Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shadowdragon 08-13-06, 03:33 PM	I can't seem to find a forum for house rules so I decided to post this here. If there's a better forum for this topic please let me know. Anyway, I recently borrowed the Player's Option AD&D books from a friend and I'm interested in integrating some of the rules into 3.5. One of the things I'm having trouble with is the subabilities. I really like the concept but I'm having trouble balancing the subabilities in 3.5. For example: Strength/Stamina: Represents how well the character can maintain physical exertion over long periods of time. - Used to determine carrying capacity. - Applied to the Climb and Swim skills. - Can be applied to rolls that require sustained applications of strength (such as holding up an extremely heavy object for a long period of time). Strength/Muscle: Represents how much strength the character can exert in short bursts. - Applied to melee attack and damage rolls - Added to the Jump skill. - Can be applied to rolls requiring a sudden burst of strength (such as breaking down a door). I'm thinking about making it so that abilities don't modify attack bonuses or AC, but even then the Strength/Muscle still seems much better than Strength/Stamina because it adds to melee damage rolls. Does anyone have any ideas how to split each ability into two subabilities? Is there a better way to handle subabilities? Has someone already converted the Player's Option books to 3.5?
Max Octavious Xavier 08-13-06, 06:25 PM	The 2 abilities you listed are basically equivalent to the feat endurance and a barbarians rage ability. However, the general idea is interesting.
Ranger REG 08-13-06, 08:26 PM	I'm thinking about making it so that abilities don't modify attack bonuses or AC... :blink: :uh-huh: Um, why shouldn't Strength and Dexterity modify attack rolls and AC respectively?
purpledragon 08-13-06, 09:13 PM	The player's options rules were second edition and, although I like the concept, should be left there. When you start messing with the rules, you're messing with years of playtesting of rules that were meant to balance a game. Having said that, here we go. Str helps to determine whether or not you hit a target in melee because, generally, higher strength gives better control over a weapon. Therefore you can make better last minute adjustments to your melee attack. Dex represents quickness, nimbless, reflexes. It therefore will help you to dodge incoming attacks if there is nothing to hinder with that such as heavy armor. If you're going to use the subabilities, you'll need to figure out which subability affects which skills and actions. If you're going to do it, do it all the way. Otherwise, you may alienate some of your players.
Shadowdragon 08-13-06, 10:49 PM	Although this was supposed to be about subabilities, I'll explain the combat thing. Raw ability has nothing to do with combat skill. You can be the strongest man in the world but not be able to hit the broadside of a barn with a halberd because you don't have the training in the weapon's use. If an ability adds to attack rolls it should be Dex (Dex represents hand-eye coordination, reflexes, accuracy, etc. These things are used to hit people accuratly, not raw strength). But that brings me to my next point. You can have the hand-eye coordination of a professional computer game player but not be able to hit a target point blank with a ranged weapon because you don't know how to use the bow/crossbow/whatever. Similarly, you could be the worlds best acrobat but because you have no combat training you can't dodge or block an attack to save your life. Thus, it dosen't make any sense to have abilities add to attack bonuses and AC. Raw abilities effect combat skill so little that it shouldn't even matter.
Alac Luin 08-13-06, 11:17 PM	Without proper STR, no matter what your DEX is, you cant hold your weapon steady to compleate the attack. Higher STR also helps overcome a parry, by knocking aside the parrying weapon. Higher STR also helps penitrate armor. An axe continually hitting a chestplate does nothing if the axe head can't get through it. (this is why some people like useing DR instead of AC) "You can have the hand-eye coordination of a professional computer game player but not be able to hit a target point blank with a ranged weapon because you don't know how to use the bow/crossbow/whatever." Thats why there is a -4 to attack it you don't have proficency with a weapon.
Board_Rider 08-13-06, 11:52 PM	I am not sure if this is what you are writing about but this is how I would break it. Similar to 2ED I would use the 2 up or down method meaning that a 16 could be a 14/18 between their subsets or a 16 in both subsets. Soo.... Strength - Power - How hard you hit and how well you hit (+ to BAB and DMG) - Stamina - How long you can endure (+ to skills and carrying capacity) Dexterity - Finesse - How well you move (+ to Init and Saves) - Muscle Memory - (+ to AC and Skills as well as finnessed weapon BAB mods) Constitution - Hearty - How tough you are (+ to HP) - Resiliency - How resistant you are to your surroundings (+ to saves and skills) Intelligence - Learn - How easy it is to learn for you ( + to bonus spells/DCs and laungauges) - Retain - How easy it is for you to learn stuff and remember all of it ( + to skills and damage bonuses if necessary) Wisdom - Insight - How you percieve and understand ( + to bonus spells/DCs and skills) - Experience - How you react to what you have learnd and know ( + to saves and class given bonuses) Charisma - Personality - How you come across to others ( + to skills) - Prescence - How you present yourself to others (+ to class abilities) I sure hope that helps. Be the ball, BR
Shadowdragon 08-14-06, 02:16 AM	Without proper STR, no matter what your DEX is, you cant hold your weapon steady to compleate the attack. Higher STR also helps overcome a parry, by knocking aside the parrying weapon. Higher STR also helps penitrate armor. An axe continually hitting a chestplate does nothing if the axe head can't get through it. (this is why some people like useing DR instead of AC) So weapons should have a minimum Str. Characters using weapons too heavy for their Strength suffer a penalty to their attack roll. Str may play some part in using melee weapons, but not enough to grant such potentially huge bonuses. The only big reason for using Strength is to breach armour, but I've always felt armour works better as DR anyway (armour doesn't make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to hurt), or maybe use the Toughness save method in games like True20 and Mutants & Masterminds. "You can have the hand-eye coordination of a professional computer game player but not be able to hit a target point blank with a ranged weapon because you don't know how to use the bow/crossbow/whatever." Thats why there is a -4 to attack it you don't have proficency with a weapon. Thank you for helping me prove my point. A character's accuracy with weapons should be represented with training (BAB from level and proficiency feats), not ability bonus. A character or creature with a +10 or higher dex bonus shouldn't automatically be a marksman with a bow when he hasn't even seen a bow before.
Shadowdragon 08-14-06, 02:20 AM	Thanks for the suggested breakdown of subabilities Board_Rider. The thing I worry about though is the balance of each pair of subabilities. Strength/Power adds to both BAB and damage (although I'll just have it add to damage) while Strength/Stamina only adds to skills and carrying capacity. How many characters do you think will have a higher Stamina and a lower Power? I don't know, maybe it isn't possible to truly balance subabilities.
Sphyre 08-14-06, 10:20 AM	I can't seem to find a forum for house rules so I decided to post this here. If there's a better forum for this topic please let me know. If you were looking for the houserules forum it is here: Unearthed Arcana and Houserules (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=480) I have this following link bookmarked for easy reference for D&D forums: http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8
babysamurai 08-14-06, 10:25 AM	Just when I had forgotten about the 2nd edition Players Option books. …Or tried too. Now that I’m thinking about them again, I think I’m going to have a nervous breakdown.
Alac Luin 08-14-06, 07:17 PM	Thank you for helping me prove my point. A character's accuracy with weapons should be represented with training (BAB from level and proficiency feats), not ability bonus. A character or creature with a +10 or higher dex bonus shouldn't automatically be a marksman with a bow when he hasn't even seen a bow before. A +10 dex bonus? How many charicters run around with a 30 in Dex? If this happens alot, that game has bigger issues then weapon proficencies.
Witch 08-14-06, 07:23 PM	A +10 dex bonus? How many charicters run around with a 30 in Dex? If this happens alot, that game has bigger issues then weapon proficencies. At about 16h level that's perfectly reasonable. 18 to start. +2 racial. +6 enhancement +4 from levelling There's easier ways to increase this.
Ranger REG 08-14-06, 07:24 PM	Although this was supposed to be about subabilities, I'll explain the combat thing. Raw ability has nothing to do with combat skill. You can be the strongest man in the world but not be able to hit the broadside of a barn with a halberd because you don't have the training in the weapon's use. If an ability adds to attack rolls it should be Dex (Dex represents hand-eye coordination, reflexes, accuracy, etc. These things are used to hit people accuratly, not raw strength). But that brings me to my next point. You can have the hand-eye coordination of a professional computer game player but not be able to hit a target point blank with a ranged weapon because you don't know how to use the bow/crossbow/whatever. Similarly, you could be the worlds best acrobat but because you have no combat training you can't dodge or block an attack to save your life. Thus, it dosen't make any sense to have abilities add to attack bonuses and AC. Raw abilities effect combat skill so little that it shouldn't even matter. Perhaps, but you discriminate physical raw abilities. You might as well apply that restriction to mental raw abilities, including Intelligence which determines how many or how little skill points you can have per level.
Alac Luin 08-14-06, 07:47 PM	At about 16h level that's perfectly reasonable. 18 to start. +2 racial. +6 enhancement +4 from levelling There's easier ways to increase this. But wouldn't a charicter that starts with an 18 dex already be proficent with bows and are suposed to be marksmen? Rangers and Rogues are the two core classes I'd assume would start with an 18 DEX. The -4 non weapon proficeny for long bows the rogue is reasonable. (but this is besides the point) I like the system that we have, though I understand the DR instead of AC arguement. A few other items the OP has raised may have merit, but I'm not a fan of 2ed players options. (It was one reason I left D&D for a few years). I'll remove myself from the conversation as I'm not helping the OP with what he is trying to do. :)
GreyLord 08-14-06, 09:52 PM	I can't understand all this player options hate from people who supposedly LOVE 3e. Where the heck do you think they actually got the ideas driving behind the skills and feats of 3e. Surprise!!!! it already existed with the Player options books, they were just given a tiny bit of polish and added to the 3e rules, without the ability to have them as options anymore. If you hated the 2e options, it would seem rather hard for you to love 3e. Like...maybe, but seeing that the 3e core rules with skills and feats are directly taken from those player's options books... Edit: Personally I used a few items from Combat Options, but didn't really care for the skill and feat rules overall, but with the tiny bit of polish they have use them with the 3e rules (probably because we have no choice, we use the UA option of maximum skill points after choosing skills which makes it all a little less complex, even if less customizable overall).
Alac Luin 08-14-06, 10:13 PM	I can't understand all this player options hate from people who supposedly LOVE 3e. Where the heck do you think they actually got the ideas driving behind the skills and feats of 3e. Surprise!!!! it already existed with the Player options books, they were just given a tiny bit of polish and added to the 3e rules, without the ability to have them as options anymore. If you hated the 2e options, it would seem rather hard for you to love 3e. Like...maybe, but seeing that the 3e core rules with skills and feats are directly taken from those player's options books... The "hate" come from what players options added to the existing rules edition. In my oppinion, much of it convoluted that which was already in place, slowing down the game. This removed the enjoyment factor of the game (for me). It was not neccesarily the options themselves, it was the adding them to existing rules. 3.0 is an entirely new ruleset, it's easy and streamlined. New feats are easy to incorperate, and new skills are far and few beween, showing that care was givin into the thought about the impact it would have on the game.
Ranger REG 08-15-06, 03:48 AM	I can't understand all this player options hate from people who supposedly LOVE 3e. That's because 3e didn't have the stuff from Player's Option that I do hate. For example, the Skill & Powers book allow you to customize a wizard class by offering weapon specialization. 3e counter that by offering a more flexible multiclassing system, though some people think it shafts spellcaster class.
GreyLord 08-15-06, 11:56 PM	Ah, but Wizards CAN do weapon specialization now...in the form of Weapon Focus and other feats...if they so want to waste their feats on it. The options books WERE integrated into 3.5...so all the complaints against them by people who supposedly love 3.5 seem rather stupid to me. The options were streamlined, but now they are part of the CORE RULES and ARE NOT OPTIONS anymore. It would seem to me if people so hated the options books, that they would be appalled by those "OPTIONS" becoming part of the core rules. Edit: Part of what drove the multiclass idea came from that streamlining, and the cross skills and skills idea...as well as feats...pure options 2.5 edition. Heck, Whirlwind and other feats are very very similar...though I still think they had computer game influence on them... There WERE other things that were created from the ground up for 3e, but when people complain about the skills and feat system (and in fact skills is one of the gripes I DO have against the d20 systems), they should realize it wasn't new, and in fact these were already being used due to the Player's Options books (which for the most part I despised and didn't use myself), the difference is now the Options have become the core rules...dropping the optional portion. Hence, if you like 3e, you should love the Player's Options 2e type games. Talk about customization and options... That's why it's rather bizarre. Did these people actually even use those Options and then try 3e...or are they blowing smoke? It's obvious the origins and in fact the direct relation between the Player's Options and the skills and feats of 3e (some of which were cleaned up via 3.5 in my opinon of course).
Ranger REG 08-16-06, 03:48 AM	Ah, but Wizards CAN do weapon specialization now...in the form of Weapon Focus and other feats... Dude, I never did say I hate the entire Player's Option series. I just hate the Skill & Powers volume. I like the Combat & Tactics book that have both weapon specialization as well as weapon expertise (now called in 3e as weapon focus). As I said, the stuff that I hate have not carried over to 3e. I would have a fit if Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, and/or Monte Cook offered Weapon Specialization as a class FEATURE for the wizard class. Either the Wizard PC live without Weapon Specialization, or take four fighter class levels to qualify it.
boozerker 08-16-06, 03:55 AM	Perhaps, but you discriminate physical raw abilities. You might as well apply that restriction to mental raw abilities, including Intelligence which determines how many or how little skill points you can have per level. I agree. Shadowdragon, Sometimes we mistake the difficulty of a task based on our personal experiences. For example, the first time we fiddled around with a bow, it might've been a clumsy and lengthy hassle to learn the basics. But at the same time, you might see another beginner go through the motions a lot smoother, perhaps due to natural instincts for aiming and better coordination -- signs of dexterity. Perhaps as DM you might want to rule that it takes a few rounds to "get adjusted" to a weapon, so the PC takes an extra penalty (besides the -4) or a full ound action to use a bow the first time ever (especially if rarely seen one in use before). However, that should be house rules, DM tweaking and such.
Tenzhi 08-16-06, 04:19 AM	Thank you for helping me prove my point. A character's accuracy with weapons should be represented with training (BAB from level and proficiency feats), not ability bonus. A character or creature with a +10 or higher dex bonus shouldn't automatically be a marksman with a bow when he hasn't even seen a bow before. I agree. There should be limits to what natural ability can get you. I generally implement a house rule wherein ability bonuses/penalties cannot modify any d20 check or difficulty by more than 5.
Ranger REG 08-16-06, 10:31 PM	I agree. There should be limits to what natural ability can get you. I generally implement a house rule wherein ability bonuses/penalties cannot modify any d20 check or difficulty by more than 5. Dude, by saying that, we might as well NOT support ability score rating higher than 21. Any race, like the elf, is going to have to increase their other ability score because their Dex score have capped. And if that's the case, why even introduce the "increase any one ability score by 1 point" benefit every 4 character levels? Do honestly want to penalize/discriminate creatures whose score is above 21?
Tenzhi 08-16-06, 11:47 PM	Dude, by saying that, we might as well NOT support ability score rating higher than 21. Because no one wants more than +5 damage, +5 HP per level, more skill points, and more spells to cast? Not to mention the less common benefits of qualifying for some feats and coming out on top in direct ability vs. ability contests. Or taking ability damage and still having your +5. More comes from the ability modifier than just d20 checks and DCs. The one ability that seems to suffer from this is Dexterity. As far as I can see it only modifies d20 checks and DCs (AC is a DC, after all). Do honestly want to penalize/discriminate creatures whose score is above 21? I'd be more inclined to do so than to penalize the character who invested a great deal more time in acquiring his non-ability bonuses. As I said - natural ability should only get you so far. It would be even better to set up a scale of diminishing returns (after +5 you receive a bonus of +1 per +2, after that +5 you receive a bonus of +1 per +3, etc.), but that makes for a more complex system than I want to deal with. I'm also inclined to lump all magic/supernatural bonuses together and treat them the same way. An easy way to simplify and limit the stacking while further increasing the importance of class and feat bonuses.
Ranger REG 08-17-06, 02:36 AM	Because no one wants more than +5 damage, +5 HP per level, more skill points, and more spells to cast? Not to mention the less common benefits of qualifying for some feats and coming out on top in direct ability vs. ability contests. Or taking ability damage and still having your +5. No one? I kill to have +6 damage.
Tenzhi 08-17-06, 02:45 AM	No one? I kill to have +6 damage. I think you missed my point. Put the "No one wants" question in context with the statement that followed: "More comes from the ability modifier than just d20 checks and DCs." Now put that in context with the conversation wherein I was suggesting the following: "I generally implement a house rule wherein ability bonuses/penalties cannot modify any d20 check or difficulty by more than 5." Damage, HP, bonus spells, etc. are neither d20 checks nor DCs.
Shadowdragon 08-17-06, 05:16 AM	Wow, talk about thread drift. So is there a way to split each ability into two subabilities and have them all relatively balanced? Is there a better way to handle subabilities, or something like subabilities? Or should we just go back to discussing whether abilities should modify combat bonuses?
Tenzhi 08-17-06, 06:48 AM	The sub-abilities from Player's Option (much like most of Skills & Powers) were a min/maxing powergamer's wet dream. The best way to handle them involves book-burning. ;) But to answer your specific issue, the best way to handle the to-hit/damage is simply to make sure they are divided between two sub-abilities.
Ranger REG 08-17-06, 07:58 PM	"I generally implement a house rule wherein ability bonuses/penalties cannot modify any d20 check or difficulty by more than 5." What about Armor Check Penalty? An elf with a Dex 22 is not going to cancel out the chainmail's ACP (-6) if you capped ability bonuses to +5, and therefore will have a -1 ACP to his skill checks.
Tenzhi 08-17-06, 11:53 PM	What about Armor Check Penalty? An elf with a Dex 22 is not going to cancel out the chainmail's ACP (-6) if you capped ability bonuses to +5, and therefore will have a -1 ACP to his skill checks. If I had my druthers, he might only be able to use +2 of his Dex bonus anyway in that situation. So you can see how that doesn't bother me in the least.
Ranger REG 08-18-06, 02:31 AM	If I had my druthers, he might only be able to use +2 of his Dex bonus anyway in that situation. So you can see how that doesn't bother me in the least. :uh-huh: And how did you arrive to that "+2 bonus"?
Tenzhi 08-18-06, 02:38 AM	:uh-huh: And how did you arrive to that "+2 bonus"? Um, the Max Dex bonus associated with Chainmail. I thought it was obvious, in context. ;)
Ranger REG 08-18-06, 02:45 AM	Please tell me you do not apply Max Dex Bonus when it comes to selected Dex-based skill checks ... unless you got rid of ACP and use Max Dex Bonus almost all instances in your game, as a houserule. :uh-huh:
Tenzhi 08-18-06, 02:53 AM	Please tell me you do not apply Max Dex Bonus when it comes to selected Dex-based skill checks ... And ranged attack rolls (save with mechanical weapons like Crossbows). Feel free to hate me for it. ;)
Jerks 08-18-06, 04:17 AM	I kinda liked the Skills and Powers book. Really, that series of books was just a big ole book of options...no different than the Unearthed Arcana stuff. It was the first bold leap towards D&D 3E's system of customizable characters. The problem I think with that series of books is one you'll find in any system with a customizable class system. Balance. It takes a strong DM to tell a player "No" sometimes. But back to the original poster, I would caution against implementing the split ability modifier. For one, the difference in ability scores in 2E wasn't as great (bonuses were usually smaller). Two, the skills system of 3E greatly mitigates the need for the split mechanic. If I recall correctly, Dexterity was split between Balance and Agility. This could be represented in 3E by taking ranks in Balance and Tumble versus taking ranks in Sleight of Hand and Disable Device. The two strengths could be differentiated by ranks in Jump (explosive power) versus ranks in Swim (sustained force) with Climb falling somewhere in the middle. And so on and so on.
Ranger REG 08-18-06, 07:35 PM	Feel free to hate me for it. ;) With every fiber of my being. :devil: