Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vahenir 06-20-05, 08:03 AM	Okay, some of you may know that for a long while I argued that Dexterity should be the ability modifier for melee attacks - since it expressly deals with coordination, which is absolutely necessary for any combatant. I still believe that, but I've changed my opinion slightly of how it should be handled, thanks to some commentary by esteemed members like Johannixx and Tony Vargas. My concept is that, a person with normal coordination should have very little problem actually hitting a moving target. However, a character with very poor coordination would have problems. Therefore, Strength modifier remains the key ability for attack rolls, but you must apply any Dexterity penalty to any attack you make with a melee weapon. This represents that a very uncoordinated person would have much more difficulty making an effective attack than a person with normal coordination. This also changes Finesse combat - which is the exact opposite of the above. But, to be honest- Finesse in D&D kind of sucks for one reason: You have to blow a feat on it. Why? A person that's naturally coordinated would -naturally- be inclined to use that to his advantage. Besides that, why can a Strength Fighter gain his main attribute to both attack and damage for free, but a Dex fighter can't get his main attribute to just attack rolls for free? So Finesse is now free - but only applies to certain weapons. The bastard sword (two-handed only), longsword, shortsword, and other appropriate weapons that could benefit a noteworthy amount from excellent coordination on the wielder's part. A finesse-based attack roll would then be modified by your Dexterity modifier - but you would also apply any Strength penalty you may have. This represents that a person who is coordinated would still have trouble landing an attack if they weren't strong enough to properly manipulate their weapon. And that's the concept. I'm going to run with that and see how it works out in my next game (Hamunaptra, I believe, though I might run a Relics & Rituals: Excalibur game first).
Gemstone 06-20-05, 08:35 AM	My concept is that, a person with normal coordination should have very little problem actually hitting a moving target. However, a character with very poor coordination would have problems. Therefore, Strength modifier remains the key ability for attack rolls, but you must apply any Dexterity penalty to any attack you make with a melee weapon. This represents that a very uncoordinated person would have much more difficulty making an effective attack than a person with normal coordination. Sounds resonable, but game wise I don't think it's a good idea... This also changes Finesse combat - which is the exact opposite of the above. But, to be honest- Finesse in D&D kind of sucks for one reason: You have to blow a feat on it. Why? A person that's naturally coordinated would -naturally- be inclined to use that to his advantage. Besides that, why can a Strength Fighter gain his main attribute to both attack and damage for free, but a Dex fighter can't get his main attribute to just attack rolls for free? Well, balance issues. Letting you have both a high AC and attack score seems to be something the creators of the RPG tried to make a bit harder, thus you need to spend a feat on it. But I agree with you, it doesn't make any sense. So Finesse is now free - but only applies to certain weapons. The bastard sword (two-handed only), longsword, shortsword, and other appropriate weapons that could benefit a noteworthy amount from excellent coordination on the wielder's part. A finesse-based attack roll would then be modified by your Dexterity modifier - but you would also apply any Strength penalty you may have. Sounds fine to me... some weapons should rely on DEX, such as scimitars.
Vahenir 06-20-05, 11:06 AM	Sounds resonable, but game wise I don't think it's a good idea... Any particular reason? The only negative impact I can see it having on a game is that Tanks who use their Dex score as a dump stat get a worse penalty than low initiative and a bad touch AC. And they should be further penalized - they lack coordination, after all. Besides, I've rarely seen even a Tank character that has less than a 10 in his Dex. Frontline fighters really don't like having a crappy initiative modifier. Well, balance issues. Letting you have both a high AC and attack score seems to be something the creators of the RPG tried to make a bit harder, thus you need to spend a feat on it. But I agree with you, it doesn't make any sense. Point taken. There are two options: 1) This is the option I use. But I didn't think it was necessary to note it - but I suppose it probably would help: Separate Dex into Dex and Agility - Agility representing speed and reflexes, Dex being coordination and such. This also helps to remove Dex's place as an uber-stat. I mean, Dex does modify a LOT of skills, Reflex saves, Initiative, AC, Finesse combat, and various other abilities here and there. But to keep Dex from being a weak stat - it will still contribute to Initiative. After all, both your speed and coordination should come into play to determine how quickly you're physically able to react to a threat. 2) Keep Finesse as a feat, but as in 3.5 (so I've heard) -- make it apply to all finessable weapons you're proficient with. So a character could take Weapon Finesse once - and apply it to a bastard sword (two-handed), longsword, scimitar, rapier, shortsword, dagger, et al. (Of course - he doesn't HAVE to apply it to them all, but he has the choice). And just an off-topic question: What's the story behind the Board Miniatures - I noticed I am, apparently, a level 7 Fighter with the coolest smiley on the boards. Not too shabby.
Sinaz 06-20-05, 12:28 PM	Sounds logical and well thought out... I may have to consider using this.
Vahenir 06-20-05, 01:00 PM	Sounds logical and well thought out... Thank you, kindly. I may have to consider using this. Well if you do use it - be sure to let me know how you like it (if it even has a noticable effect on the game, which it will probably only have in certain circumstances).
No-man 06-20-05, 01:01 PM	Melee fighters get their strength bonus without having to take a feat, as medieval combat required a good strong edge and a bit of muscle, as you're basically smashing through the armor. For a finesse attack however, you're aiming - for a weak or unarmored spot, and that has to be taught, hence the requirement for a Feat.
Gemstone 06-20-05, 01:52 PM	Any particular reason? The only negative impact I can see it having on a game is that Tanks who use their Dex score as a dump stat get a worse penalty than low initiative and a bad touch AC. And they should be further penalized - they lack coordination, after all. Besides, I've rarely seen even a Tank character that has less than a 10 in his Dex. Frontline fighters really don't like having a crappy initiative modifier. Point taken. There are two options: 1) This is the option I use. But I didn't think it was necessary to note it - but I suppose it probably would help: Separate Dex into Dex and Agility - Agility representing speed and reflexes, Dex being coordination and such. This also helps to remove Dex's place as an uber-stat. I mean, Dex does modify a LOT of skills, Reflex saves, Initiative, AC, Finesse combat, and various other abilities here and there. But to keep Dex from being a weak stat - it will still contribute to Initiative. After all, both your speed and coordination should come into play to determine how quickly you're physically able to react to a threat. 2) Keep Finesse as a feat, but as in 3.5 (so I've heard) -- make it apply to all finessable weapons you're proficient with. So a character could take Weapon Finesse once - and apply it to a bastard sword (two-handed), longsword, scimitar, rapier, shortsword, dagger, et al. (Of course - he doesn't HAVE to apply it to them all, but he has the choice). Both options are quite okay I think. I see no obvious... well no flaws at all for that matter. I like the idea ^^ And just an off-topic question: What's the story behind the Board Miniatures - I noticed I am, apparently, a level 7 Fighter with the coolest smiley on the boards. Not too shabby. Well... the board miniatures are small figures that I hand out sometimes to users of the boards, that they can put in their Signature if they want :) Each miniature is handed out because of something that the reciever did that impressed me, made me change my mind or some other reason. Yours was for giving such insight into the Katana thread that I read a while back. Which is actually a story on its own... When I first read that thread, I saw people saying stuff like: "OMG katana is da über! It should be like 4d6 and 2-20/x45!!!11!!". Then I came to your first post :D god, it saved me a headache... Actually, I used what you wrote as a reference when I made some further research on the topic (believe it or not, but I have guys at my school who says almost the same things... "katan is cutting through solid steeel!!! DUUH!!!11!! Katana is da über". It's sad... :( ) Oh, and btw. Don't minde the levels or race of a typical figure. It's the over all coolness that count :D Btw. The figures can be handed down to other people Just make a reference of some kind, or simply send me a PM about it and I'll change the owner See the spoilerblock. I don't want to hijack the thread
Vahenir 06-20-05, 02:20 PM	Both options are quite okay I think. I see no obvious... well no flaws at all for that matter. I like the idea ^^ Score. That's -two- people that like the idea. I'm on a roll. See the spoilerblock. I don't want to hijack the thread Haha.. cool beans! Melee fighters get their strength bonus without having to take a feat, as medieval combat required a good strong edge and a bit of muscle, as you're basically smashing through the armor. For a finesse attack however, you're aiming - for a weak or unarmored spot, and that has to be taught, hence the requirement for a Feat. Do me a favour, please; if you're going to cite history as a reference point, bother to actually research the reference -first-. Medieval combat required a bit of muscle and a LOT of coordination. (I.E. generally required more Dex than Str). You were not bashing through armour. You were attempting to get around it. Except in the case of heavy bludgeoning weapons, NO Medieval warrior was simply going to run up to the guy in a full mail harness and just bang a shortsword against his armour until the guy finally fell down. And even with armour-ignoring weapons like a stout mace - you'd still be more concerned with landing the hit (coordination) than putting a huge amount of power behind it - though power would be a concern (primarily to combatants with crushing weapons like the mace). To the medieval combatant, he's ALWAYS using finesse combat - he's using his coordination to land his blows in weak spots of armour, or he's attempting to avoid the armour entirely. As a matter of fact, the concept of using pure physical power to hit your target would probably sound absurd to any real combatant.
No-man 06-20-05, 03:35 PM	Do me a favour, please; if you're going to cite history as a reference point, bother to actually research the reference -first-. Well pardon the HE-- out of me. We've never spoken on this board, and your first comment to me is not an intelligent response but rather a sneering look down your nose? Please. If you'd care to have a continuing polite discussion about it, Vahenir, I'm all for it, and please read on. Medieval combat required a bit of muscle and a LOT of coordination. (I.E. generally required more Dex than Str). You were not bashing through armour. You were attempting to get around it. Except in the case of heavy bludgeoning weapons, NO Medieval warrior was simply going to run up to the guy in a full mail harness and just bang a shortsword against his armour until the guy finally fell down. And even with armour-ignoring weapons like a stout mace - you'd still be more concerned with landing the hit (coordination) than putting a huge amount of power behind it - though power would be a concern (primarily to combatants with crushing weapons like the mace). To the medieval combatant, he's ALWAYS using finesse combat - he's using his coordination to land his blows in weak spots of armour, or he's attempting to avoid the armour entirely. As a matter of fact, the concept of using pure physical power to hit your target would probably sound absurd to any real combatant. Of course you're aiming for a weak or unarmored spot. But the person you're trying to kill is very aware of what their weak spots are, and will be defending those spots vigorously. This will require you to swing (or thrust) will some authority to break through their primary defense - weapon and/or shield. Also, those areas that you'd be aiming for aren't necessarily unarmored, but more likely less armored - so you would need some force behind the blow to penetrate what armor there was in the area. I submit that the ability to place a blow where you want it is covered by the BAB of the character. Combat ability, don't you know. ST is factored in to make those blows that land more likely to penetrate the armor, and ST bonus added to reflect the increased damage that a blow delivered by a stronger character can deliver. Let me give you a simple example: Two 5th level characters fighting against an opponent. A Rogue (ST 10)and a Barbarian(ST16). The Barbarian's BAB is a couple higher than the Rogue's, as shown in his BAB, which reflects his combat training. For simplicity, no flanking is involved. Say each is using the same weapon, longsword for example. Each strikes an equally placed blow (the Rogue rolls 2 higher than the Barbarian). The Rogue doesn't hit, but why not? Well, his sword was just as well aimed at the shoulder joint of his opponent, but was stopped by the chain mail underneath, and didn't have enough force behind it to bother the opponent. On the other hand, the Barbarian's blow does damage, as his greater strength allowed his sword to do damage through the chain (whether bruising the shoulder or actually going through the chain mail and cutting flesh) --- So that's the D&D base rules-type explanation. However personally I do think that DX makes a difference in your ability to hit. Certainly taking the case of 2 Barbarians with the exact same stats, the more dextrous of the two would be more likely to land accurate blows. But the same could be said for INT, as a more intelligent combatant would know more about the opponent's armor, as well as be able to figure out his combat style/weakness more quickly than a less intelligent combatant, so would have an advantage. The game can be complicated as much as the DM and players can stand; but as always, realism slows play down. In reality, I would think that the style of combat favored by the warrior would be based on his ability scores. High ST? By all means, swing that big sword with power. Weak(er) but very agile? Use your DX and a lighter weapon. Perhaps allowing a starting character to use either ST or DX bonus, depending on their abilities, then use a Feat in later levels to be able to use both bonuses in order to hit, may be a good compromise. Definitely bears further discussion.
Gemstone 06-20-05, 04:08 PM	Well pardon the HE-- out of me. We've never spoken on this board, and your first comment to me is not an intelligent response but rather a sneering look down your nose? Please. If you'd care to have a continuing polite discussion about it, Vahenir, I'm all for it, and please read on. I don't think Vahenir tried to provoke you... sometimes we just assume to much, which I guess was the case of this. I think he assumed you where one of those "jerks" without any intelligence that seems to roam these boards now and then, claiming to have "real historical backup" when they actually have none...
No-man 06-20-05, 04:35 PM	Fair enough...guess I just don't like being told I'm an idiot after one small post on a subject.
Vahenir 06-20-05, 04:38 PM	Well pardon the HE-- out of me. We've never spoken on this board, and your first comment to me is not an intelligent response but rather a sneering look down your nose? Please. It wasn't meant as provocation. Nor was I looking down my nose at you. Rather, it was an honest request from someone that has simply heard so many myths about medieval combat that he's rather tired of it, and the people that seem unable to research a topic before deciding they have an authorative opinion on it. It was not "you're so dumb." It was a "it's better to research a topic before posting." If you took insult to that, I hardly feel I should be taking the blame. And perhaps you should consider your own position of assuming the worst, rather than asking the intent? This will require you to swing (or thrust) will some authority to break through their primary defense - weapon and/or shield. No, it won't. You can't power through a shield. Period. Even uber-weapons like a mace or pollaxe will have some trouble with a shield, and even damaging the shield isn't going to actually hurt the opponent. Consider that more like a sunder against the shield than an attack roll. And you don't "power through" a weapon, either. You use coordination and superior ability (or flat out dumb luck) to deflect the weapon, or turn it aside. Simply swinging your weapon HARDER isn't going to do anything but make -you- a better target. Also, those areas that you'd be aiming for aren't necessarily unarmored, but more likely less armored - so you would need some force behind the blow to penetrate what armor there was in the area. Unlikely. There are very few armour styles that leave no part of the body undefended. And those that did are very hard to model in D&D. But regardless, any armour has a weakness that can be exploited. And it requires COORDINATION to get to them, not raw power and physical force. Take a mail harness, for example. If the character is clad, head to toe, in mail - and wearing a full helm that eliminates the ability to attack the face - your attack choice is pretty simple, assuming you're using a sword - feint a thrust, then cut to jar a few rings (a skimming blow, as it were), then thrust at the weakened area. But even so - hit points are an abstraction.. not losing hit points doesn't mean the weapon didn't connect. And losing hit points doesn't mean it did. For example: An action may be described as just barely missing your face. You didn't "take a hit" - but you still lost hit points. That was a close call, and your resources of luck, stamina, etc - are all being depleted. So, in my opinion, powering through armour would be represented by your Strength bonus to DAMAGE rolls when you do land a hit. The stronger you are - the more likely that when you hit the armour - you did some damage through it. But I don't suggest getting into this debate, the whole Hit Point/Attack/Damage thing never ends well on these boards. ST is factored in to make those blows that land more likely to penetrate the armor, and ST bonus added to reflect the increased damage that a blow delivered by a stronger character can deliver I have never, and will never, prescribe to this mode of thought - as I described above. An attack roll is just that - a roll to see if you can connect your weapon to the person you're fighting - it's a roll to find out if you have the opportunity to do any real damage. But again, this is a whole 'nother debate better left out of this thread. Say each is using the same weapon, longsword for example. Each strikes an equally placed blow (the Rogue rolls 2 higher than the Barbarian). The Rogue doesn't hit, but why not? Well, his sword was just as well aimed at the shoulder joint of his opponent, but was stopped by the chain mail underneath, and didn't have enough force behind it to bother the opponent. On the other hand, the Barbarian's blow does damage, as his greater strength allowed his sword to do damage through the chain (whether bruising the shoulder or actually going through the chain mail and cutting flesh) I think a better example is both succeed in their attack rolls. The Rogue deals 2 points of damage - not enough to phase the 10 HP baddie. His attack roll 'hit' - but it's described as his blade bouncing off mail, or some other such situation - not sufficient to do anything noteworthy. The Barbarian deals 17 points of damage - his strength was enough to land the hit in the same spot as the Rogue, but was also his added strength helped him push the point of his longsword through the mail links. We can agree to disagree (because as I said, this debate doesn't go well here), but I will always think my interpretation is far more elegant and description-friendly. Perhaps allowing a starting character to use either ST or DX bonus, depending on their abilities, then use a Feat in later levels to be able to use both bonuses in order to hit, may be a good compromise. I would see that as a bit powerful. Imagine a stat boosting item for a Finesse fighter - he can boost his Strength up, then boost his Dex some more, and have a ludicrous attack bonus. I really do like my concept of Finesse fighters suffering any Strength penalty to attack rolls, and Strength fighters suffering any Dex penalty to attack rolls. It's smooth, it barely messes with the current system at all, and it fairly accurately takes into account the two styles of combat and how their 'opposite stat' would affect their abilities. Others have tossed around the concept of combining Strength and Dex, and dividing by 2 to get your attack bonus.. but I don't like that either. Basically a character with a 22 Strength, 5 Dex would have a -better- attack bonus than a 13 Dex, 13 Strength character. Doesn't make sense. As for the whole Intelligence thing - I believe that's going a bit far. Intelligence would dictate your ability to come up with useful combat tactics (therefore, Intelligence should be a prerequ for many combat FEATS), but being Intelligent doesn't help you physically hit someone. Same for Wisdom and Charisma.
Gemstone 06-20-05, 05:33 PM	No, it won't. You can't power through a shield. Period. Even uber-weapons like a mace or pollaxe will have some trouble with a shield, and even damaging the shield isn't going to actually hurt the opponent. Consider that more like a sunder against the shield than an attack roll. And you don't "power through" a weapon, either. You use coordination and superior ability (or flat out dumb luck) to deflect the weapon, or turn it aside. Simply swinging your weapon HARDER isn't going to do anything but make -you- a better target. I may be wrong on this, but I believe that shield slammering was quite common among the norse culture. They hadn't the fine weapons that came later during the medieval times so they had to use force, which they gained by making great hack attacks with their swords (attacking from above) which was easily parried by a shield, until the shield broke that is.
Vahenir 06-20-05, 05:40 PM	I may be wrong on this, but I believe that shield slammering was quite common among the norse culture. They hadn't the fine weapons that came later during the medieval times so they had to use force, which they gained by making great hack attacks with their swords (attacking from above) which was easily parried by a shield, until the shield broke that is. Well there are two tactics found throughout history that I'm familiar with in regards to shields. Some weapons can pull the shield down by hooking the top or side. I'd consider this either a feat-worthy ability (basically, give up an attack to bypass their shield bonus to AC), or an attempt to disarm their shield. Neither being an actual attack roll. And some weapons could essentially destroy a shield by hammering the crap out of it - like a falx, a pollaxe, or a similar weapon. This would be, in D&D, a sunder attempt, and not a standard attack either.
Gemstone 06-20-05, 06:19 PM	Well there are two tactics found throughout history that I'm familiar with in regards to shields. Some weapons can pull the shield down by hooking the top or side. I'd consider this either a feat-worthy ability (basically, give up an attack to bypass their shield bonus to AC), or an attempt to disarm their shield. Neither being an actual attack roll. And some weapons could essentially destroy a shield by hammering the crap out of it - like a falx, a pollaxe, or a similar weapon. This would be, in D&D, a sunder attempt, and not a standard attack either. If Im not all off, I do believe that duels in the norse culture was to either bloodshed, or until one of the parts had lost all of his shields (a set number of shields where used).
Sinaz 06-20-05, 06:24 PM	hey... wasn't this a thread about attack roll variants? What ever happened to that discussion?
Vahenir 06-20-05, 07:12 PM	If Im not all off, I do believe that duels in the norse culture was to either bloodshed, or until one of the parts had lost all of his shields (a set number of shields where used). The concept is most likely myth - but I'm not entirely sure. The idea was featured in the 13th Warrior film - if that says anything about it's probable historical accuracy (considering one of the Nordic warriors is wearing an 18th century Spanish helmet...). It's possible that type of duel was done with -axes- (but it would STILL be a sunder attack against the shield). But not with swords. Swords are simply not capable of cleaving through shields in such a way - and if you agreed to duel until all two or three shields had been broken - both combatants would collapse of exhaustion before accomplishing that task with their swords- or they'd have ruined swords. One or the other. hey... wasn't this a thread about attack roll variants? What ever happened to that discussion? You see. . the idea was so incredibly amazing that no one can think of anything to add to it, or complain about in it. Therefore, all opposition to completely reverting this thread to a historical weapons and practices discussion has been dominated. Haha.
Sinaz 06-20-05, 07:21 PM	You see. . the idea was so incredibly amazing that no one can think of anything to add to it, or complain about in it. Therefore, all opposition to completely reverting this thread to a historical weapons and practices discussion has been dominated. Haha. You mean its been hijacked.
Vahenir 06-21-05, 12:36 AM	In laymen's terms... yes.
Gemstone 06-21-05, 03:23 AM	The concept is most likely myth - but I'm not entirely sure. The idea was featured in the 13th Warrior film - if that says anything about it's probable historical accuracy (considering one of the Nordic warriors is wearing an 18th century Spanish helmet...). It's possible that type of duel was done with -axes- (but it would STILL be a sunder attack against the shield). But not with swords. Swords are simply not capable of cleaving through shields in such a way - and if you agreed to duel until all two or three shields had been broken - both combatants would collapse of exhaustion before accomplishing that task with their swords- or they'd have ruined swords. One or the other. Hmm... since the viking era was around 700 AD - 1000 AD (not exact) I can easily imagine that you constructed shields who could break... but somehow it doesn't feel right, so I think Im wrong
No-man 06-21-05, 08:12 AM	We can agree to disagree That's probably best. One point that has been missed in this entire thread is that the vast majority of medieval warriors weren't highly trained, but rather they were given a weapon, told where to stand, where to go, and to kill their opponent. Of course there were knights, etc that had had plenty of combat training, but the bulk of every army were conscripts. They probably learned (if they lived long enough) how to finesse their way through/into weak armor spots - if their opponent had armor, that is. So if you use a little logic, you'll see that they were using strength to batter an opponent, until such time that their experience allowed them to aim their blows more effectively.
Vahenir 06-21-05, 07:16 PM	Double.
Vahenir 06-21-05, 07:22 PM	Hmm... since the viking era was around 700 AD - 1000 AD (not exact) I can easily imagine that you constructed shields who could break... but somehow it doesn't feel right, so I think Im wrong They didn't have particle board back then, or anything of the sort. So like I said, such a duel could be done with axes. However, we also might not know the real rules. Maybe every three hits a shield takes "destroys" it by the rules, or something. Ya know? It's not like they were incapable of coming up with rules and concepts beyond "bam bam, you die." One point that has been missed in this entire thread is that the vast majority of medieval warriors weren't highly trained, but rather they were given a weapon, told where to stand, where to go, and to kill their opponent. Of course there were knights, etc that had had plenty of combat training, but the bulk of every army were conscripts. It hasn't been brought up because it's not overly true. Most countries had a system for training their combatants. I mean, you don't really think that modern warfare -started- the concept of training the militia, do you? A local lord was, generally, responsible for maintaining a -TRAINED- militia in his lands that could defend itself and be called upon to go to war. So probably at least 60% or more of any given army in Western Europe (and possibly more in other parts of the world) would be made up of soldiers with at least functional training in combat. And they'd generally be trained in the particular weapons they required for their job. For examply, infantry training would be involved with battering armour with a mace, or thrusting into unprotected places with a spear. These were your typical conscripts. In hard times, untrained peasantry would be called up and would recieve a much lesser form of training that may only last for a week or two. It's likely they were only trained to use a spear and maybe given a cudgel as a back-up item. So the idea of the totally inept, untrained commoner going into combat is fairly well based in myth, and not in historical fact. It would be dangerous to both the conscripts and the trained soldiers if an army decided to field any noteworthy amount of completely untrained soldiers. Period. No military leader in history was THAT stupid. If you were a military leader, would you rather blow some of your assetts and a little bit of time to get minimal training for your conscripts, or would you hand them weapons and risk them endangering your entire army when they break and run, leaving your flanks exposed, and your army virtually helpless? Mhmm.
Gemstone 06-21-05, 07:33 PM	They didn't have particle board back then, or anything of the sort. So like I said, such a duel could be done with axes. However, we also might not know the real rules. Maybe every three hits a shield takes "destroys" it by the rules, or something. Ya know? It's not like they were incapable of coming up with rules and concepts beyond "bam bam, you die." Hopeso, since Im swedish myself, and I have greater hope than that for my anscestors :D It hasn't been brought up because it's not overly true. Most countries had a system for training their combatants. I mean, you don't really think that modern warfare -started- the concept of training the militia, do you? A local lord was, generally, responsible for maintaining a -TRAINED- militia in his lands that could defend itself and be called upon to go to war. So probably at least 60% or more of any given army in Western Europe (and possibly more in other parts of the world) would be made up of soldiers with at least functional training in combat. And they'd generally be trained in the particular weapons they required for their job. For examply, infantry training would be involved with battering armour with a mace, or thrusting into unprotected places with a spear. These were your typical conscripts. In hard times, untrained peasantry would be called up and would recieve a much lesser form of training that may only last for a week or two. It's likely they were only trained to use a spear and maybe given a cudgel as a back-up item. So the idea of the totally inept, untrained commoner going into combat is fairly well based in myth, and not in historical fact. It would be dangerous to both the conscripts and the trained soldiers if an army decided to field any noteworthy amount of completely untrained soldiers. Period. No military leader in history was THAT stupid. If you were a military leader, would you rather blow some of your assetts and a little bit of time to get minimal training for your conscripts, or would you hand them weapons and risk them endangering your entire army when they break and run, leaving your flanks exposed, and your army virtually helpless? Mhmm. If I remember correctly, professional soldiers appeared in the middle of the 900th century during the medieval times (and as late as the 1400th century in sweden). Before that, there was mostly militia formed from regular peasants and such, which drilled about once per year and had monthly exercises... But your the expert
Vahenir 06-21-05, 07:53 PM	Hopeso, since Im swedish myself, and I have greater hope than that for my anscestors Haha.. your ancestors did a lot for the world - establishing so much trade and removing many boundaries that existed previously. Their warfare contributions were negligible compared to their social and economic contributions. If I remember correctly, professional soldiers appeared in the middle of the 900th century during the medieval times (and as late as the 1400th century in sweden). Before that, there was mostly militia formed from regular peasants and such, which drilled about once per year and had monthly exercises... But your the expert Professional soldiers, depending on the country, existed much earlier than that. All Roman soldiers, for example, were professionals. Likewise, Europe had 'professional soldiers' as early as the 5th century, and Near-Eastern cultures had them even before that. It's difficult to go through any known period of history and find a culture that did not at least attempt to utilize trained soldiers and trained conscripts over untrained levies. But you are right - many militia-trained soldiers would be in service once a year, and would train about once a month. That's still plenty. I could come to your house and teach you the basics of killing an armoured man with a spear in about 1 week. Anything after that is superior training, or is training in a different style of weapon. Then it would only take another week or so to train you in formations, recognizing signals and orders, and so on.
WaterRabbit 06-21-05, 09:44 PM	I think if you are going to go this route you are better off either: 1) Adding another physical stat, say agility, that is used to modify the attack roll. Then Strength is opposed by Con and Dex is opposed by Agility. or 2) Adding STR requirements for various weapons (ala GURPS) and penalized characters that don't have the strength to wield them. Also, by penalizing the melee attack roll by a low dex, you are breaking a certain cinematic aspect of the game. For example, your modification would penalize Giants. However, Giants due rely on strength to crash through their opponent's shield, armor, etc. If a normal person was hit by a Giant, they should be knocked back at the very least -- in much the same way a 5 year old child would be knocked back if a football lineman hit the kid with a club. While striving for a certain amount of realisim is ok, you might be punishing certain concepts a little too much with this. Are you going to have Constitution affect how long a character can fight before becomming fatigued? Realistically speaking, throwing blows continuously for even a minute while using period weapons and armor is tiring. Finally, the I think this will have an impact on play. Hitting less often means fights take longer and you will have to adjust ELs appropriately.
Lincoln 06-22-05, 03:04 AM	I think this set of mechanics takes in to account the actual styles and training of combatants (medieval or otherwise). I am not opposed to these rules and would gladly play in your game. *sarcastically* Please don't come at me with a real sword to prove your point though. *end sarcasm* I would like to bring something up, and that is that your rules, while elegant and balanced in themselves, are not better. I have played in many games where the normal rules did just fine. We were playing a cinematic game, and how real combat works was as unimportant as whether or not a lightning bolt can start a fire, or whether or not enemies in the next room heard the combat outside. I don't run my games this way (I have way to many house rules), but the cinematic game is a great game. Now on a different note, I would be interested in seeing (not on this thread or on these boards) a proposal for a new game system from you. Having read many of your posts, I know that you are willing to think outside description and look at mechanics. I also note that you have a better understanding of combat than I do (whether its accurate or not). If you have something already worked up I would like to see it. Lincoln Please forgive me if this is incoherent, no sleep and running a fever. *lincoln coughs on everyone reading this message* Oops, sorry about that.
Vahenir 06-22-05, 03:55 AM	1) Adding another physical stat, say agility, that is used to modify the attack roll. Then Strength is opposed by Con and Dex is opposed by Agility. I prefer this method - as I mentioned - it's the one I use. 2) Adding STR requirements for various weapons (ala GURPS) and penalized characters that don't have the strength to wield them. I think, in my system, this becomes unnecessary. In my system, it's assumed that a person with normal human strength can wield any normal weapon with relative ease. But if you have a strength penalty, it applies to attack rolls. This represents characters that don't have the appropriate strength to wield weaponry, even if they have the necessary coordination. But in real life, a person of average strength should have little to no trouble wielding any normal historical weapon. Though I may consider putting a Strength requirement of at least 13 on greatswords and similar weapons that require a bit more power and muscle than the rest - as I do think there's some historical precedence for that. Also, by penalizing the melee attack roll by a low dex, you are breaking a certain cinematic aspect of the game. For example, your modification would penalize Giants. However, Giants due rely on strength to crash through their opponent's shield, armor, etc. If a normal person was hit by a Giant, they should be knocked back at the very least -- in much the same way a 5 year old child would be knocked back if a football lineman hit the kid with a club. How does this penalize Giants? They can still use their enormous Strength score for attack rolls, and they only suffer a penalty if their Dex is below 10. Even with a Dex of 8 or as far down as 6 - they'll still be a huge (no pun intended) menace - considering the small penalty to attacks is nixed by the huge bonus to attack from Strength. But even then - what's wrong with the image of the slow, "club-swinging" giant that misses a lot, but almost surely kills you if he lands the hit? It's a fairly prevalent archetype in lore - and it gets no coverage in standard D&D because D&D doesn't penalize your ATTACK power for being slow and clumsy - a huge oversight in my opinion. While striving for a certain amount of realisim is ok, you might be punishing certain concepts a little too much with this. Are you going to have Constitution affect how long a character can fight before becomming fatigued? Penalizing certain concepts, maybe. But not unjustly so! "I want to play a strong guy that's got terrible balance and almost no coordination, so I'm going to have a low Dex." How can this player not expect to be facing attack roll penalties for being horribly uncoordinated? I've never understood why players seem to think they should be allowed to play -any- concept under the sun without facing penalties associated with certain choices. I swear, I even had a player say "I want a character that's average in his Dexterity, and fights with a dagger. I'm going to build him up with some feats - so I want to use the Fighter class." I allowed it, and he got ticked when he died, even after I softened up the encounter just for his character. In any event.. the point is that I don't feel every character concept is playable in -every- class. You simply should not be playing a front-line combatant if your concept is "extremely clumsy and incapable of walking a straight line" the same way no one in their right mind would play an "absent-minded Wizard with an IQ of 62." If you want to play the really stupid character, you play a class that doesn't completely rely on the score you've chosen as your dump stat. Finally, the I think this will have an impact on play. Hitting less often means fights take longer and you will have to adjust ELs appropriately. I feel it's a negligible difference, really. I've -very- rarely encountered anyone that plays Fighters, Barbarians, or Paladins who enjoys having a Dex penalty -anyway-. Most at least make a strong attempt toward having a 10 in Dexterity. Likewise, most Dex fighters try to have at least a 10 in Strength - as it governs damage. But even if you have a -1 modifier for your secondary combat attribute in my system (Dex or Strength respectively), it's still only a -1 to attack rolls.. which might be a little crappy at 1st and 2nd level, but by 3rd level and up - it won't be as big of a deal. The intention was to make it matter, without making it difficult on your character. I think this accomplishes that rather smoothly, unless you choose a painfully ineffective character build. This response got long, I apologize for that. And I hope it didn't seem like I was ranting, I didn't mean to. I just like to be as thorough as possible.. I'm **** like that. Lincoln, I'll respond to you in a new reply, because this is already really long.
Gemstone 06-22-05, 04:04 AM	Haha.. your ancestors did a lot for the world - establishing so much trade and removing many boundaries that existed previously. Their warfare contributions were negligible compared to their social and economic contributions. Yep. Which many persons tend to ignore... my grandfather for example, claims that vikings where all about "kill kill kill steal" :) Professional soldiers, depending on the country, existed much earlier than that. All Roman soldiers, for example, were professionals. Likewise, Europe had 'professional soldiers' as early as the 5th century, and Near-Eastern cultures had them even before that. It's difficult to go through any known period of history and find a culture that did not at least attempt to utilize trained soldiers and trained conscripts over untrained levies. But you are right - many militia-trained soldiers would be in service once a year, and would train about once a month. That's still plenty. I could come to your house and teach you the basics of killing an armoured man with a spear in about 1 week. Anything after that is superior training, or is training in a different style of weapon. Then it would only take another week or so to train you in formations, recognizing signals and orders, and so on. I specificly refered to the medieval periode :) But your right (as most times) that several countries had professional soldiers before that. But, they weren t that commin in the nothern parts of Europe that didn't have direct contact with the arabic world (refering to the countries south-east of europe). But back on topic once more: What the previous poster said about giants is correct. Perhaps there should be strength requirements for each weapon (which struck me as odd when I started plaing DnD, as an old Drakar och Demoner player), or there should be two different kinds of fighting styles. "Pummel them into submission" with sheer strength and "Skillfully cut through them" based on dexterity. But that would be waaay to advanced for a DnD game, since it would basicly rewrite the fighter class (altough I could see "a fighter pack", where you could take different bonus feats depending on your choice... say: Power attack, cleave, greater cleave as strength and combat expertise, dodge, weapon specialization etc. as dexterity related feat). That would simulate a situation where a fighter choosed either sheer power or skill. But I still think that some weapons should be named [DEX] and some [STR]... Scimitar [DEX] Shortsword [DEX/STR, choose one] Greataxe [STR] Rapier [DEX] Greatsword [STR] Mace [STR] Mace, Windu [DEX] Mace, Heavy [STR] which determines which ability that hands out the bonus Btw. find the pun for a :cookie:
Vahenir 06-22-05, 04:07 AM	I would like to bring something up, and that is that your rules, while elegant and balanced in themselves, are not better. I wouldn't say they're overall better. But they're better for my particular tastes and requirements. I have played in many games where the normal rules did just fine. We were playing a cinematic game, and how real combat works was as unimportant as whether or not a lightning bolt can start a fire, or whether or not enemies in the next room heard the combat outside. If you're playing a break-in-the-door, kill-everything style of game, then what ends up happening is that it doesn't even matter what SYSTEM you're using, let alone rules variants and particulars. This concept of mine wasn't intended for those types of players, and I'd advise those types of players against using it - because the extra notations on stat penalties is just not necessary for their style. Now on a different note, I would be interested in seeing (not on this thread or on these boards) a proposal for a new game system from you. Having read many of your posts, I know that you are willing to think outside description and look at mechanics. I also note that you have a better understanding of combat than I do (whether its accurate or not). If you have something already worked up I would like to see it. I appreciate the interest. Oddly enough, for the last 3 months or so I -have- been working on my own system. As much as I love D&D, I've often found myself dissatisfied with certain aspects of it. A lot of aspects of it, actually. Don't get me wrong, I think I'll always play D&D. But I play other systems too, depending on -what- I want to play. So when I started creating my own homebrew setting about 4 years ago, I felt really constrained by the D&D ruleset and it's static character levels, basic uninspired combat system, and absurd dependance on some elusive balance that doesn't really seem to exist anyway. I set aside the game mechanics for awhile and concentrated on the setting - nailed down a lot of information, and now I'm back to trying to co-write the setting with the rules. I again realized D&D and its subsidiary systems (like OGL Conan or the Black Company Campaign Setting) just didn't fit my world. So I started creating my own system. And I apologize for babbling about that. But long story short: I decided I wanted to go a different direction than D&D - including a totally different style of character advancement that IS a class system, but is not rigidly defined and static -- a combat system that was a mix of something cinematic, something realistic, and most importantly: playable. I got rid of the idea of 'balance.' That's not to say the system is going to turn out wonky. I'm just not overconcerned with Dwarves having a grand total of +1 to an ability score more than any other race. It's an arbitrary difference that helps distinguish races from each other. Yes, some weapons are better than others. Yes, some armour styles are better than others. I see no reason to try to 'fix' that with arbitrary, often stupid, rule decisions. Whew.. that was a lot to say. Anyway, I'm working on it - I think I have a lot of the major design points worked out. If you're interested, you can PM Draco Strang, as he has a wordfile I sent him titled "The Mechanics" where I summarized what I'm trying to do with my system. If he still has that, he'll probably send it along to you. Just direct him to this thread so he knows I said it's okay.
Vahenir 06-22-05, 04:13 AM	Mace Windu, huh? Gimme my damn cookie. In any event, Eastern Europe had contact with Western Europe - that was good enough. Trained soldiers were common pretty much everywhere, as I pointed out previously. It's unfortunate that the myth of untrained peasants with swords is still prevalent in this 'learned and scholarly' society. As for particular -styles- of combat: Well that would be pretty well covered just by which ability you choose to use. Like I said before -My- choice would be to allow certain weapons the ability to be finessed, and to thus make the ability a FREE ability, usable by anyone with that particular weapon in hand. That would pretty much do the same thing you're suggesting, but without any unnecessary 'bulk' in the rules. And you wouldn't have to worry about the guy trying to finesse a sledgehammer - because it wouldn't be marked as a finessable weapon. I think that's a rather elegant solution, allowing a choice in how you fight (strength based or coordination based) without a huge amount of new rules and things to consider. You just look at your weapon and say "is this finessable?" If it's not, you're a Strength fighter. If it IS - you can choose between Strength and Dex for attack rolls. (For those of you that came here and found yourselves on the second page and noticed that I didn't reply to you - my reply to you would be back on the First page. Enjoy)
Gemstone 06-22-05, 04:16 AM	To Vahenir: (to avoid Hijacking :D) You would like both Drakar & Demoner and Eon I believe. They have more advanced (and more realistic, in the later case even to realistic at some points) combat rules and has a skill system based on experience in each skil instead of your character level. If your character sits around, doing nothing than picking locks for five years (with increasingly difficult locks) he would soon reach 20 Ranks and above, while still having almost no ranks in the other skills. Combat is also based around dexterity or smidighet, rörlighet as we call it :D
Vahenir 06-22-05, 04:38 AM	Okay.. I don't know how to do that spoiler thing... so I'll just reply: Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm hoping my system, when finished, will serve my needs in the realistic but playable department. (And I do still plan to play D&D).
Gemstone 06-22-05, 05:56 AM	Okay.. I don't know how to do that spoiler thing... so I'll just reply: Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm hoping my system, when finished, will serve my needs in the realistic but playable department. (And I do still plan to play D&D). [ SBLOCK] [ /SBLOCK] :D
Vahenir 06-22-05, 07:04 PM	Cool. So does anyone else have anything to say about this system, or is the conversation dead after, really, only a few posts that were on subject? (If that's the case, either my idea is so good that no one can think of a flaw, or so bad that no one even wants to look at it. I'm going to go with the former.)
Sinaz 06-22-05, 07:23 PM	Ok, I gave this some serious serious thought... Here's what I recommend: This system is solid. I like it alot. It simulates cunning attack strategy by swapping only one modifier. Now, as you mention, this pretty much negates most of Weapon Finesse feat. I propose that you simply change Weapon Finesse to do the opposite... we'll call it... Brute Force [General] Prerequisite Base attack bonus +1. Benefit With a heavy weapon, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Strength modifier instead of your Dexterity modifier on attack rolls. Special A fighter may select Brute Force as one of his fighter bonus feats. Natural weapons qualify for this feat. Step back a moment and look. The idea here is that the Barbarian with wicked high strength doesn't give a crap about parrying and kinks in armor. His mentality is, if I can hammer that guy hard enough, I'll dent that pansy-ass armor half way into his spleen. About any weapon applies to this, even a bareknuckle hammer punch.
Vahenir 06-22-05, 08:03 PM	I don't understand... why would anyone need this feat? It doesn't do anything that you can't do -without- the feat.
Sinaz 06-22-05, 08:12 PM	I don't understand... why would anyone need this feat? It doesn't do anything that you can't do -without- the feat. Ok... I got really confused since last I read this thread. I went back and reread your first post, which brought me back up to speed. insert a big "ooooooohhhh yeaaaaahhhhhh" here. Ok, what I should have said... Is that you could probably apply both STR and DEX mods to the melee attack, positive or negative. This makes melee a combination of STR and DEX. A very strong warrior with poor DEX or, say, penalized DEX (due to a spell) will have a little trouble landing his blows, but his high STR compensates... A very dextrous character with low STR may be good at landing blows, but not at delivering the force to make more severe wounds. I propose tying them together more with the Melee attack.
Vahenir 06-22-05, 08:31 PM	I think it works out as-is. Combinations of Dex and Strength would make it even easier to make successful attacks than it already is. At high levels, you'd essentially never miss. I'd rather it's not -that- easy to make an attack roll. But Dex penalty or Strength penalty applying to attack rolls with the opposing stat takes into account the difficulty an uncoordinated, or weak, character would have in attacking someone. The concept being that so long as you have coordination and strength normal for a human (i.e. 10 or 11), you would have little trouble utilizing your main ability for attacks. If you have a 16 Dex and 10 Strength, you can make coordinated attacks, and you have just enough physical power that you can manipulate your weapon accordingly. If you have 16 Strength and 10 Dex, you have enough coordination to land a blow, and plenty of strength to follow through.
Sinaz 06-22-05, 08:36 PM	I get ya. Well made, then.
WaterRabbit 06-22-05, 10:45 PM	I feel it's a negligible difference, really. I've -very- rarely encountered anyone that plays Fighters, Barbarians, or Paladins who enjoys having a Dex penalty -anyway-. Most at least make a strong attempt toward having a 10 in Dexterity. Likewise, most Dex fighters try to have at least a 10 in Strength - as it governs damage. So you want to create a rule change to fix something that rarely happens. I also agree that it rarely happens. In a point buy system I almost never see anyone with a stat below 10. Only in the random systems does this seem to occur and only if someone gets dice hosed (usually me). So then a character that gets dice hosed also gets hosed by this rule change as well. The only character class that will really be affected by this change IMO, would be the cleric. A -1 penalty is quite significant (at least statistically) -- much more than most people realize. Whenever a character's attack bonus is 5 or less than their target's AC bonuses their damage potential drops way off. Also note this is about the break even point for a power attack with a one-handed weapon. Statistically each penalty applied to a character's attack roll (or conversly each bonus added to their opponent's AC) adds about a round to the length of a combat (rounding to the nearest whole round). This also assumes combatants of near equal ability. This will not hold true for characters that overkill their opponents. I am not saying that this is a bad change (for your campaign), but I don't see it for D&D in general. I also think you should test it to see what impact if any it has. If it has zero impact, then there would be no need for the rule at all. If it has minimal impact (i.e. it just changes how players build their characters), then it might be the additional effort. If it has a major impact then it will likely cause you to change other things to mitigate it. If I could only make one change to the d20 system, this would not be it. The one change I would make would be to replace the d20 with 2d10 for reasons too numerous to detail in this one post.
Vahenir 06-23-05, 12:49 AM	So you want to create a rule change to fix something that rarely happens. I also agree that it rarely happens. In a point buy system I almost never see anyone with a stat below 10. Only in the random systems does this seem to occur and only if someone gets dice hosed (usually me). So then a character that gets dice hosed also gets hosed by this rule change as well. The only character class that will really be affected by this change IMO, would be the cleric. Well I do use point-buy. But you're partially right. Actually, this rule moreso came about as I was developing my own system, and I figured the rule worked just as well in D&D, so I ported it over to see what happened. Did all the calculations and thought processes, and found that it's realistic, and adds a new dimension to combat, without over-complicating the rules, or having a negative impact on gameplay. Step outside the Player Characters for a second and look at how this rule effects the game -overall-. DMs would be able to make that super-strong half-giant that misses a lot, but does some severe damage when he hits - just by giving him a really low Dex, but a high Strength. Peasants can be physically capable (especially if their profession demands it) while still being very inept at hitting anything (low Dex). I think the most potential in the idea is for NPCs. But it also does a lot more toward making combat believable just by the rule -being there-. Someone who is completely uncoordinated hits far less often than someone who -is- coordinated. It makes sense, it 'feels' right, and it doesn't have any strong tendency toward hurting the Players - in a point-buy system, at least. And probably not so much in a random roll scenario either - though my 'testing' on that is minimal. A -1 penalty is quite significant (at least statistically) -- much more than most people realize. It is fairly significant, yes. Presuming it's an unbalanced penalty. If you have a 15 Strength and a 9 Dex, your attack bonus is still pretty good, for example. I am not saying that this is a bad change (for your campaign), but I don't see it for D&D in general. D&D in general? It -is- a variant rule, hence it is expected to be used in campaigns where it would feel appropriate. What is appropriate depends on the DM and the Players. My players are all for using this for their next FR game (which I don't plan to be a part of, actually). Others may feel it wouldn't be their cup of tea. But there is no real D&D in general - D&D is what each group makes of it. If it has zero impact, then there would be no need for the rule at all. If it has minimal impact (i.e. it just changes how players build their characters), then it might be the additional effort. If it has a major impact then it will likely cause you to change other things to mitigate it. I didn't post the concept before taking a long look at it, and messing with it a bit with some players. So far as I've deciphered, the impact is minimal but noteworthy, affecting NPCs designed for it most especially, as well as some monsters. Point-buy PCs rarely feel it unless they want to, and random roll PCs are generally unaffected, except on a few unlucky rolls. I think that fits in perfectly with my intention - an unobtrusive variant that can affect the game however much the players and DM choose for it to. If I could only make one change to the d20 system, this would not be it. The one change I would make would be to replace the d20 with 2d10 for reasons too numerous to detail in this one post. I've actually heard a lot of the arguments for this. But the 2d10 system just doesn't have the same ring as the d20 system.. heh. My own system actually uses a single d10 as the major governing role, as I just thought the full d20 was too random. I've also considered using 2d6 instead of d10 for my system. Anywho..
Ace the Dead 06-24-05, 09:08 PM	I do not like the idea of giving weapon finesse out for free. I'm not going to list the reasons I think str should be the primary for attacks in general, as you've all seen them. My biggest beef with it is mechanical aspect: dex is imoprtant for a lot of things. Tagging on melee weapons (which they'd use with the feat anyway) is a lil much. My rogues (those I play, play with and dungeon master for) take weapon finese and love it. I am not a historian, or a historical reenacter of any caliber, but what limited combat experience I have (my little brother and I playing around in the backyard) leads me to believe that it is quite possible to knock through a blocking weapon by force. I like the idea of a character's dex penalty apply to attacks with melee weapons but I'm not as hot on str penalty to attacks with weapon finessed weapons as they've already burned a feat to use the dex on attack rolls, I would see players with low strength complaining. Anyway, that's what I think.
Vahenir 06-25-05, 12:39 AM	I do not like the idea of giving weapon finesse out for free. I don't see why not. The Strength fighter gets to use his best attribute for attack AND damage rolls for free - yet the Dex fighter can't even get his best attribute to only attacks for free? The game is predisposed toward Strength-based characters, and really tends to stiff Dex-based characters into the "secondary combatant" role. y biggest beef with it is mechanical aspect: dex is imoprtant for a lot of things. I've already covered this in a previous post about separating the Dex attribute into Dex and Agility - or if you really want, making Finesse a feat that you take once to apply to all finessable weapons. I like the idea of a character's dex penalty apply to attacks with melee weapons but I'm not as hot on str penalty to attacks with weapon finessed weapons as they've already burned a feat to use the dex on attack rolls, I would see players with low strength complaining. If they don't want a penalty, tell them to make sure they have at least a Strength of 10. It would be unfair to only penalize Strength fighters. Besides, it wouldn't make sense. If a character suffers because they're not coordinated enough to land a proper blow, then the other character should also suffer because he's not physically powerful enough to use his weapon appropriately. It's -only- an issue for characters with BELOW NORMAL scores in Dex and Strength. And if you have below normal scores in either attribute, you have no business in combat anyway - and you should accept that there are penalties for not being a physically fit combatant. I don't see the problem. It sounds to me like you just dislike the system - which is fine. So don't use it.
WaterRabbit 06-25-05, 02:58 PM	It seems to me that you are trying to argue for two things here. If someone states they don't like this variant you have come up with, you refer to how in your personal system it takes account of that. However, few of us are interested in discussing all of the potential house rules and other twists you want to do in your own system. Perhaps if you posted a web link to your 'personal' set of rules we would help you deconstruct them. The second issue I have is that you could make the same argument for applying a penalty for any low ability score. For example, AC could be penalized by a person with low Wisdom because they fall for the same sequence of attacks each time. Attack Roll could be penalized because of low Intelligence due to predictability of their attacks. Damage could be affected by low Constitution because the character tires too easily to throw an effective blow. Attack Rolls could be affected by low Charisma because a character is too timid. I also see this rule as change for change sake and it really doesn't add anything to a normal D&D game. Also, it is clear that you undervalue strength as a combat stat and overvalue dexterity. A character with a low Dex score may still have good eye-hand coordination, but poor eye-foot coordination. In the general case a person with sufficient strength to wield a weapon also has sufficient dexterity to land a blow. The change you want to impose on your characters will mainly affect clerics. In addition, this is already represented in the game by the Power Attack feat which sacrifices the ability to hit with the ability to due damage. Your view of high strength, low dexterity characters seem to be the ‘Haymaker’ view. However, I have seen a person with high strength, low dexterity just clobber his opponents. It hurt his opponents just to block his attacks with either their shield or sword. He would hammer their arms numb until the dropped their defenses just slightly and then he would peg them. He was strong and fast, but he also tripped over his own feet all of the time. I would even go as far to say that most heavily armor fighters fall into this category. They tend to do very little footwork and rely on their armor and weapon power and speed to defeat their foes – especially if they are going to be fighting all day. The few heavily armored fighter I have seen that try to defeat their opponent through footwork tend to tire very quickly. I think the penalty to AC and ranged attacks is enough without applying a further penalty to melee attacks.
Ace the Dead 06-25-05, 03:40 PM	I don't see why not. The Strength fighter gets to use his best attribute for attack AND damage rolls for free - yet the Dex fighter can't even get his best attribute to only attacks for free? The game is predisposed toward Strength-based characters, and really tends to stiff Dex-based characters into the "secondary combatant" role. The dex fighter does however get his dex bonus to AC, reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, a longer (compared to str fighter) list of great skills including tumble, slieght of hand, and ride. I play dex fighters most of the time, and sacraficing a feat for weapon finese, which does apply to all weapons, is not iritating, anoying or unfair at all in my oppinion, esp. if your dm allows you to take a level in Swashbuckler (or more if you really want to be a dex fighter). I've already covered this in a previous post about separating the Dex attribute into Dex and Agility - or if you really want, making Finesse a feat that you take once to apply to all finessable weapons. Now I don't want to do that because Dex is a whole attribute balanced as is. Spliting it will create two undervalued stats, (even giving weapon finese feat for free); and will even hurt dex fighters b/c they now burn 2/7 of their good stats (or ability points) in order to do as much as they could do before with a single feat. If they don't want a penalty, tell them to make sure they have at least a Strength of 10. It would be unfair to only penalize Strength fighters. Besides, it wouldn't make sense. If a character suffers because they're not coordinated enough to land a proper blow, then the other character should also suffer because he's not physically powerful enough to use his weapon appropriately. For further detail on why I'll not be using this system, see WaterRabbit's post above, his argument is most compelling. I don't see the problem. It sounds to me like you just dislike the system - which is fine. So don't use it. I will not be using the system, and I hope you understand why I won't be, but if you consider my conserns/arguments not to be true, and your players like the system, by all means, run with it. Anyway, thanks for posting, it was an interesting read.
Kail 06-26-05, 01:15 AM	This sort of discussion is why I always liked something more like the old MSH RPG attribute set. Included a "Fighting" attribute. Sort of covered BAB, but kept strength or dex from ruling the combat scene. My experiences says that two people of equal agility, the stronger fighter wins. And that the stronger fighter has a nartural advantage that the other person has to make up for by a more than equal amount of agility or skill. I've been tempted to use an average of the two attributes to generate a combat skill that adds to weapons attacks, leaving straight strength for damage and dex for AC. On the three shield scene from Thirteenth Warrior, it apparently has some basis in facts. Picked up a book concerning historical dueling one day in university stacks. Can't recall if the dueling style was originally Norse or otherwise, but the type was more a judicial/leagle duel than outright killing. The three shields were used to, basically, wear the fighters down to such a point that they wouldn't have the energy to finish a fight. A winner could be established without having someone die, or the dispute settled with a fight where both men went at each other enough that neither would look like a coward. It's been at least 6 years since I rad the book, and I can't recall the title at all. I just remember that and some other odd ball dueling bits from the book. Kail
Vahenir 06-26-05, 07:29 AM	If someone states they don't like this variant you have come up with, you refer to how in your personal system it takes account of that. However, few of us are interested in discussing all of the potential house rules and other twists you want to do in your own system. Perhaps if you posted a web link to your 'personal' set of rules we would help you deconstruct them. Actually, I've continuously referred to only one other houserule besides this system - one dealing with Weapon Finesse (giving it away for free, which doesn't really impact this system, it's just a separate idea that seemed to fit) and the other being the addition of an extra attribute. AC could be penalized by a person with low Wisdom because they fall for the same sequence of attacks each time. A person is already penalized in their AC for having a low Dex (or in my variant, a low Agility). This rule would be redundant. Attack Roll could be penalized because of low Intelligence due to predictability of their attacks. Intelligence factors into combat by way of feats. A character with a higher Intelligence has more access to 'tactical' feats which makes it harder for the lower Intelligence character to successfully assault him. So Intelligence in combat is already given proper consideration in the current system. Damage could be affected by low Constitution because the character tires too easily to throw an effective blow. Actually, I like Constitution to affect all combat effectiveness via Weariness. But that's outside the scope of this thread (although I may have mentioned it earlier as sort of a curiosity for readers). Regardless, low Constitution already plays its role in combat effectiveness via Hit Points. Less Con means less ability to maintain your position in combat. Attack Rolls could be affected by low Charisma because a character is too timid. This one seems like you were just reaching for one more example. I don't care how timid you are - if you're trained for combat, you're trained for combat. No one is timid when a man is attempting to split you in half. So really, every Attribute does play a part in combat (Charisma = Feint). Although I don't think Wisdom does, though I've been toying with Wisdom having some effect on ranged attacks. Just toying with that in my head at the moment, though. Regardless, the point still stands that an uncoordinated lout will undoubtedly hit less than a coordinated person. And a weakling will have more trouble successfully maneuvering his weapon (and will hit less) than a character strong enough to maneuver his weapon properly. That is the effect I wanted with this variant, that is the effect it seems to be having in playtesting right now. Also, it is clear that you undervalue strength as a combat stat and overvalue dexterity. Far from it. I value both equally. But one could also argue that I overvalue Strength, because while you may have the choice between Dex and Strength (and both modify each other) for attack rolls, Strength is still the sole modifier of damage. A character with a low Dex score may still have good eye-hand coordination, but poor eye-foot coordination. Oh now you're really reaching. D&D isn't set up for -that- kind of consideration. You're welcome to put more specific ability scores into the game, including "Hand-Eye Coordination" and "Eye-Foot Coordination" as separate attributes. Me, I'm just going with the definitions of the attributes as given in the Core book. By that same token, by the way, a High-strength character could be amazing at lifting things, but horribly at manipulating his musculature - which would make him a horrible combatant (like Arnie, who had to LOSE muscle mass when filming Conan The Barbarian, so that he'd be able to swing his sword properly). In the general case a person with sufficient strength to wield a weapon also has sufficient dexterity to land a blow. Really? Well can you give me a quote from the Player's Handbook that states that Strength also governs coordination? The change you want to impose on your characters will mainly affect clerics. ..Bwuah? In addition, this is already represented in the game by the Power Attack feat which sacrifices the ability to hit with the ability to due damage. No.... Power Attack represents a wild swing, or a dangerous maneuver - sacrificing accuracy for pure power. My variant doesn't represent that at all. My variant represents characters without the proper coordination to be completely effective, or characters without the proper strength to be completely effective. We're talking entirely different concepts, and again I say you're really reaching here. Your view of high strength, low dexterity characters seem to be the ‘Haymaker’ view. However, I have seen a person with high strength, low dexterity just clobber his opponents. It hurt his opponents just to block his attacks with either their shield or sword. He would hammer their arms numb until the dropped their defenses just slightly and then he would peg them. He was strong and fast, but he also tripped over his own feet all of the time. And this person is better represented in my variant than in the Core rules. In my variant, he'll be landing -effective- blows far less often, but when he does hit, it hurts. I also submit that he's been fighting idiots - because anyone that lets a big guy smash his weapon into theirs, or into their shield, isn't doing what they should be doing on the field. Effectively combating someone is about -moving-, not -absorbing-. So this guy would be hitting his opponents even less than he already does if they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. I've seen guys like you describe.. on the off-chance they land a solid hit - you're going down. But they generally have a -lot- of trouble getting that hit, because they're slower and less coordinated, unable to keep up. I used to dance circles around those guys when I was in regular practice (moved - so I can't get into it as much anymore - though I know a few people up here). I would even go as far to say that most heavily armor fighters fall into this category. You could go that far, but you'd be wrong. Check out the footwork in the armoured combat sections of historical fighting manuals. I think the penalty to AC and ranged attacks is enough without applying a further penalty to melee attacks. The penalty to ranged attacks is generally a non-issue. If you have a bad Dex, you don't use Ranged weapons. I agree though - poor AC, poor Initiative, and poor Reflex saves can suck. That's why I suggested, and use, an extra attribute modifier (which a few other people I've talked to off the boards have liked because they consider Dex too good anyway). a longer (compared to str fighter) list of great skills including tumble, slieght of hand, and ride. (The things you mention before this, I've covered the concerns of by suggesting an extra stat). Skills? Having a good Dex makes those skills work a little better, but it doesn't give you a longer list of good skills. A 16 Dex character isn't going to do any serious tumbling or sleight of hand without ranks in the skill anyway. sacraficing a feat for weapon finese, which does apply to all weapons, is not iritating, anoying or unfair at all in my oppinion That's fine. But as a DM, I've always considered it pretty stupid that Strength fighting is free, while fighting in the way that is correct and natural, costs a feat. My players never really protested the Weapon Finesse feat, though we'd talked about it before. I decided I was going to toy with the idea of losing it altogether (my decision was supported by Mongoose Publishing doing the exact same thing in their OGL Conan RPG). if your dm allows you to take a level in Swashbuckler I don't use the Swashbuckler class. I think most of its abilities are lame. Instead, I've revamped the Fighter a little with a few more options that allow it to be either a Tank, a Skirmisher type, or a combination. For such a generic class, I always felt it wasn't very flexible, so I just modified it, rather than toss in a bunch of alternate base classes. But that's really beside the point of this thread anyway. Now I don't want to do that because Dex is a whole attribute balanced as is. Spliting it will create two undervalued stats Dex is basically the best stat in the game, overall. I can't see how splitting it undervalues the two that come of it. And I've yet to see any evidence thereof in my playtesting. On the three shield scene from Thirteenth Warrior, it apparently has some basis in facts. Picked up a book concerning historical dueling one day in university stacks. Can't recall if the dueling style was originally Norse or otherwise, but the type was more a judicial/leagle duel than outright killing. The three shields were used to, basically, wear the fighters down to such a point that they wouldn't have the energy to finish a fight. A winner could be established without having someone die, or the dispute settled with a fight where both men went at each other enough that neither would look like a coward. It's been at least 6 years since I rad the book, and I can't recall the title at all. I just remember that and some other odd ball dueling bits from the book. Haha, quite! Like I said earlier, it may be that this type of dueling existed basically as a "wail on each other until you're too tired to move" kind of thing - as it's unlikely you're going to be shattering shields left and right with a circa ~ 700 C.E. Arming Sword.
WaterRabbit 06-26-05, 02:31 PM	Oh now you're really reaching. D&D isn't set up for -that- kind of consideration. You're welcome to put more specific ability scores into the game, including "Hand-Eye Coordination" and "Eye-Foot Coordination" as separate attributes. Me, I'm just going with the definitions of the attributes as given in the Core book. Interesting, since this is exactly what you are proposing by adding an Agility attribute. Also, if you had played the horrible broken system under 2nd edition, they did just that (I think it was from the Tactical handbook, I gave my 2E stuff away so I am just going from memory here). My overall point was what you essentially reiterated by trying to refute it -- all of the abilities already have a role in combat. What is also clear, and your change doesn't really model, is that a character with both high strength and high dexterity is really dominant in combat. Such a character is extremely efficient in delivering damage in what looks like an effortless fashion. IMHO, this variant rule adds nothing to the core D&D system except to hose characters that are already dice hosed in a non-point buy system. The fact that you don't seem to understand how your change hoses clerics indicates to me that you haven't really thought it through. Take the 'Elite array' from page 169 of the DMG (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8). Now look at the cleric. None of the class skills for the cleric are dexterity based (unless the cleric chooses trickery as a domain and gets the hide skill, which is useless in heavy armor anyway). Clerics can wear heavy armor, so dexterity is their least important ability. Most players put the 8 in dexterity. Under your system, you now are adding a -1 penalty to attack rolls for most clerics who already had the middle BAB progression. Even without using a point buy system, dexterity is the dump stat for clerics. It's a good thing that none of the core races have a dexterity penalty. I also assume that your modification would also apply to things like fighting defensively, total defense, and the Combat Expertise feat. This makes these feats even less useful for a cleric and makes it harder for him to fill the role of human shield. Now perhaps you are one of those that think clerics are overpowered anyway. However, despite their strong abilities, they had a difficult time as it is grabbing the spotlight. Fighters overshadow them in combat challenges, rogues overshadow them in skill challenges, and bards, rogues, and sorcerers overshadow them in role-playing challenges. Magically they are overshadowed by wizards. They are basically strongest against undead, but the turning rules are not dramatically that interesting. This is why so many groups have trouble getting people to play the cleric. This variant you are proposing is just one more reason.
Vahenir 06-27-05, 07:41 AM	Interesting, since this is exactly what you are proposing by adding an Agility attribute. No - I was proposing splitting one attribute down (an attribute already arguably 'too good' anyway) into the difference between coordination and reflexes, and speed, flexibility and movement capabilities. They'd still be rather broad categories. Or we could all just go play tristat - having just Body, Mind, and Spirit (or is it Soul?) attributes. I'm not even getting close to suggesting that all attributes get broken down into much smaller parts, I'm suggesting Dex is broken down into two attributes more on the level with existing attributes. If you disagree, that's fine - no one's asking you to do it. Also, if you had played the horrible broken system under 2nd edition, they did just that (I think it was from the Tactical handbook, I gave my 2E stuff away so I am just going from memory here). I'm not 10 years old - I did play 2nd Edition, although I don't recall the breakdown of attribute scores. I do remember Weapon Speed, and all that stuff from the 2E Combat & Tactics book. My overall point was what you essentially reiterated by trying to refute it -- all of the abilities already have a role in combat. M'kay.. then we agree. Of course, I never disputed that all the abilities have a role in combat - not once. What is also clear, and your change doesn't really model, is that a character with both high strength and high dexterity is really dominant in combat. Such a character is extremely efficient in delivering damage in what looks like an effortless fashion. Actually, it does model that. He's hitting a lot, thanks to his Dex, and dealing a lot of damage thanks to his Strength. His dominance in combat is also shown by the fact that he's almost equally as powerful with a weapon that's not 'finessable.' IMHO, this variant rule adds nothing to the core D&D system except to hose characters that are already dice hosed in a non-point buy system. Sucks for them, I suppose. 'Course, if they're putting their lowest score into Dex or Strength - what are they doing assuming they have any place in melee, generally speaking, -anyway-? The fact that you don't seem to understand how your change hoses clerics indicates to me that you haven't really thought it through. OR, it indicates that I'm currently playtesting with a group that has two clerics - neither of which have expressed any problem after running combat at levels 1 - 6 (obviously it's not a true game, we're just doing the combat stuff, raising the level, and doing it again). I think playtesting usually tends to trump base assumptions, doesn't it? Take the 'Elite array' from page 169 of the DMG (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8). Now look at the cleric. None of the class skills for the cleric are dexterity based (unless the cleric chooses trickery as a domain and gets the hide skill, which is useless in heavy armor anyway). Clerics can wear heavy armor, so dexterity is their least important ability. Most players put the 8 in dexterity. Under your system, you now are adding a -1 penalty to attack rolls for most clerics who already had the middle BAB progression. Even without using a point buy system, dexterity is the dump stat for clerics. It's a good thing that none of the core races have a dexterity penalty. Well firstly, the 'Elite Array' sucks - and in my opinion most characters should not have scores below 10.. it's not very heroic to have "less than human" ability in something. But that's beside the point, and is just personal opinion. Clerics have a lot of options - and as you pointed out, they are a middle BAB class. Meaning, they are NOT front-line combatants. The Cleric can complain all he wants that he's not exceptionally effective in melee - but he's still going to be more effective than the Wizard, and he's STILL not a front-liner anyway. He has no business thinking that he -should- be able to hop into combat with no problem. Too many people seem to think you can play a cleric as a hard-hitting tank. He will always be trumped by the Fighter and Paladin there - and thus he has no reason to be attempting it anyway. The point is moot. So he's taking a -1 on attack rolls for having an 8 in his Dex. Good, tell him to cast spells and turning undead, rather than grabbing the SIMPLE WEAPON he's proficient with and thinking he can run in and take down the Orc. If you're trying to play a Cleric that's more combat-related, (as one of my playtesters is doing) - get the War domain. You get proficiency in one martial weapon, and Weapon Focus for free - which makes that -1 penalty go away. The Cleric is not 'in trouble' with this system. Not to mention the fact that you assume all players are using Dex as a dump stat. I've seen a lot of Clerics in my time, and I've seen almost every stat become a dump stat for them. Currently, the playtesters are using Dex and Strength, respectively. There are six attributes - a Cleric only NEEDS two of them to be good, I will point out to you - Charisma and Wisdom. That leaves four attributes as possible dump stats, depending on the particulars of the Cleric. I'll also remind you that first level characters start with max HP - 8 in the Cleric's case. A player could just as easily take the hit on his Constitution score to start out with 7 instead. 1 HP isn't -that- big of a deal, especially for someone that's NOT a frontline combatant and is capable of spontaneous healing. So I don't think it was me that didn't think it through. I think perhaps you just didn't consider the Cleric fully, but rather considered the stereotype low-Dex, but yet somehow front-line combatant Cleric that some people play (which I also pointed out is still possible, with the War Domain). I also assume that your modification would also apply to things like fighting defensively, total defense, and the Combat Expertise feat. This makes these feats even less useful for a cleric and makes it harder for him to fill the role of human shield. You're getting your stereotypes mixed up. Fighter is The Meat-Shield, Cleric is The Ambulance. However, despite their strong abilities, they had a difficult time as it is grabbing the spotlight. Maybe under a bad DM they do. I've never had a problem getting everyone into the spotlight in every adventure, though - so I really can't relate. and bards, rogues, and sorcerers overshadow them in role-playing challenges. That's not even close to true. The correct statement is that a -bad character- has less chance for roleplay challenges. A thought-out character has as much opportunity as anyone else. I can "roleplay challenge" a Fighter or a Commoner as easily as a Bard or Rogue. I think most DMs can. That's about the character, not the class. They are basically strongest against undead, but the turning rules are not dramatically that interesting. Boo hoo. "Bonus feat every other level" isn't dramatically interesting either, especially considering many of them amount to "+1 Attack" - "+2 Damage" - "Extra AoO." This is why so many groups have trouble getting people to play the cleric. This variant you are proposing is just one more reason. See, I find this interesting - because I've never had any shortage of people wanting to play Clerics in my games (when I use them, I run a lot of historical-fiction style games as well, often with no Clerics). The playtest group has -2- clerics, and I often find myself having to tell the group that they need one -less- Cleric. So, I don't think it's quite fair to make judgement calls based only on your experiences, about how other games work. But like I said before, if -you- dislike the system, don't use it. I'm not asking -anyone- to use it except my players, who I will once again point out have playtested 6 levels of this variant without a single complaint.
Ace the Dead 06-27-05, 07:38 PM	... I've played the halfling shield: Ftr1/rog4 and counting. Mithral large shield + mithral chain + Dex of 22 + size bonus to AC + Fighting defensively (saving up for ROP and Amulet of natural armor). Stand between the str 10 Dex 10 cleric and that enemy who he just 5' stepped away from. Even with a con of 14 I go down after only a few hits, but it takes a while to get those hits in, and the cleric can bring back to full with much lower level spells than a meat sheild. Cleric's with Tower shields (either with the feat or a fighter level) make great living shields, regardless of dex, especially with feats like divine sheild or craft magic arms and armor. And he can even cure his own wounds. That str 10 dex 10 cleric has used his mundane weapons (never even purchased MW ones) only once since lvl 1 after running around for two strait days slinging spells. He may be no help when it comes to skill-based encounters, but when it comes to combat, I'd take him over any fighter build I've seen to date. Your playtesting went a lot differently than mine I guess. How exactly did you break up Dex in DnD (not interested in your system at this time) in such a way that not only you, but your players feel is balanced?
WaterRabbit 06-28-05, 12:30 AM	No - I was proposing splitting one attribute down (an attribute already arguably 'too good' anyway) into the difference between coordination and reflexes, and speed, flexibility and movement capabilities. They'd still be rather broad categories. Or we could all just go play tristat - having just Body, Mind, and Spirit (or is it Soul?) attributes. I'm not even getting close to suggesting that all attributes get broken down into much smaller parts, I'm suggesting Dex is broken down into two attributes more on the level with existing attributes. If you disagree, that's fine - no one's asking you to do it. Hold on a minute there chief. Let's be clear on what you are suggesting. You are taking the To Hit bonus out of both strength and dexterity. As far as combat is concerned, 2 points of strength = 2 points of dexterity + 2 points of constitution. Also, I am not necessarily disagreeing that this would be a bad idea. Now whether you call this attribute AIM or AGILITY or BUGGER it comes down to the same thing; it represents hand-eye coordination and DEX then would represents foot-eye coordination, so to speak. I'm not 10 years old - I did play 2nd Edition, although I don't recall the breakdown of attribute scores. I do remember Weapon Speed, and all that stuff from the 2E Combat & Tactics book. Oh please. I never suggested that you were 10 years old. I have little knowledge about your RPG experience. Just so you know, I have been playing consistently since 1979 -- just as AD&D first ed. was being rolled out. I have played with 50 or more different DMs. In the beginning of C&T, they broke each of the abilities into two sub-abilities. The problem was that they really weren't equal, which led to all sorts of twinkery. M'kay.. then we agree. Of course, I never disputed that all the abilities have a role in combat - not once. Ok, then why did you waste so many electrons trying to refute something we already agreed on? Again, my point is why single out just DEX to penalize? You could make a case to penalize a character for any negative ability modifier. Actually, it does model that. He's hitting a lot, thanks to his Dex, and dealing a lot of damage thanks to his Strength. His dominance in combat is also shown by the fact that he's almost equally as powerful with a weapon that's not 'finessable.' Let me rephrase: your model doesn't do anything that the d20 rules don't already provide for -- all you are doing is forcing characters to put a minimum of 10 in both STR and DEX (see below). Sucks for them, I suppose. 'Course, if they're putting their lowest score into Dex or Strength - what are they doing assuming they have any place in melee, generally speaking, -anyway-? Because it’s friggin' D&D, that’s why. Everyone gets into combat. OR, it indicates that I'm currently playtesting with a group that has two clerics - neither of which have expressed any problem after running combat at levels 1 - 6 (obviously it's not a true game, we're just doing the combat stuff, raising the level, and doing it again). I think playtesting usually tends to trump base assumptions, doesn't it? First this demonstrates nothing; and Second, playtesting doesn't trump base assumptions if you don't have good assumptions to base your playtesting upon. My assumptions all come from what you have previously stated; nothing more, nothing less. I am just providing some boundary checking here. Well firstly, the 'Elite Array' sucks - and in my opinion most characters should not have scores below 10.. it's not very heroic to have "less than human" ability in something. But that's beside the point, and is just personal opinion. Unfortunately, the 'Elite Array' isn't that far off the mark. It is derived from a Standard Point Buy of 25. In addition, using the 4 drop the 1 method gives an average of 12.245 for each ability score or 25.5 total points (converted to point buy). So using the standard die roll method gives about the same number of points to work with. Obviously, you could just give your players 15 points and start them at 10s in every ability score. However, you might hinder the "role players" who tend to like at least one low score to hook around. ;) Clerics have a lot of options - and as you pointed out, they are a middle BAB class. Meaning, they are NOT front-line combatants. The Cleric can complain all he wants that he's not exceptionally effective in melee - but he's still going to be more effective than the Wizard, and he's STILL not a front-liner anyway. He has no business thinking that he -should- be able to hop into combat with no problem. Too many people seem to think you can play a cleric as a hard-hitting tank. He will always be trumped by the Fighter and Paladin there - and thus he has no reason to be attempting it anyway. The point is moot. So he's taking a -1 on attack rolls for having an 8 in his Dex. Good, tell him to cast spells and turning undead, rather than grabbing the SIMPLE WEAPON he's proficient with and thinking he can run in and take down the Orc. If you're trying to play a Cleric that's more combat-related, (as one of my playtesters is doing) - get the War domain. You get proficiency in one martial weapon, and Weapon Focus for free - which makes that -1 penalty go away. and You're getting your stereotypes mixed up. Fighter is The Meat-Shield, Cleric is The Ambulance. I suppose that is one way to play a cleric. Not an effective way to be sure. A cleric is better in the blocking role. He has strong armor and he anchors the flanks of the fighting formation. He prevents the bad guys from getting to the weaker characters. He has enough fighting ability to punish rogues and monks that slip behind the fighters. He has enough spell capability to nullify enemy spellcasters -- unless of course they target him first. Unfortunately, too many players think that the Ambulance is the proper role for the cleric -- especially with 3E. There is no need to ever memorize healing spells due to spontaneous casting. Plus a wand of curing is well worth the cost to all members of the party. If you're trying to play a Cleric that's more combat-related, (as one of my playtesters is doing) - get the War domain. You get proficiency in one martial weapon, and Weapon Focus for free - which makes that -1 penalty go away. And of course makes it pointless to bother with that domain in your variant since they now lose any benfit -- unless they spend that 2 points to increase their dex instead of one of their other abilities. The Cleric is not 'in trouble' with this system. Not to mention the fact that you assume all players are using Dex as a dump stat. I've seen a lot of Clerics in my time, and I've seen almost every stat become a dump stat for them. Currently, the playtesters are using Dex and Strength, respectively. There are six attributes - a Cleric only NEEDS two of them to be good, I will point out to you - Charisma and Wisdom. That leaves four attributes as possible dump stats, depending on the particulars of the Cleric. I'll also remind you that first level characters start with max HP - 8 in the Cleric's case. A player could just as easily take the hit on his Constitution score to start out with 7 instead. 1 HP isn't -that- big of a deal, especially for someone that's NOT a frontline combatant and is capable of spontaneous healing. Sure I have seen that as well, but your analysis is somewhat shallow here. A spellcaster must have at least a 15 in his spellcasting attribute or he won't have the ability to cast 9th levels spells by the time he first gets them (3 levels worth). I suppose he could hope for a tome or something. So, 25-8=17. Putting a 10 in each stat drops (to be competitive in your system) that down to 7 points. A cleric that puts an 8 in CON is just silly. The hit points are only part of the equation. The concentration skill is the other part. I know that I wouldn't want a -1 on that – preferably a +1 if not a +2 just for that. Charisma a dump stat for clerics? Only for some weird builds that don't think that turning undead and diplomacy are worthwhile. Intelligence should only be a dump stat for half-orcs. Otherwise, 6 of the 10 class skills are penalized plus no extra skill either. Strength a dump stat? Only for characters that don't plan on wearing plate and using a shield. Add a heavy mace that eats up 78 pounds of capacity. So yes, you can make any of these stats a dump stat, but then you aren't playing to the class' strengths. Now there are about 10 million clerical domains so clearly some will create a different build strategy. So I don't think it was me that didn't think it through. I think perhaps you just didn't consider the Cleric fully, but rather considered the stereotype low-Dex, but yet somehow front-line combatant Cleric that some people play (which I also pointed out is still possible, with the War Domain). I think I just did (tell you that is). Our posts are going to get awfully long if I need to go into excruciating detail about every point. Maybe under a bad DM they do. I've never had a problem getting everyone into the spotlight in every adventure, though - so I really can't relate. That's not even close to true. The correct statement is that a -bad character- has less chance for roleplay challenges. A thought-out character has as much opportunity as anyone else. I can "roleplay challenge" a Fighter or a Commoner as easily as a Bard or Rogue. I think most DMs can. That's about the character, not the class. This is a throw away phrase. Kind of a ‘no duh’. It is also true for any class. Also, I don't think you grok what I mean by role-play challenge. This is really a whole other discussion. Essentially, in any RPG there are three types of challenges for characters to overcome -- Combat, Obstacle, and Social. Clearly, Fighters excel at combat and rogues at obstacle challenges. D&D doesn't truly have a 'Face' class. Bard, Paladins, Sorcerers, Rogues, and Clerics split this role to some extent. However, the Bard and some Rogue builds are more suited to this due to more social class skills. The other three are only there because charisma is a primary attribute for the class. Boo hoo. "Bonus feat every other level" isn't dramatically interesting either, especially considering many of them amount to "+1 Attack" - "+2 Damage" - "Extra AoO." Again oh please. This is a just little silly. The turning ability of the cleric is basically a ‘save or die’ type of situation. The drama is the rolling of a die to determine success. Turning is a weak feat most of the time. The feats that work off the turning ability are more interesting. Fighters are the most customizable class and almost always have the opportunity to use their abilities. See, I find this interesting - because I've never had any shortage of people wanting to play Clerics in my games (when I use them, I run a lot of historical-fiction style games as well, often with no Clerics). The playtest group has -2- clerics, and I often find myself having to tell the group that they need one -less- Cleric. So, I don't think it's quite fair to make judgement [sic] calls based only on your experiences, about how other games work. But like I said before, if -you- dislike the system, don't use it. I'm not asking -anyone- to use it except my players, who I will once again point out have playtested 6 levels of this variant without a single complaint. You should consider yourself blessed then. A large number of DMs complain about not having players who want to play the party cleric. Something I would think you would have picked from reading forums such as this one and the one at ENWorld. Finally, I would like to remind you that YOU asked for feedback and criticism of this idea. If you can't take the feedback then don't ask for it in the first place. If you don't think it is fair for me to judge your variant based upon my experiences than "Boo hoo". My experiences, plus the experiences of those that I have gamed with, plus those that I have interacted with in forums like this, plus statistical analysis of the game is what I base my judgment on. The fact that you have playtested 6 levels of this variant without a complaint falls into the 'so what' category. For the other major game I play, that doesn't even account for an 'alpha test' much less a 'beta test'. However, if it works for your group then knock yourselves out. The game is about having fun and if your group likes it then you have succeeded. Now if you are through acting like someone ruffled your feathers maybe our next discussion can have a little less attitude. Because that is exactly what your post comes across as complete and total attitude because I had the temerity to not love your pet idea. Finally, it is not whether I like the idea or not. You asked for feedback and it was provided. If you prefer, in the future I can just reply with ‘Looks good’ or ‘Sucks raw eggs” if that will make you any happier.
striderII 06-28-05, 12:07 PM	Now whether you call this attribute AIM or AGILITY or BUGGER it comes down to the same thing; it represents hand-eye coordination and DEX then would represents foot-eye coordination, so to speak. Let me assure you, foot-eye coordination, as it were, is just as important in combat as hand-eye coordination, perhaps moreso. Everything in battle is about balance, and if you don't have your feet in the proper position, many nasty things can happen (dependent on weapon). In the beginning of C&T, they broke each of the abilities into two sub-abilities. The problem was that they really weren't equal, which led to all sorts of twinkery. Actually, I'm fairly certain that it was in Skills and Powers, although I could be wrong. Actually, I thought that book was great in concept - it just didn't work out in the wash, so to speak. Ok, then why did you waste so many electrons trying to refute something we already agreed on? Again, my point is why single out just DEX to penalize? You could make a case to penalize a character for any negative ability modifier. You could (although that Cha example was a bit thin for my tastes, really). However, I would submit that, of the six ability scores, only Str, Dex, and Con have any *direct* bearing on combat, or are the scores with the most impact. Therefore, they would get the most emphasis in any revision of the *combat* system (restricting this solely to combat and nothing else). And of course makes it pointless to bother with that domain in your variant since they now lose any benfit -- unless they spend that 2 points to increase their dex instead of one of their other abilities. I'm not sure how losing a penalty to an attack roll *isn't* a benefit. Sure, it isn't an additional bonus or anything, but the net result is that it still improves your combat ability. So how is that not beneficial? Vahenir: I will refrain from analytical comment on your system until I actually try it myself. If there's any way you can send me the full write up, that would be great - you have my email. :) strider
Vahenir 06-30-05, 02:10 PM	You could (although that Cha example was a bit thin for my tastes, really). However, I would submit that, of the six ability scores, only Str, Dex, and Con have any *direct* bearing on combat, or are the scores with the most impact. Therefore, they would get the most emphasis in any revision of the *combat* system (restricting this solely to combat and nothing else). Precisely. I'm not sure how losing a penalty to an attack roll *isn't* a benefit. Sure, it isn't an additional bonus or anything, but the net result is that it still improves your combat ability. So how is that not beneficial? That's what I'd like to know. Vahenir: I will refrain from analytical comment on your system until I actually try it myself. If there's any way you can send me the full write up, that would be great - you have my email. I haven't even gotten near to finishing my own system yet, which is why I'm just playing with house-rules to 3rd Edition at this point. But I did a write-up not too long ago explaining my setting and the basics of the mechanics I'll be using for my setting. But I subsequently deleted it after sending it to Draco Strang. I've IMed him to see if he can send it back to me - if he does I'll shoot you over a copy. If he doesn't have it, I'll just have to go through and write up a new one, but that'll take a bit. WaterRabbit: Just in case you pop in before I get back - I'm going out for drinks with my fiance's uncle, but I'll respond to you when I get back. I haven't forgotten about you. And apologies for not replying sooner guys - it's been a hectic week and everytime I started to get posting on the boards here, I ended up leaving before I got to this thread.
Vahenir 06-30-05, 06:09 PM	Hold on a minute there chief. Let's be clear on what you are suggesting. You are taking the To Hit bonus out of both strength and dexterity. No, I'm not. How did you come to that conclusion? Strength and Dexterity still grant their respective To Hit bonuses - simply relying on a decent score in the other to not penalize attacks. Oh please. I never suggested that you were 10 years old. I never said you did. It was a facetious remark. Calm down. Again, my point is why single out just DEX to penalize? You could make a case to penalize a character for any negative ability modifier. I could make a case for it - but it would be a much weaker case. As Strider pointed out - Dex and Str are the two abilities most readily necessary for combat skill - and combat ability relies more on these two attributes than anything else. And as I pointed out - the other attributes already fully penalize a character engaging in meaningful combat (like being poor at feinting, or not having the hit points to stay in the fight), whereas Dex and Str -do not- do that, unless you're trying to fight with your non-dominant score, and even then - it's iffy. My variant simply takes this issue into account. Let me rephrase: your model doesn't do anything that the d20 rules don't already provide for -- all you are doing is forcing characters to put a minimum of 10 in both STR and DEX (see below). My variant gives a relatively small penalty to a character in combat for not having abilities conductive to being a good combatant. The system -doesn't- currently provide for that, as a massive-muscled brute hits more often, without any special ability (read: feat) than a fairly coordinated but normal-strength character does WITH a special ability (read: feat). It's not a huge issue for combative PCs - who should have a Dex of 10 anyway, or a Strength of 10. But as I already pointed out, this variant wasn't only devised with PCs in mind. Because it’s friggin' D&D, that’s why. Everyone gets into combat. I didn't say "combat." I said "melee" first of all. Second of all, not everyone plays hack-and-slash D&D, where every character is assumed to be just as good in combat as the next guy. But it doesn't matter, because I said -MELEE-, not "combat." Big difference. A Wizard has no place in MELEE, even if he has a place in COMBAT. See the difference in wording? Second, playtesting doesn't trump base assumptions if you don't have good assumptions to base your playtesting upon. Playtesting is how games are made - it reveals the quirks and conceptual problems of a rule, variant, or system. Yes, it trumps base assumptions even if you base your concept on a poor assumption - provided you playtest correctly. My assumptions all come from what you have previously stated; nothing more, nothing less. I am just providing some boundary checking here. Noted. And I am refuting your assumptions with my experience, thoughts, and the results of my -playtesting-. Unfortunately, the 'Elite Array' isn't that far off the mark. It is derived from a Standard Point Buy of 25. In addition, using the 4 drop the 1 method gives an average of 12.245 for each ability score or 25.5 total points (converted to point buy). So using the standard die roll method gives about the same number of points to work with. Obviously, you could just give your players 15 points and start them at 10s in every ability score. However, you might hinder the "role players" who tend to like at least one low score to hook around. You missed my point. I was only talking about the Elite Array being crappy as an aside. And I don't see how having sub-human ability in something is good for a 'hook.' I've yet to meet the roleplayer that couldn't create an interesting, provoking character without an 8 in one of his scores. It's a moot point. I suppose that is one way to play a cleric. Not an effective way to be sure. I didn't say that's how it absolutely must be played. I said you were confusing your stereotypes - as the Fighter is the stereotypical 'Meat Shield' and the Cleric is the stereotypical 'Ambulance.' I didn't write the stereotypes, just said you were mis-using them. A cleric is better in the blocking role. He has strong armor and he anchors the flanks of the fighting formation. He prevents the bad guys from getting to the weaker characters. And he's even BETTER if he can benefit from his armour's Max Dex, which he can't do with a Dex of 8 anyway. So what's your point? Besides the fact that a character with a -1 to attacks can still stand there and take hits. An effective meat shield doesn't have to be an effective killer. He has enough fighting ability to punish rogues and monks that slip behind the fighters. A -1 penalty does not remove that ability. Although I could contest the fact that a Cleric is a good way to 'punish' a Monk. But moving on from that: At lower levels when the Cleric is most hurt by his -1 to attacks, the Rogue also has a fairly low armour class. At higher levels, the Cleric shouldn't even be really feeling the penalty as much anymore - and the point becomes moot. Unfortunately, too many players think that the Ambulance is the proper role for the cleric Agreed. And of course makes it pointless to bother with that domain in your variant since they now lose any benfit -- unless they spend that 2 points to increase their dex instead of one of their other abilities. Strider already covered this one. I would have said the same thing he did - so there's no need to get repetative. A cleric that puts an 8 in CON is just silly. Not if he's playing a role outside of your proposed meat shield first-rank combatant. There are plenty of options for a cleric outside of taking the first hit. And if he's forced into that role, he can still spontaneously heal himself, so a point less HP per level is hardly an issue. A Fighter putting an 8 in his Strength score is silly. A Cleric putting an 8 in his Con score is just working out what kind of cleric he wants to be. Funny that you dislike 'The Ambulance' stereotype, but you seem to be pushing other 'proper roles' by claiming a certain score in an attribute is 'silly.' As for the Concentration score - it's not really a big deal. You can invest plenty of ranks in Concentration to make up for it. Charisma a dump stat for clerics? Only for some weird builds that don't think that turning undead and diplomacy are worthwhile. And again you seem to be pushing a class into a pre-defined roll. What about games without a lot of Undead? Turning is then not as much of an issue. Diplomacy? Bards, Paladins, Rogues - they all make excellent diplomats by nature. And any class can be a good diplomat with the right ability scores. It's a non-issue. Even in games with Clerics - I usually see Paladins, Rogues, and Bards acting as the party diplomats, not the Clerics. The point was that any score can be a dump stat - depending on the particular role you want to play. Unless we're shooting back to the old days when you had to have certain stats to even be a member of a given class, and so you were utterly pigeon-holed into certain roles and concepts. Intelligence should only be a dump stat for half-orcs. Yet more pigeon-holing. So all those people that play dumb Barbarian humans are wrong? Or people that play smart half-Orcs? Strength a dump stat? Only for characters that don't plan on wearing plate and using a shield. You mean like Rogues, Wizards, Sorcerers, some Clerics, Monks, Rangers, and some Fighter and Paladin concepts? So yes, you can make any of these stats a dump stat, but then you aren't playing to the class' strengths. All the classes, by nature, have many strengths. I've seen brilliant low-Strength Fighter concepts, an interesting low-Dex Rogue concept, and many low-Charisma Paladin concepts that were all a joy to have in the game (granted, the low-Intelligence Wizard concept one of my players tried failed miserably). The entire point is that you should build a character you want to play and not worry so much about the mechanics - be aware of them, but don't assume you HAVE to play a high-Charisma cleric just because people tell you that you should. That's not role-play gaming, that's another game called Follow-the-Leader. Clearly, Fighters excel at combat and rogues at obstacle challenges. D&D doesn't truly have a 'Face' class. Bard, Paladins, Sorcerers, Rogues, and Clerics split this role to some extent. However, the Bard and some Rogue builds are more suited to this due to more social class skills. The other three are only there because charisma is a primary attribute for the class. And I prefer not to pigeon-hole classes into roles that they are "supposed" to be performing in the group. But the point you're making is still moot. 'Social' challenges can be taken care of by anyone with the correct skills and attributes. It doesn't really fall into any group. I also don't tend to think combat and obstacles fall into any one or two classes - it all depends on the builds. A Fighter is good at combat, but the Barbarian can be better - depending on builds. Rogues are good at obstacles, but the Fighter can be too - given the right build.. et al. The turning ability of the cleric is basically a ‘save or die’ type of situation. The drama is the rolling of a die to determine success. Turning is a weak feat most of the time. The feats that work off the turning ability are more interesting. Fighters are the most customizable class and almost always have the opportunity to use their abilities. Fighters don't -always- have the chance to use their abilities, depending on what feats they have and the situation. But that wasn't the point - the point was that the idea of getting a feat every other level is no more 'dramatic' than the turning rules, and the actual rules for the feats are rarely 'dramatic.' Either way, the Cleric should have plenty of opportunities to use his Turn Undead if that's what he's focused on. If he's focused on it and doesn't get to use it - that's a bad DM problem and has nothing to do with how the system is built. You should consider yourself blessed then. A large number of DMs complain about not having players who want to play the party cleric. Something I would think you would have picked from reading forums such as this one and the one at ENWorld. I take that with a grain of salt, and you should too - as a fairly intelligent person. So 15 people here, and 20 people at ENWorld complain that no one wants to play a Cleric (I'm using random numbers here, just for the sake of argument). First, filter out the DMs playing hack-n-slash games, as Clerics aren't as well-suited to break-in-the-door-kill-everything styles of game as, say, Fighters and Fireball-slinging Wizards are. Now take the remaining number, and compare it to the number of players on these boards and ENWorld that rave about how much they love the Cleric. Subtract that number from the "no one plays Clerics" number. NOW divide that result by the number of people that think Clerics are "way 2 uvrpowrd!" A few people whining about no one playing clerics in their games is insignificant. I can find just as many people complaining that every class is overpowered, that the system is horribly broken, that bastard swords suck, that spiked chains are too good, that Wizards books are overpriced.. etc etc etc. Finally, I would like to remind you that YOU asked for feedback and criticism of this idea While I have no problem with criticism and discussing the idea - you should really double-check things before making comments like this, because you'll note that I -never- asked for feedback or criticism. I posted the variant as a curiosity for anyone interested in reading it. Not saying I'm against discussing it and taking the criticism - posting anything on these boards is bound to garner that response. But I never -asked- for it. If you can't take the feedback then don't ask for it in the first place. If you don't think it is fair for me to judge your variant based upon my experiences than "Boo hoo". My experiences, plus the experiences of those that I have gamed with, plus those that I have interacted with in forums like this, plus statistical analysis of the game is what I base my judgment on. It seems you're getting really bent out of shape about this. All I'm doing is refuting the points you're making. I've made no personal attacks, or anything of the sort. So maybe instead of laying it on me as being unable to 'take the criticism' - you should look at yourself and how seriously you're taking it that I don't agree with your criticism, as that seems to be more your problem than mine. Now if you are through acting like someone ruffled your feathers maybe our next discussion can have a little less attitude. I don't know how any other readers are viewing it. But it seems to me like you're the only one here with an attitude. I'm refuting your judgements with my opinions, thoughts, and what I've learned from the playtesting thus far. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with your assessments, maybe you shouldn't be making judgements at all. Because that is exactly what your post comes across as complete and total attitude because I had the temerity to not love your pet idea. Why - because I dared to disagree with your judgements? I'll say it again: I'm just taking your comments in stride, and responding to them. If you're taking that as some attack against you, or refusal to 'accept' your judgements - then you have a problem, not me. I never asked for your input - nor anyone else's - and if you can't give your input and accept the fact that I will RESPOND to those judgements you make, then kindly exit the thread in peace. For any readers still keeping track: I've now playtested the idea with the group up through level 15, and everything seems good. I'm going to run it all the way to level 20, then restart with a different set of characters. After I get the first two sets of results done - I'll write them up and post them if this thread is still going.
Ace the Dead 06-30-05, 07:55 PM	A comment on your playtesting: It proves that your system can work with your group of test subjects. It does not directly compare your 7 stat system to the normal 6 stat system. I would suggest that you break up your party (and 1/2 their encounter creatures) in the 7 stat system and the rest in the standard 6 stat system to see how the two systems compare to eachother.
Vahenir 06-30-05, 08:54 PM	I don't really feel any desire, at this time, to directly compare my variant to the core rules. My desire, right now, is to test the variant to make sure that it works out as intended. Further playtesting may come later, but at this point I'm only concerned with whether or not the variant works within the scope of the rest of the core rules (minus a few other very minor variants I'm using, like longswords dealing slashing or piercing damage - stuff that's not effectual enough to alter the integrity of the playtesting).
WaterRabbit 07-01-05, 12:03 AM	You have an interesting debating technique. It’s kind of like punching water trying to post to your topics. You shift your position. For example: 1) This is the option I use. But I didn't think it was necessary to note it - but I suppose it probably would help: Separate Dex into Dex and Agility - Agility representing speed and reflexes, Dex being coordination and such. This also helps to remove Dex's place as an uber-stat. I mean, Dex does modify a LOT of skills, Reflex saves, Initiative, AC, Finesse combat, and various other abilities here and there. But to keep Dex from being a weak stat - it will still contribute to Initiative. After all, both your speed and coordination should come into play to determine how quickly you're physically able to react to a threat. No, I'm not. How did you come to that conclusion? Strength and Dexterity still grant their respective To Hit bonuses - simply relying on a decent score in the other to not penalize attacks. Uh, what? Are you or are you not using an Agility stat? Or you take a statement of mine and post to it like you are saying something different. Fighters are the most customizable class and almost always have the opportunity to use their abilities. Fighters don't -always- have the chance to use their abilities, depending on what feats they have and the situation. These statements are equivalent. But somehow you think that they are not? Or you make statements that completely miss the point: So yes, you can make any of these stats a dump stat, but then you aren't playing to the class' strengths. All the classes, by nature, have many strengths. I've seen brilliant low-Strength Fighter concepts, an interesting low-Dex Rogue concept, and many low-Charisma Paladin concepts that were all a joy to have in the game (granted, the low-Intelligence Wizard concept one of my players tried failed miserably). True, but irrelevant to the point. They may be “a joy to have in the game”, but are they more effective than a character that plays to the class’s strengths? Also note that a low-Strength Fighter concept is just as effective as a high-Strength Fighter concept; however, they will have different party roles. A low-dexterity Rogue is a strong concept coupled with a high intelligence and charisma. Again, that kind of character takes a different role in the party structure. A low-charisma Paladin is sacrificing his turning, saving throws, smite, and a couple of skills to gain something else, probably a better strength or constitution – not a very good trade-off. I didn't say "combat." I said "melee" first of all. Second of all, not everyone plays hack-and-slash D&D, where every character is assumed to be just as good in combat as the next guy. But it doesn't matter, because I said -MELEE-, not "combat." I didn’t believe that I had to qualify ‘combat’ with the adjective ‘melee’, since that is after all the topic we have been discussing and neither of us has really spoken to ranged combat. I guess I assumed that you “as a fairly intelligent person” would not need to have it spelled out for you. Every character in D&D gets into MELEE combat – even wizards (actually wizards can be fairly strong melee combatants with the right spells and items). They may not intend to but there it is anyway. While I have no problem with criticism and discussing the idea - you should really double-check things before making comments like this, because you'll note that I -never- asked for feedback or criticism. I posted the variant as a curiosity for anyone interested in reading it. Not saying I'm against discussing it and taking the criticism - posting anything on these boards is bound to garner that response. But I never -asked- for it. I guess that is another of my silly assumptions, if you are not implicitly asking for feedback or criticism then why bother posting in the first place? Where I come from this is called ‘talking out of both sides of your mouth.’ You are saying that you didn’t ask for feedback or criticism but at the same time you are trying to say that you realize you are going to get it. Right, so you are just posting this idea to enlighten the rest of us, how very generous of you. I take that with a grain of salt, and you should too - as a fairly intelligent person. So 15 people here, and 20 people at ENWorld complain that no one wants to play a Cleric (I'm using random numbers here, just for the sake of argument). In general for every complaint voiced there exists 7 that are unvoiced. In the 50 or so groups that I have been a member of, I generally end up playing the cleric because the other choice is to have an NPC DM run cleric. In the vast majority of these groups the cleric class is the one picked last. Never did I state that I thought the cleric class was ‘horribly broken’. The class is certainly a strong class – especially when played to its strengths. I have made combat clerics (without using the war domain) that put the melee fighter to shame (granted a fighter that wasn’t built to the classes strengths). However, the class is perceived by many to have too much baggage (in that a DM can nerf it at will) and too little spotlight compared to the fighter, rogue, and wizard class. IMHO, they should have based the class on CHA instead of WIS and added a few more ‘social’ skills so that the cleric becomes the ‘The Face’ of the party instead of ‘The Medic’. And I prefer not to pigeon-hole classes into roles that they are "supposed" to be performing in the group. But the point you're making is still moot. 'Social' challenges can be taken care of by anyone with the correct skills and attributes. It doesn't really fall into any group. I also don't tend to think combat and obstacles fall into any one or two classes - it all depends on the builds. A Fighter is good at combat, but the Barbarian can be better - depending on builds. Rogues are good at obstacles, but the Fighter can be too - given the right build.. et al. Then why are you wasting your time with a class-based system? It seems to me that GURPS, Shadowrun, Storyteller, or Hero would be better choices for your preferences. Adventures are broken down into encounters; encounters can be broken down into different challenges. There are 3 character challenges and 1 player challenge. Combat, Social, and Obstacle are character challenges and Puzzles are a player challenge. How a class handles different encounters obviously depends upon the actual character build. However, it is easier to build to a class’s strengths than to its weakness. You can make a “Face” character with the fighter class. However, since all of the CHA-based skills are cross-class it will be more difficult. Putting an 18 in CHA for a fighter and 10s in the rest of the abilities means you have a fighter that is neither good at fighting and will still be overshadowed by the Bard in social encounters. Thus fighters generally are better suited for Combat challenges; Rogues are better suited for Obstacle challenges; Bards or Charisma-based Rogues are better suited for Social challenges. Wizards can be good at any of the three depending upon which spells that currently have in their repertoire. Wizards help fill in the gaps. Obviously the best encounters incorporate all of the challenges and/or allow each role to have a way to overcome the challenge. As to whether Social challenges should be player or character challenges depends upon the game and the GM. However, if they are player-based then this weakens many of the skills, feats, and spells in this game. Good/bad role-playing should provide a circumstance bonus to social challenges, but should not alone determine the success or failure. Otherwise you are penalizing certain types of player/character combinations. (i.e. a player who is not socially adept playing a high charisma character or a player who is socially adept playing a low charisma character). So to your original points: Therefore, Strength modifier remains the key ability for attack rolls, but you must apply any Dexterity penalty to any attack you make with a melee weapon. Under a 25 (or lower for some campaigns) point-buy, elite array, or average rolls under the standard system, you penalize the player that builds a cleric/paladin/strength-fighter to the classes strengths. Obviously you disagree, but I clearly disagree with your disagreement. ;) On a 30 (or higher) point-buy build this is of course not as much of a problem. So Finesse is now free - but only applies to certain weapons. The bastard sword (two-handed only), longsword, shortsword, and other appropriate weapons that could benefit a noteworthy amount from excellent coordination on the wielder's part. You are not only giving Weapon Finesse for free but you are extending it beyond its normal capabilities. Ok, fine but you are also giving a big boost to Monks (dex-based), Rangers (two-weapon fighting with longsword), and Rogues (also dex-based). You also have never stated what the point buy value is that your group is using for character builds (I assume a 30 point standard at a minimum if you are using 7 abilities). You also keep dancing around exactly how you define the Agility ability. If you are only pulling the ‘to Hit’ out of Dexterity and not also out of Strength this would be really weird. It seems to me that the whole point would be to have 4 equal physical abilities; STR vs. CON (i.e. damage vs. hit points) and AGL vs. DEX (i.e. to hit vs AC). You also missed my point about Strength. This also helps to remove Dex's place as an uber-stat. Strength is as much if not more of an uber-stat then dexterity – especially in melee combat. You haven’t defined the parameters of your play-testing to us, but it sounds like you are playing with a variety of different non-standard variants. Unless you playtest this variant in a ‘pure’ environment with many different class builds, your playtesting is essentially pointless. You have not established a good control. For your playtesting to be valid you would have to take the same character builds and run them through the same encounters comparing the variant to the standard. This is what I meant when I used the phrase ‘bad assumptions’. Your sample size is also likely to be too small to really be useful. Statistical analysis is actually more valid than ‘your playtesting’ for this purpose. All that you could hope to achieve is whether this variant works for the particular predilections of your group. Finally and maybe more importantly, this variant breaks the OR rule and imposes an AND rule. Generally, when a character is given the choice of choosing between two options the better of the two applies. In this case, you are applying both and thus diluting the character’s strengths. It is similar to creating a rule that Fortitude saves are modified by CON and a character’s STR penalty. It would be an equally valid rule and could be justified by some people. Personally rules defined that enable characters rather than penalizing them are more to my tastes. At the same time, I don’t like to see abilities handed out for free that could shift the balance of roles within in the party. See the whole mithral plate armor thread for a discussion on that. It seems to me at this point we have milked this discussion for all that its worth.
Vahenir 07-04-05, 02:24 PM	Uh, what? Are you or are you not using an Agility stat? I am. But you appear to be misunderstanding it (or I'm misunderstanding you) - The Agility stat does not take the "To Hit" out of Dexterity. Which is what you had said. The 'To Hit' is still right there in Dexterity. Agility takes the "To Dodge" out of Dexterity. I guess that is another of my silly assumptions, if you are not implicitly asking for feedback or criticism then why bother posting in the first place? Like I said - as a curiosity. Since I know a few members had been interested in the variants I was considering (I had a 6-page discussion about this stuff with Shadowlord, and I know Strider, Johannixx and a few others like to hear about this stuff from time to time). So no, it wasn't anything 'weird' saying I wasn't -asking- for criticism. Because I wasn't. I realize that posting on any forum is going to garner whatever responses people want to throw out there, and I accept that. My only issue was with you claiming I -asked- for criticism, which I did not, but I still accept it openly. As for the rest of your post - it's not worth responding. I think you're taking a very confrontational tone. And you mentioned that you feel I have an "attitude." And since, for some reason, you still want to talk, I'll be the one to end it. I don't feel like fighting with you - and that's where all this is going when you think I have an atittude, and I think you have one - no good can come of a discussion with those feelings involved. Clearly you disagree with what I'm saying. And clearly I disagree with what you are saying. I'm playtesting the idea. You're not. End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Not because I think I have to be right, but because the more we argue about this - the closer we get to a flame war. And I don't think it's really worth it just to prove I'm 'right.' Do you think it's worth it just to prove -you're- right? So let's just call it quits. You don't like the idea, you think it has a lot of problems. Duly noted. And we're done. (Oh, and on the subject of other systems, I do play GURPS, but I prefer class-based systems and I'm a fan of the way d20 works in most regards, I just happen to like to tweak it here and there to fit my preferences. After all, there would be no need for an OGL if everyone that didn't like everything about d20 just "went to a different system.")