wizard, i bet his int is 20 and his str is 8". Like we have this illusion of choice but really truly any character that isn't suboptimal has to drive one/few scores in some direction and the rest are just BS.
You know, regardless of how practical it would be to implement this exact change, I really enjoy it when these kinds of ideas show up. Some out of the box thinking that can shake things out of a recursive design loop. Just simply asking the question can sometimes create inspiration for new directions. "Do wizards HAVE to be smart? Do warriors HAVE to be strong?"
It would be really interesting to see how the D&D basic framework would hold up to class abilities being completely attribute agnostic, with attributes then being the primary domain of skills and the general defences or basic attacks shared by all characters. After all, if every character is straight up assumed to want to maximise their primary attribute from the start, and then go on to increase it at every available opportunity... then that's not really much of a choice at all, is it? Wouldn't it instead be more interesting to assume that a character of a certain class is, by default, competent within their class? And then let attributes solely affect out-of-class mechanics?
Yeah, I'm kind of liking this train of thought. One ticket, please? :)
You know, regardless of how practical it would be to implement this exact change, I really enjoy it when these kinds of ideas show up. Some out of the box thinking that can shake things out of a recursive design loop. Just simply asking the question can sometimes create inspiration for new directions. "Do wizards HAVE to be smart? Do warriors HAVE to be strong?"
It would be really interesting to see how the D&D basic framework would hold up to class abilities being completely attribute agnostic, with attributes then being the primary domain of skills and the general defences or basic attacks shared by all characters. After all, if every character is straight up assumed to want to maximise their primary attribute from the start, and then go on to increase it at every available opportunity... then that's not really much of a choice at all, is it? Wouldn't it instead be more interesting to assume that a character of a certain class is, by default, competent within their class? And then let attributes solely affect out-of-class mechanics?
Yeah, I'm kind of liking this train of thought. One ticket, please? :)
As you said in another thread - I'm really just trying to plant radical ideas in the garden here - maybe it will inspire someone with better ideas to speak up. Regardless I for one would like to play in a game with a super intelligent and street-wise fighter who is "strong enough and quick enough but not remarkable at either" - that gets by on a lot more than their physical attributes. Smart and wiley moves in combat is not unheard of being a way to beat the big dumb strong guy. But in DnD the big dumb strong guy would always win.
The current game feels like making a character like this might be rewarding from a role-play perspective but would be grossly suboptimal from the standpoint of combat mechanics.
As you said in another thread - I'm really just trying to plant radical ideas in the garden here - maybe it will inspire someone with better ideas to speak up.
Oh no! I made an impression on someone. I'm so sorry! :D
BUT! I'm really starting to warm up to the idea of battle prowess being measured by 1) the automatic features provided to you by your class, 2) the choices you make picking subclass/feats/fighting styles/etc, and 3) the gear/treasure you have
However, if attributes become the pillars of skills and out-of-combat endeavours, their responsibilities would likely have to be redistributed a bit. As of right now, STR and CON doesn't do a whole lot in that sphere. An interesting approach might be to also decouple attributes from their skills as well, and just ask the player what kind of approach the character takes with an action or scene? This already exist as an option (changing a default attribute for another during a particular check), but what if it was the standard?
Examples, Yssa Wolfjuggler wants to go carousing to pick up rumours. She elects to do so in a drinking contest. Diplomacy and Constitution. Angar Lemonhunter would very much like to terrify the guildhouse guard using his patented contortionist tricks. Intimidation and Dexterity. Hammil Markson has had enough of this magical power field, and wants to use force to alter the barrier runes. Arcana and Strength.
Suuure, this may lead to a specific type of player to always want to attempt skill checks with their highest attribute. But that's when the DM slaps a disadvantage on the check on account of how hard it is to actually twist a stone engraving around with your bare fingers, Hammil!
You know, regardless of how practical it would be to implement this exact change, I really enjoy it when these kinds of ideas show up. Some out of the box thinking that can shake things out of a recursive design loop. Just simply asking the question can sometimes create inspiration for new directions. "Do wizards HAVE to be smart? Do warriors HAVE to be strong?"
It would be really interesting to see how the D&D basic framework would hold up to class abilities being completely attribute agnostic, with attributes then being the primary domain of skills and the general defences or basic attacks shared by all characters. After all, if every character is straight up assumed to want to maximise their primary attribute from the start, and then go on to increase it at every available opportunity... then that's not really much of a choice at all, is it? Wouldn't it instead be more interesting to assume that a character of a certain class is, by default, competent within their class? And then let attributes solely affect out-of-class mechanics?
Yeah, I'm kind of liking this train of thought. One ticket, please? :)
Do scientists or engineers have to be smart? Do professional athletes have to be athletic? A wizards whole thing is to study stuff from books, so yeah being better at memorizing stuff should be advantageous for being a wizard. Sure experience is what makes you good at what you’re doing but attributes such as intelligence set an upper bound to the level you are able to reach. so I’d say you can be a wizard (scientist) with only 13 INT, but you’ll likely never be an exceptional one (Einstein). The current rules are sure not perfect but they do capture that.
You know, regardless of how practical it would be to implement this exact change, I really enjoy it when these kinds of ideas show up. Some out of the box thinking that can shake things out of a recursive design loop. Just simply asking the question can sometimes create inspiration for new directions. "Do wizards HAVE to be smart? Do warriors HAVE to be strong?"
It would be really interesting to see how the D&D basic framework would hold up to class abilities being completely attribute agnostic, with attributes then being the primary domain of skills and the general defences or basic attacks shared by all characters. After all, if every character is straight up assumed to want to maximise their primary attribute from the start, and then go on to increase it at every available opportunity... then that's not really much of a choice at all, is it? Wouldn't it instead be more interesting to assume that a character of a certain class is, by default, competent within their class? And then let attributes solely affect out-of-class mechanics?
Yeah, I'm kind of liking this train of thought. One ticket, please? :)
Do scientists or engineers have to be smart? Do professional athletes have to be athletic? A wizards whole thing is to study stuff from books, so yeah being better at memorizing stuff should be advantageous for being a wizard. Sure experience is what makes you good at what you’re doing but attributes such as intelligence set an upper bound to the level you are able to reach. so I’d say you can be a wizard (scientist) with only 13 INT, but you’ll likely never be an exceptional one (Einstein). The current rules are sure not perfect but they do capture that.
Does a pro athlete have to ONLY be physically gifted? Beyond a certain point is that even the most important thing? There are tons of examples of absolute physical monsters of human beings that couldn't cut it in various pro sports because they were not able to understand the game, or they didn't have the discipline to learn skills, or they didn't have the empathy and human understanding to be a good teammate. There are plenty of examples of people that undertstood the game on another level and had good physical gifts but were not the strongest/fastest on the team - and still ended up being the best player. The DnD system cuts all of this nuance out by narrowly focusing on 1-2 ability scores per class.
There are plenty of engineers and scientists that have non-typical intelligence (e.g., not good at memorizing things, or not good at paying attention, etc.) but they find ways to cope with other things they are good at. Imagine a Wizard who has a shit memory. Maybe he keeps notes that he refers to because his memory is shit, or maybe he has a familar/assistant who he relies on to remember little things. However maybe this person is crazy emotionally intelligent (high CHA) and used that to connect with many different people and these connections help them learn things other super smart wizards don't because their nose is stuck in a book all the time. Should that character be "less powerful" just because the player came up with something that doesn't fit the norm standard "wizards are traditionally smart, wisdom and charisma need not apply". Does the face of the party always have to be the sorcerer or the bard or the warlock?
As you said in another thread - I'm really just trying to plant radical ideas in the garden here - maybe it will inspire someone with better ideas to speak up.
Oh no! I made an impression on someone. I'm so sorry! :D
BUT! I'm really starting to warm up to the idea of battle prowess being measured by 1) the automatic features provided to you by your class, 2) the choices you make picking subclass/feats/fighting styles/etc, and 3) the gear/treasure you have
However, if attributes become the pillars of skills and out-of-combat endeavours, their responsibilities would likely have to be redistributed a bit. As of right now, STR and CON doesn't do a whole lot in that sphere. An interesting approach might be to also decouple attributes from their skills as well, and just ask the player what kind of approach the character takes with an action or scene? This already exist as an option (changing a default attribute for another during a particular check), but what if it was the standard?
Examples, Yssa Wolfjuggler wants to go carousing to pick up rumours. She elects to do so in a drinking contest. Diplomacy and Constitution. Angar Lemonhunter would very much like to terrify the guildhouse guard using his patented contortionist tricks. Intimidation and Dexterity. Hammil Markson has had enough of this magical power field, and wants to use force to alter the barrier runes. Arcana and Strength.
Suuure, this may lead to a specific type of player to always want to attempt skill checks with their highest attribute. But that's when the DM slaps a disadvantage on the check on account of how hard it is to actually twist a stone engraving around with your bare fingers, Hammil!
Either way, it might be fun :)
I agree there would have to be other work done to make something like this possible and decoupling skills/abilities might help. The examples are right along these lines!
You know, regardless of how practical it would be to implement this exact change, I really enjoy it when these kinds of ideas show up. Some out of the box thinking that can shake things out of a recursive design loop. Just simply asking the question can sometimes create inspiration for new directions. "Do wizards HAVE to be smart? Do warriors HAVE to be strong?"
It would be really interesting to see how the D&D basic framework would hold up to class abilities being completely attribute agnostic, with attributes then being the primary domain of skills and the general defences or basic attacks shared by all characters. After all, if every character is straight up assumed to want to maximise their primary attribute from the start, and then go on to increase it at every available opportunity... then that's not really much of a choice at all, is it? Wouldn't it instead be more interesting to assume that a character of a certain class is, by default, competent within their class? And then let attributes solely affect out-of-class mechanics?
Yeah, I'm kind of liking this train of thought. One ticket, please? :)
Do scientists or engineers have to be smart? Do professional athletes have to be athletic? A wizards whole thing is to study stuff from books, so yeah being better at memorizing stuff should be advantageous for being a wizard. Sure experience is what makes you good at what you’re doing but attributes such as intelligence set an upper bound to the level you are able to reach. so I’d say you can be a wizard (scientist) with only 13 INT, but you’ll likely never be an exceptional one (Einstein). The current rules are sure not perfect but they do capture that.
Does a pro athlete have to ONLY be physically gifted? There are tons of examples of absolute physical monsters of human beings that couldn't cut it in various pro sports because they were not able to understand the game, or they didn't have the discipline to learn skills, or they didn't have the empathy and human understanding to be a good teammate. There are plenty of examples of people that undertstood the game on another level and had good physical gifts but were not the strongest/fastest on the team - and still ended up being the best player. The DnD system cuts all of this nuance out by narrowly focusing on 1-2 ability scores per class.
There are plenty of engineers and scientists that have non-typical intelligence (e.g., not good at memorizing things, or not good at paying attention, etc.) but they find ways to cope with other things they are good at. Imagine a Wizard who has a shit memory. Maybe he keeps notes that he refers to because his memory is shit, or maybe he has a familar/assistant who he relies on to remember little things. However maybe this person is crazy emotionally intelligent (high CHA) and used that to connect with many different people and these connections help them learn things other super smart wizards don't because their nose is stuck in a book all the time. Should that character be "less powerful" just because the player came up with something that doesn't fit the norm standard "wizards are traditionally smart, wisdom and charisma need not apply". Does the face of the party always have to be the sorcerer or the bard or the warlock?
Sure, the system is a simplification. When trying to capture a person’s capabilities in only 6 stats nuance falls short. Sure the system could be more flexible s.th you could e.g. have neither maxed out dex nor str but combine both ok stats to achieve the same dmg as others do with maxed str. But that would make the system unnecessarily complicated, i.e. going against the fundamental principle of 5e (there are systems where such an approach is implemented). But if you go with ignoring ability scores entirely, you could e.g. play a wizard with 13 INT, 8WIS and 8 CHAR being just as good at spellcasting as the super smart one. How is he compensating for not being smart? With his muscles?
And once you start asking whether being smart makes you a better at knowing your magic you can just as well ask whether being smart makes you better at knowing stuff about say history (to use your words: maybe the character keeps notes). And there goes your impact of ability scores on skill checks.
(One of) My problem(s) with this is that I think it'd actually make characters feel too similar. If a Dex-based fighter has the exact same AC, damage, initiative, and everything else as a Strength-based fighter, then what's the point of that decision?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Sure, the system is a simplification. When trying to capture a person’s capabilities in only 6 stats nuance falls short. Sure the system could be more flexible s.th you could e.g. have neither maxed out dex nor str but combine both ok stats to achieve the same dmg as others do with maxed str. But that would make the system unnecessarily complicated, i.e. going against the fundamental principle of 5e (there are systems where such an approach is implemented). But if you go with ignoring ability scores entirely, you could e.g. play a wizard with 13 INT, 8WIS and 8 CHAR being just as good at spellcasting as the super smart one. How is he compensating for not being smart? With his muscles?
And once you start asking whether being smart makes you a better at knowing your magic you can just as well ask whether being smart makes you better at knowing stuff about say history (to use your words: maybe the character keeps notes). And there goes your impact of ability scores on skill checks.
First off, I'll have you know that the School of Musclewizardry has a long and distinguished history!
That said, I believe the premise was to allow class features to perform their functions without taking attributes into direct account? So that you wouldn't see any "Lambent Spoon may be used Dexterity modifier amount of times, recovered on a long rest." Now, to be fair, most class features work on a proficiency bonus or "check number in table" basis, but there are a few holdovers.
Detaching classes entirely from attributes would give the player freedom to pick different attribute combinations than the "optimal configuration", which would give rise to more variety in characters, I would imagine? Yes, you would still see strength-focused characters, because of heavy armour and heavy weapons rules, or dexterity-focused duellists who really want to win that initiative, but wouldn't a system taking inspiration from this model see less dump-stats because characters would simply no longer desperately need to max a certain attribute to keep up with the CR curve?
I dunno. It's fun to speculate and see where an idea will take you. But, as with any good science, we'll still keep our eye on the null hypothesis. Uh, okay, not a perfect analogy, but if you squint at it a bit it'll fit.
You know, regardless of how practical it would be to implement this exact change, I really enjoy it when these kinds of ideas show up. Some out of the box thinking that can shake things out of a recursive design loop. Just simply asking the question can sometimes create inspiration for new directions. "Do wizards HAVE to be smart? Do warriors HAVE to be strong?"
It would be really interesting to see how the D&D basic framework would hold up to class abilities being completely attribute agnostic, with attributes then being the primary domain of skills and the general defences or basic attacks shared by all characters. After all, if every character is straight up assumed to want to maximise their primary attribute from the start, and then go on to increase it at every available opportunity... then that's not really much of a choice at all, is it? Wouldn't it instead be more interesting to assume that a character of a certain class is, by default, competent within their class? And then let attributes solely affect out-of-class mechanics?
Yeah, I'm kind of liking this train of thought. One ticket, please? :)
Do scientists or engineers have to be smart? Do professional athletes have to be athletic? A wizards whole thing is to study stuff from books, so yeah being better at memorizing stuff should be advantageous for being a wizard. Sure experience is what makes you good at what you’re doing but attributes such as intelligence set an upper bound to the level you are able to reach. so I’d say you can be a wizard (scientist) with only 13 INT, but you’ll likely never be an exceptional one (Einstein). The current rules are sure not perfect but they do capture that.
Does a pro athlete have to ONLY be physically gifted? There are tons of examples of absolute physical monsters of human beings that couldn't cut it in various pro sports because they were not able to understand the game, or they didn't have the discipline to learn skills, or they didn't have the empathy and human understanding to be a good teammate. There are plenty of examples of people that undertstood the game on another level and had good physical gifts but were not the strongest/fastest on the team - and still ended up being the best player. The DnD system cuts all of this nuance out by narrowly focusing on 1-2 ability scores per class.
There are plenty of engineers and scientists that have non-typical intelligence (e.g., not good at memorizing things, or not good at paying attention, etc.) but they find ways to cope with other things they are good at. Imagine a Wizard who has a shit memory. Maybe he keeps notes that he refers to because his memory is shit, or maybe he has a familar/assistant who he relies on to remember little things. However maybe this person is crazy emotionally intelligent (high CHA) and used that to connect with many different people and these connections help them learn things other super smart wizards don't because their nose is stuck in a book all the time. Should that character be "less powerful" just because the player came up with something that doesn't fit the norm standard "wizards are traditionally smart, wisdom and charisma need not apply". Does the face of the party always have to be the sorcerer or the bard or the warlock?
Sure, the system is a simplification. When trying to capture a person’s capabilities in only 6 stats nuance falls short. Sure the system could be more flexible s.th you could e.g. have neither maxed out dex nor str but combine both ok stats to achieve the same dmg as others do with maxed str. But that would make the system unnecessarily complicated, i.e. going against the fundamental principle of 5e (there are systems where such an approach is implemented). But if you go with ignoring ability scores entirely, you could e.g. play a wizard with 13 INT, 8WIS and 8 CHAR being just as good at spellcasting as the super smart one. How is he compensating for not being smart? With his muscles?
And once you start asking whether being smart makes you a better at knowing your magic you can just as well ask whether being smart makes you better at knowing stuff about say history (to use your words: maybe the character keeps notes). And there goes your impact of ability scores on skill checks.
I'll throw a muscle wizard concept at you just for fun. Maybe this wizard has learned enough magic to open little holes in the fabric of reality and the magic that spills out is something she bends to her will with sheer strength - reaching into a little portal grabbing a "glob" of magic and forging it with her bare hands.
While I'm stretching a bit, I have to say this character would be an absolute blast to play and the imaginative efforts to describe what different spells look like when she casts them would be fun.
On your second point I agree there might be something that needs to be done with skills and abilities too. I liked what Halcyonesse said about decoupling these two and making a skill check combine a skill and ability depending on what the person is doing (I have allowed some fighters in my games to do strength-based intimidation checks which is a small approximation of this).
Detaching classes entirely from attributes would give the player freedom to pick different attribute combinations than the "optimal configuration", which would give rise to more variety in characters, I would imagine? Yes, you would still see strength-focused characters, because of heavy armour and heavy weapons rules, or dexterity-focused duellists who really want to win that initiative, but wouldn't a system taking inspiration from this model see less dump-stats because characters would simply no longer desperately need to max a certain attribute to keep up with the CR curve?
Depends. If everything else stays as is I guess most players would want to max out CON for hitpoints and concentration saves. Also, given that STR is rather useless it would then not only be dumped by casters but everyone who doesn't care for heavy armor.
I'll throw a muscle wizard concept at you just for fun. Maybe this wizard has learned enough magic to open little holes in the fabric of reality and the magic that spills out is something she bends to her will with sheer strength - reaching into a little portal grabbing a "glob" of magic and forging it with her bare hands.
While I'm stretching a bit, I have to say this character would be an absolute blast to play and the imaginative efforts to describe what different spells look like when she casts them would be fun.
On your second point I agree there might be something that needs to be done with skills and abilities too. I liked what Halcyonesse said about decoupling these two and making a skill check combine a skill and ability depending on what the person is doing (I have allowed some fighters in my games to do strength-based intimidation checks which is a small approximation of this).
Detaching classes entirely from attributes would give the player freedom to pick different attribute combinations than the "optimal configuration", which would give rise to more variety in characters, I would imagine? Yes, you would still see strength-focused characters, because of heavy armour and heavy weapons rules, or dexterity-focused duellists who really want to win that initiative, but wouldn't a system taking inspiration from this model see less dump-stats because characters would simply no longer desperately need to max a certain attribute to keep up with the CR curve?
Depends. If everything else stays as is I guess most players would want to max out CON for hitpoints and concentration saves. Also, given that STR is rather useless it would then not only be dumped by casters but everyone who doesn't care for heavy armor.
I do agree that something would have to be thought about with respect to not just CON but also DEX. These two abilities provide too much value in other circumstances (hp, ac, initiative, concentration) that other abilities don't really provide which would have to be dealt with in some way.
I'll throw a muscle wizard concept at you just for fun. Maybe this wizard has learned enough magic to open little holes in the fabric of reality and the magic that spills out is something she bends to her will with sheer strength - reaching into a little portal grabbing a "glob" of magic and forging it with her bare hands.
While I'm stretching a bit, I have to say this character would be an absolute blast to play and the imaginative efforts to describe what different spells look like when she casts them would be fun.
On your second point I agree there might be something that needs to be done with skills and abilities too. I liked what Halcyonesse said about decoupling these two and making a skill check combine a skill and ability depending on what the person is doing (I have allowed some fighters in my games to do strength-based intimidation checks which is a small approximation of this).
Sounds more like sorcerer than wizard.
I think it depends, and I'd agree that sorc definitely works as a concept too. Does she rip the hole in the magic fabric using some innate connection to magic (sorc), or does she use arcane words and things she has learned to do it (wiz).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Instead of your spell save DC=8+ability+proficiency, make it 12+proficiency
Instead of weapon damage being base+ability make it base+proficency, and to hit can be base+proficiency x 2
(and so on…)
There would be minimum ability scores for each class (much like the multi class minimums) but beyond that you don’t have to pump some main stat up to 20 and dump something else.
Skill and ability checks woukd still use ability modifiers
What this would do IMO is make the game less dependent on optimization, increases the diversity of builds (a strong wizard, a smart fighter, or a charismatic cleric are now not somehow a build liabilty). It would also decrease the gap between optimizers and everyone else while simplifying the game (two supposed goals of the designers).
What's the point of ability scores, then?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Presumably still used for skill checks, saving throws, restrictions on armour, AC, carrying capacity, etc.
My impression was that any combat function would be separated from ability scores, so I figured that AC would be determined differently (like weapon damage) and that restrictions on armor would follow.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
This would make ability scores pointless.
That would be worse than min maxing now. Fighters would never go over what’s needed for their Armor. It makes Str even more of a dump stat. Dex becomes a stat that still needs a 20 under this format.
This is how I understand their suggestion. It make ability scores completely useless. The only purpose would be to limit multiclass options, but at that point why limit multiclass options at all.
Ability scores would still impact things like skills, but it wouldn't be so vanilla "oh look a wizard, i bet his int is 20 and his str is 8". Like we have this illusion of choice but really truly any character that isn't suboptimal has to drive one/few scores in some direction and the rest are just BS.
You know, regardless of how practical it would be to implement this exact change, I really enjoy it when these kinds of ideas show up. Some out of the box thinking that can shake things out of a recursive design loop. Just simply asking the question can sometimes create inspiration for new directions. "Do wizards HAVE to be smart? Do warriors HAVE to be strong?"
It would be really interesting to see how the D&D basic framework would hold up to class abilities being completely attribute agnostic, with attributes then being the primary domain of skills and the general defences or basic attacks shared by all characters. After all, if every character is straight up assumed to want to maximise their primary attribute from the start, and then go on to increase it at every available opportunity... then that's not really much of a choice at all, is it? Wouldn't it instead be more interesting to assume that a character of a certain class is, by default, competent within their class? And then let attributes solely affect out-of-class mechanics?
Yeah, I'm kind of liking this train of thought. One ticket, please? :)
As you said in another thread - I'm really just trying to plant radical ideas in the garden here - maybe it will inspire someone with better ideas to speak up. Regardless I for one would like to play in a game with a super intelligent and street-wise fighter who is "strong enough and quick enough but not remarkable at either" - that gets by on a lot more than their physical attributes. Smart and wiley moves in combat is not unheard of being a way to beat the big dumb strong guy. But in DnD the big dumb strong guy would always win.
The current game feels like making a character like this might be rewarding from a role-play perspective but would be grossly suboptimal from the standpoint of combat mechanics.
Oh no! I made an impression on someone. I'm so sorry! :D
BUT! I'm really starting to warm up to the idea of battle prowess being measured by
1) the automatic features provided to you by your class,
2) the choices you make picking subclass/feats/fighting styles/etc, and
3) the gear/treasure you have
However, if attributes become the pillars of skills and out-of-combat endeavours, their responsibilities would likely have to be redistributed a bit. As of right now, STR and CON doesn't do a whole lot in that sphere. An interesting approach might be to also decouple attributes from their skills as well, and just ask the player what kind of approach the character takes with an action or scene? This already exist as an option (changing a default attribute for another during a particular check), but what if it was the standard?
Examples,
Yssa Wolfjuggler wants to go carousing to pick up rumours. She elects to do so in a drinking contest. Diplomacy and Constitution.
Angar Lemonhunter would very much like to terrify the guildhouse guard using his patented contortionist tricks. Intimidation and Dexterity.
Hammil Markson has had enough of this magical power field, and wants to use force to alter the barrier runes. Arcana and Strength.
Suuure, this may lead to a specific type of player to always want to attempt skill checks with their highest attribute. But that's when the DM slaps a disadvantage on the check on account of how hard it is to actually twist a stone engraving around with your bare fingers, Hammil!
Either way, it might be fun :)
Do scientists or engineers have to be smart? Do professional athletes have to be athletic?
A wizards whole thing is to study stuff from books, so yeah being better at memorizing stuff should be advantageous for being a wizard.
Sure experience is what makes you good at what you’re doing but attributes such as intelligence set an upper bound to the level you are able to reach.
so I’d say you can be a wizard (scientist) with only 13 INT, but you’ll likely never be an exceptional one (Einstein).
The current rules are sure not perfect but they do capture that.
Does a pro athlete have to ONLY be physically gifted? Beyond a certain point is that even the most important thing? There are tons of examples of absolute physical monsters of human beings that couldn't cut it in various pro sports because they were not able to understand the game, or they didn't have the discipline to learn skills, or they didn't have the empathy and human understanding to be a good teammate. There are plenty of examples of people that undertstood the game on another level and had good physical gifts but were not the strongest/fastest on the team - and still ended up being the best player. The DnD system cuts all of this nuance out by narrowly focusing on 1-2 ability scores per class.
There are plenty of engineers and scientists that have non-typical intelligence (e.g., not good at memorizing things, or not good at paying attention, etc.) but they find ways to cope with other things they are good at. Imagine a Wizard who has a shit memory. Maybe he keeps notes that he refers to because his memory is shit, or maybe he has a familar/assistant who he relies on to remember little things. However maybe this person is crazy emotionally intelligent (high CHA) and used that to connect with many different people and these connections help them learn things other super smart wizards don't because their nose is stuck in a book all the time. Should that character be "less powerful" just because the player came up with something that doesn't fit the norm standard "wizards are traditionally smart, wisdom and charisma need not apply". Does the face of the party always have to be the sorcerer or the bard or the warlock?
I agree there would have to be other work done to make something like this possible and decoupling skills/abilities might help. The examples are right along these lines!
Sure, the system is a simplification. When trying to capture a person’s capabilities in only 6 stats nuance falls short. Sure the system could be more flexible s.th you could e.g. have neither maxed out dex nor str but combine both ok stats to achieve the same dmg as others do with maxed str. But that would make the system unnecessarily complicated, i.e. going against the fundamental principle of 5e (there are systems where such an approach is implemented). But if you go with ignoring ability scores entirely, you could e.g. play a wizard with 13 INT, 8WIS and 8 CHAR being just as good at spellcasting as the super smart one. How is he compensating for not being smart? With his muscles?
And once you start asking whether being smart makes you a better at knowing your magic you can just as well ask whether being smart makes you better at knowing stuff about say history (to use your words: maybe the character keeps notes). And there goes your impact of ability scores on skill checks.
(One of) My problem(s) with this is that I think it'd actually make characters feel too similar. If a Dex-based fighter has the exact same AC, damage, initiative, and everything else as a Strength-based fighter, then what's the point of that decision?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
First off, I'll have you know that the School of Musclewizardry has a long and distinguished history!
That said, I believe the premise was to allow class features to perform their functions without taking attributes into direct account? So that you wouldn't see any "Lambent Spoon may be used Dexterity modifier amount of times, recovered on a long rest." Now, to be fair, most class features work on a proficiency bonus or "check number in table" basis, but there are a few holdovers.
Detaching classes entirely from attributes would give the player freedom to pick different attribute combinations than the "optimal configuration", which would give rise to more variety in characters, I would imagine? Yes, you would still see strength-focused characters, because of heavy armour and heavy weapons rules, or dexterity-focused duellists who really want to win that initiative, but wouldn't a system taking inspiration from this model see less dump-stats because characters would simply no longer desperately need to max a certain attribute to keep up with the CR curve?
I dunno. It's fun to speculate and see where an idea will take you. But, as with any good science, we'll still keep our eye on the null hypothesis. Uh, okay, not a perfect analogy, but if you squint at it a bit it'll fit.
Kinda. :D
I'll throw a muscle wizard concept at you just for fun. Maybe this wizard has learned enough magic to open little holes in the fabric of reality and the magic that spills out is something she bends to her will with sheer strength - reaching into a little portal grabbing a "glob" of magic and forging it with her bare hands.
While I'm stretching a bit, I have to say this character would be an absolute blast to play and the imaginative efforts to describe what different spells look like when she casts them would be fun.
On your second point I agree there might be something that needs to be done with skills and abilities too. I liked what Halcyonesse said about decoupling these two and making a skill check combine a skill and ability depending on what the person is doing (I have allowed some fighters in my games to do strength-based intimidation checks which is a small approximation of this).
Depends. If everything else stays as is I guess most players would want to max out CON for hitpoints and concentration saves. Also, given that STR is rather useless it would then not only be dumped by casters but everyone who doesn't care for heavy armor.
Sounds more like sorcerer than wizard.
I do agree that something would have to be thought about with respect to not just CON but also DEX. These two abilities provide too much value in other circumstances (hp, ac, initiative, concentration) that other abilities don't really provide which would have to be dealt with in some way.
I think it depends, and I'd agree that sorc definitely works as a concept too. Does she rip the hole in the magic fabric using some innate connection to magic (sorc), or does she use arcane words and things she has learned to do it (wiz).