Agility vs. Wits [Archive] - Wizards Community

Agility vs. Wits [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Starboy36
07-07-04, 04:04 PM This is kind of an offshoot if the "Classless Leveless D&D system" thread.

Basically I am working a lot of D&D elements into a new system and am a little stuck on an issue with Wits and Agility. I'm trying to use both of these attributes for my system, but in many cases there is a lot of overlap and I'm wondering if I should compile two. On the other hand, there are plenty of cases where one if very different from the other and therefore it warrants two seperate attributes.

This is a particular issue with the system I am working on because I've completely eliminated the AC system and replaced it with an evasion skill and armor soak. Actually I replaced most of the combat mechanics, but I won't get into that now.

A witty (but not agile) person is a quick thinker and can respond to perceptive (sensory input) and cognitive stimulus much quicker than a dimwitted person. An agile person has good balance, hand-eye coordination and physical nimbleness than a clumsy person. Based on this one concept (of deftness), you can have two very different characters.

Where I am concerned with the overlap is in terms of combat. Realistically, an agile dimwit and a witty clutz should be just as ineffective in combat. The dimwit wont have a decent ability to mentally multi-task well enough to effective engage in too many actions. Likewise, the clutz can't move all that fast without falling all over themselves.

My current (temporary) solution is as follows. I've created a new (derived) attribute called Reflex. This is basically either a person's Wits or Agility (whichever is lower). It measures the ability for the body to move in synch with the mind. Therefore, any combat action that requires any kind of deftness is going to be influenced by this Reflex variable, rather than either Agility or Wits.

I was also thinking about some kind of measure where Agility is used for deliberate actions while Wits is used for reflexive actions, though that idea is kind of half-baked at this point.

My problem is that I am not completely sure that this is the best solution. Agility and Wits are really hokey variables to be working with due to the lack of mutual exclusivity.

Anyways, I'm looking for opinions on this matter. I could use a fresh perspective. Thanks.
MinusInnocence
07-07-04, 04:12 PM You have three options, as far as I can see it. Take note that I really don't understand the full scope of what you're trying to accomplish but I'll give it a shot nonetheless.

1) Ignore the need for the new Reflex stat and just make the statement that the character is only as effective as his worst stat. You don't need to call it anything special - just say that it doesn't matter if his Agility is 400, a Wits of 3 will mean he very nimbly stands dumbfounded for the rest of the round.

2) Wits should actually be deliberate while Agility is reflexive. Agility, to me, determines one's capacity to react to any given situation - simply walking down the street requires no agility but dodging a spray of bullets from a drive-by does. Wits, on the other hand, allows one to concoct stratagems at a moment's notice (even if these new strategems were forced by a change in environment, which may again be the purview of Agility).

3) Combine the two and just make the statement that it's up to players to describe why their score is so high (or so low). Kind of like Charisma... it includes physical sex appeal as well as magnetism, but a particularly high or low stat has to be explained in some fashion. It's not up to the DM because the actual reason is probably irrelevant; but it may help the player to better conceptualize his character.

When designing your own rules set, it's probably better not to bog yourself down with unnecessary mechanics. My vote goes with #3.
Starboy36
07-07-04, 04:35 PM I was thinking about the whole deliberate vs. reflexive thing, but agility can be deliberate as well (i.e. making an intentional combo of three attacks). And wits can be reflexive, (in terms of surprise).

I really want the two seperate stats (as they have a lot of out of combat uses), but the combat usage complicates things.

Right now, I am leaning towards #1...
mythandra
07-07-04, 05:02 PM Originally posted by Starboy36
Where I am concerned with the overlap is in terms of combat. Realistically, an agile dimwit and a witty clutz should be just as ineffective in combat. The dimwit wont have a decent ability to mentally multi-task well enough to effective engage in too many actions. Likewise, the clutz can't move all that fast without falling all over themselves.

There are two parts to combat. Attack and defense.

an agile dimwit could probably be tied up with fienting attacks forever, but if they ever got a chance to strike, they would do so with deadly precision. They would act last but strike what they aimed for every time.

A witty clutz would both act and react with lightning speed, but they would not be as precise as the agile dimwit. They would act first, but not be able to hit the broad side of a barn.

what good is acting first if you can't actually hit anything? It would appear that agile dimwit != witty clutz
Starboy36
07-07-04, 06:51 PM The major problem I have with this is that agility is actually pretty useless in combat without the brains to back it up. In terms of reaction and cognition, agility only covers reflex at best. But if someone is a dimwit, a reflexive action is not likely to be constructive.

For example, an extremely agile dimwit can catch a throwing knife in mid-air, and maybe even throw it right back....if s/he knows it's coming. But in the fray of combat, their reflexive action is likely to be covering their face with their hand or trying to swat it away, either way the dimwit is probably getting hit.

On the other hand, the witty clutz is going to see the knife coming before it's even thrown, but dodging it is not likely to happen. S/he is getting hit as well, but at least the clutz can say they saw it coming.

In terms of the agile dimwit being able to strike with accuracy, this is true, but chances are they are only going to be able to make one quick deliberate strike. Then again, this may not even be the case. Would you think that a weakling with an insane amount of agility would be vicious with a greatsword?

In terms of result, the agile dimwit and the witty clutz are pretty much the same. The only difference is that one can't think fast enough while the other can't act fast enough.

It's wreaking a bit of havoc with building a realstic, yet balanced, combat system as most of the other mechanics involve one skill and one attribute. Here there are two attributes and one skill, both of which need the other to function in combat. At the same time, they can't be lumped together because of all the out-of-combat uses...

I'm wondering if I would be better off just nixing Wits. Make the mental fall under Wisdom and the physical fall under Agility. But that adds a new problem. Wisdom covers understanding, but not necessarily quickness of understanding.

Oi...reality is just too damn holistic for my liking. I can think of a situation where I can lump any two attributes together and success will depend on the weakest attribute. :confused:
Sphyre
07-08-04, 04:29 AM On Agility vs wits:
This may seem like i'm reiterating a lot of what you said but bear with me...

Agility is your ability to move your body in a timely manner. Someone who is agile can move where he wants to to allow for precise movements to add to his attack and defense.

Wits is your ability to adapt, perceive and devise strategems to outwit your opponent. If your opponent is able to block your blows. One person said feinting, yes that is definatly an advantage.

High Agility + Low wits = The ability to place your blows where you want. The drawback is that you become predictable and can't do much different against new opponents. You'd probably be unable to improvise a new style of fighting or fight effectively against another style, esspecially if they can predict your movements before you do them. The advantage comes in familiarity. You're simply better physically at fighting than the other.

High Wits + Low agility = The ability to forsee your opponents moves before they do them. The ability to feint and trick your opponent or devise a plan to get their weapon away where you can get a blow in. If you see blows coming in faster than he can deal them, you are at the advantage, but if you lack the physical ability, you'll simply see yourself get hit before you get hit. At the beginning you'd be at a disadvantage because you don't know what to expect but once you can read an opponent you'll be able to block an attack before your opponent even knows it's coming.

How the two can match up in a system: A character more witty than a character is dexterous or witty will win out, while a character more dexterous than a character is witty or dexterous would win out. Perhaps an averaging of them say (Dex + wis)/2 = combat evasion stat. Of course if you don't have a use for both individually anymore, then you can just use your new stat, but it might take away from some roleplay things.
Starboy36
07-08-04, 08:38 AM I think I found a solution:

Wits measure how fast you think, while Agility measures how fast you act.

Wits can be used to determine how many times one can act in combat. A dimwit may be able to act fast, but they can't mentally multi-task enough to make too many actions.

Agility can be used to determine how fast one makes the action. A witty person may be able to do 7 different things in 6 seconds, but if they are a clutz, they are going to have trouble pulling it off.

I figure this is pretty balanced and generates mutual exclusivity between the attributes. How does this sound?

edit: Sphyre, I just noticed your sig...idiot3? That's hilarious. :D
Sphyre
07-08-04, 06:05 PM Thx, that's the first comment I got on it. :D

My friend was new to RPGs in general when he said it, and I found it hilarious when he told me he actually said that. Unfortunatly I wasn't there when it happened, but it was definately sig worthy :P

In fact, I would have thought it was funnier if it were 1d10+5 :D

And, I agree, as a mechanism for gameplay. Starboy you have a good idea. In fact, wits can almost act like the feat combat reflexes... giving you extra attacks or something. Since I don't know what your system is I'm afraid I can't help anymore at this point.
Starboy36
07-08-04, 06:57 PM Since I don't know what your system is I'm afraid I can't help anymore at this point.

Since I don't really even know what my system is, no worries... :D

Seriously though, it's turning out to be rather attribute driven. People with different attributes can basically do the same things, but in different ways. The combat system is turning out to be totally insane (in a good way). Once I straighten out this whole attribute business, a lot of other elements will just fall together.
Sphyre
07-09-04, 12:26 AM I find the biggest issue with changing the combat system is the fact that by changing it you make some feats overpowered while others are useless, aloing with things like interitive attacks and spells being balanced in casting time.

Does your system address Feats, BAB and iteritive attacks and spell casting time equally? Or do you have a different balancing factor? If it keeps everything in balance well, like spring attack and dodge and such still have their usefulness, I'd be interested in hearing what kind of adaptations you've given it. As much as I'd love to change the battle system it can't be done without changing the entire system.
Starboy36
07-09-04, 08:38 AM Does your system address Feats, BAB and iteritive attacks and spell casting time equally? Or do you have a different balancing factor?

I have a different balancing system. I cannot really explain it at this point (as some variables are still undefined), but it is actually going to be completely balanced. As odd as this sounds, the concept for the system is a blend of the philosophies of Jeet Kun Do, Wing Chun, Aikido, Bagua, and Kendo. At the same time, it has absolutely nothing to do with actual (formal) martial arts.

As much as I'd love to change the battle system it can't be done without changing the entire system.

Oh, I am changing the entire system. I've got all summer to kill. Why not, eh? Actually, the system I'm building is nothing like d20 at this point. I just post questions here because d20 game masters tend to be more familiar with the quantitative aspects of gaming.
ArchmageOmega
07-09-04, 09:58 AM One thing I notice is that you're (likely) getting too caught-up in the names of these variables. You should probably define what you want them to do, then name them. This way you can make sure they are mutually exclusive. (In this case, I'm not actually sure that this would help.)

Another thought that might help is, with enough training (which I assume any PC would have) you don't really think about what you are doing in a fight; your body just reacts. This would shift most of the combat focus onto agility except in cases where the circumstances change dramatically (new opponents entering the fight, you try something fancy, your opponent tries something fancy, etc.). In this way, wits has very little to do with reflexes, which is somewhat realistic (think about when the doctor hits your knee).
Starboy36
07-09-04, 10:17 AM One thing I notice is that you're (likely) getting too caught-up in the names of these variables.

I haven't really even settled on naming conventions yet. All I am doing here is trying to seperate and operationalize. Once I do that, everything else will fall into place.

Another thought that might help is, with enough training (which I assume any PC would have) you don't really think about what you are doing in a fight; your body just reacts.

This holism is exactly what I'm wrestling with. When it comes to combat, all variables are interconnected. Strength, Agility, Stamina, Perception, Intelligence, etc. all can influence the outcome of a skirmish, and they can influence each other. For example, the speed of body with the speed of thought. Or the speed of body with force (strength)...and so on...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Starboy36 07-07-04, 04:04 PM	This is kind of an offshoot if the "Classless Leveless D&D system" thread. Basically I am working a lot of D&D elements into a new system and am a little stuck on an issue with Wits and Agility. I'm trying to use both of these attributes for my system, but in many cases there is a lot of overlap and I'm wondering if I should compile two. On the other hand, there are plenty of cases where one if very different from the other and therefore it warrants two seperate attributes. This is a particular issue with the system I am working on because I've completely eliminated the AC system and replaced it with an evasion skill and armor soak. Actually I replaced most of the combat mechanics, but I won't get into that now. A witty (but not agile) person is a quick thinker and can respond to perceptive (sensory input) and cognitive stimulus much quicker than a dimwitted person. An agile person has good balance, hand-eye coordination and physical nimbleness than a clumsy person. Based on this one concept (of deftness), you can have two very different characters. Where I am concerned with the overlap is in terms of combat. Realistically, an agile dimwit and a witty clutz should be just as ineffective in combat. The dimwit wont have a decent ability to mentally multi-task well enough to effective engage in too many actions. Likewise, the clutz can't move all that fast without falling all over themselves. My current (temporary) solution is as follows. I've created a new (derived) attribute called Reflex. This is basically either a person's Wits or Agility (whichever is lower). It measures the ability for the body to move in synch with the mind. Therefore, any combat action that requires any kind of deftness is going to be influenced by this Reflex variable, rather than either Agility or Wits. I was also thinking about some kind of measure where Agility is used for deliberate actions while Wits is used for reflexive actions, though that idea is kind of half-baked at this point. My problem is that I am not completely sure that this is the best solution. Agility and Wits are really hokey variables to be working with due to the lack of mutual exclusivity. Anyways, I'm looking for opinions on this matter. I could use a fresh perspective. Thanks.
MinusInnocence 07-07-04, 04:12 PM	You have three options, as far as I can see it. Take note that I really don't understand the full scope of what you're trying to accomplish but I'll give it a shot nonetheless. 1) Ignore the need for the new Reflex stat and just make the statement that the character is only as effective as his worst stat. You don't need to call it anything special - just say that it doesn't matter if his Agility is 400, a Wits of 3 will mean he very nimbly stands dumbfounded for the rest of the round. 2) Wits should actually be deliberate while Agility is reflexive. Agility, to me, determines one's capacity to react to any given situation - simply walking down the street requires no agility but dodging a spray of bullets from a drive-by does. Wits, on the other hand, allows one to concoct stratagems at a moment's notice (even if these new strategems were forced by a change in environment, which may again be the purview of Agility). 3) Combine the two and just make the statement that it's up to players to describe why their score is so high (or so low). Kind of like Charisma... it includes physical sex appeal as well as magnetism, but a particularly high or low stat has to be explained in some fashion. It's not up to the DM because the actual reason is probably irrelevant; but it may help the player to better conceptualize his character. When designing your own rules set, it's probably better not to bog yourself down with unnecessary mechanics. My vote goes with #3.
Starboy36 07-07-04, 04:35 PM	I was thinking about the whole deliberate vs. reflexive thing, but agility can be deliberate as well (i.e. making an intentional combo of three attacks). And wits can be reflexive, (in terms of surprise). I really want the two seperate stats (as they have a lot of out of combat uses), but the combat usage complicates things. Right now, I am leaning towards #1...
mythandra 07-07-04, 05:02 PM	Originally posted by Starboy36 Where I am concerned with the overlap is in terms of combat. Realistically, an agile dimwit and a witty clutz should be just as ineffective in combat. The dimwit wont have a decent ability to mentally multi-task well enough to effective engage in too many actions. Likewise, the clutz can't move all that fast without falling all over themselves. There are two parts to combat. Attack and defense. an agile dimwit could probably be tied up with fienting attacks forever, but if they ever got a chance to strike, they would do so with deadly precision. They would act last but strike what they aimed for every time. A witty clutz would both act and react with lightning speed, but they would not be as precise as the agile dimwit. They would act first, but not be able to hit the broad side of a barn. what good is acting first if you can't actually hit anything? It would appear that agile dimwit != witty clutz
Starboy36 07-07-04, 06:51 PM	The major problem I have with this is that agility is actually pretty useless in combat without the brains to back it up. In terms of reaction and cognition, agility only covers reflex at best. But if someone is a dimwit, a reflexive action is not likely to be constructive. For example, an extremely agile dimwit can catch a throwing knife in mid-air, and maybe even throw it right back....if s/he knows it's coming. But in the fray of combat, their reflexive action is likely to be covering their face with their hand or trying to swat it away, either way the dimwit is probably getting hit. On the other hand, the witty clutz is going to see the knife coming before it's even thrown, but dodging it is not likely to happen. S/he is getting hit as well, but at least the clutz can say they saw it coming. In terms of the agile dimwit being able to strike with accuracy, this is true, but chances are they are only going to be able to make one quick deliberate strike. Then again, this may not even be the case. Would you think that a weakling with an insane amount of agility would be vicious with a greatsword? In terms of result, the agile dimwit and the witty clutz are pretty much the same. The only difference is that one can't think fast enough while the other can't act fast enough. It's wreaking a bit of havoc with building a realstic, yet balanced, combat system as most of the other mechanics involve one skill and one attribute. Here there are two attributes and one skill, both of which need the other to function in combat. At the same time, they can't be lumped together because of all the out-of-combat uses... I'm wondering if I would be better off just nixing Wits. Make the mental fall under Wisdom and the physical fall under Agility. But that adds a new problem. Wisdom covers understanding, but not necessarily quickness of understanding. Oi...reality is just too damn holistic for my liking. I can think of a situation where I can lump any two attributes together and success will depend on the weakest attribute. :confused:
Sphyre 07-08-04, 04:29 AM	On Agility vs wits: This may seem like i'm reiterating a lot of what you said but bear with me... Agility is your ability to move your body in a timely manner. Someone who is agile can move where he wants to to allow for precise movements to add to his attack and defense. Wits is your ability to adapt, perceive and devise strategems to outwit your opponent. If your opponent is able to block your blows. One person said feinting, yes that is definatly an advantage. High Agility + Low wits = The ability to place your blows where you want. The drawback is that you become predictable and can't do much different against new opponents. You'd probably be unable to improvise a new style of fighting or fight effectively against another style, esspecially if they can predict your movements before you do them. The advantage comes in familiarity. You're simply better physically at fighting than the other. High Wits + Low agility = The ability to forsee your opponents moves before they do them. The ability to feint and trick your opponent or devise a plan to get their weapon away where you can get a blow in. If you see blows coming in faster than he can deal them, you are at the advantage, but if you lack the physical ability, you'll simply see yourself get hit before you get hit. At the beginning you'd be at a disadvantage because you don't know what to expect but once you can read an opponent you'll be able to block an attack before your opponent even knows it's coming. How the two can match up in a system: A character more witty than a character is dexterous or witty will win out, while a character more dexterous than a character is witty or dexterous would win out. Perhaps an averaging of them say (Dex + wis)/2 = combat evasion stat. Of course if you don't have a use for both individually anymore, then you can just use your new stat, but it might take away from some roleplay things.
Starboy36 07-08-04, 08:38 AM	I think I found a solution: Wits measure how fast you think, while Agility measures how fast you act. Wits can be used to determine how many times one can act in combat. A dimwit may be able to act fast, but they can't mentally multi-task enough to make too many actions. Agility can be used to determine how fast one makes the action. A witty person may be able to do 7 different things in 6 seconds, but if they are a clutz, they are going to have trouble pulling it off. I figure this is pretty balanced and generates mutual exclusivity between the attributes. How does this sound? edit: Sphyre, I just noticed your sig...idiot3? That's hilarious. :D
Sphyre 07-08-04, 06:05 PM	Thx, that's the first comment I got on it. :D My friend was new to RPGs in general when he said it, and I found it hilarious when he told me he actually said that. Unfortunatly I wasn't there when it happened, but it was definately sig worthy :P In fact, I would have thought it was funnier if it were 1d10+5 :D And, I agree, as a mechanism for gameplay. Starboy you have a good idea. In fact, wits can almost act like the feat combat reflexes... giving you extra attacks or something. Since I don't know what your system is I'm afraid I can't help anymore at this point.
Starboy36 07-08-04, 06:57 PM	Since I don't know what your system is I'm afraid I can't help anymore at this point. Since I don't really even know what my system is, no worries... :D Seriously though, it's turning out to be rather attribute driven. People with different attributes can basically do the same things, but in different ways. The combat system is turning out to be totally insane (in a good way). Once I straighten out this whole attribute business, a lot of other elements will just fall together.
Sphyre 07-09-04, 12:26 AM	I find the biggest issue with changing the combat system is the fact that by changing it you make some feats overpowered while others are useless, aloing with things like interitive attacks and spells being balanced in casting time. Does your system address Feats, BAB and iteritive attacks and spell casting time equally? Or do you have a different balancing factor? If it keeps everything in balance well, like spring attack and dodge and such still have their usefulness, I'd be interested in hearing what kind of adaptations you've given it. As much as I'd love to change the battle system it can't be done without changing the entire system.
Starboy36 07-09-04, 08:38 AM	Does your system address Feats, BAB and iteritive attacks and spell casting time equally? Or do you have a different balancing factor? I have a different balancing system. I cannot really explain it at this point (as some variables are still undefined), but it is actually going to be completely balanced. As odd as this sounds, the concept for the system is a blend of the philosophies of Jeet Kun Do, Wing Chun, Aikido, Bagua, and Kendo. At the same time, it has absolutely nothing to do with actual (formal) martial arts. As much as I'd love to change the battle system it can't be done without changing the entire system. Oh, I am changing the entire system. I've got all summer to kill. Why not, eh? Actually, the system I'm building is nothing like d20 at this point. I just post questions here because d20 game masters tend to be more familiar with the quantitative aspects of gaming.
ArchmageOmega 07-09-04, 09:58 AM	One thing I notice is that you're (likely) getting too caught-up in the names of these variables. You should probably define what you want them to do, then name them. This way you can make sure they are mutually exclusive. (In this case, I'm not actually sure that this would help.) Another thought that might help is, with enough training (which I assume any PC would have) you don't really think about what you are doing in a fight; your body just reacts. This would shift most of the combat focus onto agility except in cases where the circumstances change dramatically (new opponents entering the fight, you try something fancy, your opponent tries something fancy, etc.). In this way, wits has very little to do with reflexes, which is somewhat realistic (think about when the doctor hits your knee).
Starboy36 07-09-04, 10:17 AM	One thing I notice is that you're (likely) getting too caught-up in the names of these variables. I haven't really even settled on naming conventions yet. All I am doing here is trying to seperate and operationalize. Once I do that, everything else will fall into place. Another thought that might help is, with enough training (which I assume any PC would have) you don't really think about what you are doing in a fight; your body just reacts. This holism is exactly what I'm wrestling with. When it comes to combat, all variables are interconnected. Strength, Agility, Stamina, Perception, Intelligence, etc. all can influence the outcome of a skirmish, and they can influence each other. For example, the speed of body with the speed of thought. Or the speed of body with force (strength)...and so on...