Conceptualizing Attributes - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Einlanzer Dec 31, 2014 15:10:28	This is my third post recently on this topic, but as opposed to the first two I wanted to start this one as a high level, generalized discussion rather than as a presentation of proposed changes leading to an argument about gameplay ramifications. So, I'll begin with a question - if you were designing a paradigm to work with for attributes for a new edition of D&D - how would you do it? My first major issue with D&D's system is the consolidation of agility (balance, reflexes), with dexterity (fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination). I just think these two things don't really fit together as neatly as D&D tries to make them. As an example, felids are significantly more agile than we are but are lacking in anything that would be considered dexterity. Combining them would make sense in a very basic system (like a trinity of body, mind, and spirit). But, the system already separates strength and constitution (both aspects of fitness) and intelligence and wisdom (both aspects of intelligence). These attribute are more closely related to one another than agility and dexterity are, so the consolidation has always felt arbitrary and inappropriate. My second major issue is the muddiness between Intelligence, Wisdom, and to a lesser extent Charisma. Not only are the definitions of these terms within the core rules a little.....unsound, but the applications often don't correspond with the definitions. Wisdom is an aspect of intelligence, not a separate attribute (unlike agility and dexterity). Intellect would be a more appropriate term than Intelligence. Intellect specifically describes a person's aptitude for reasoning and the acquisition of knowledge. Wisdom describes level-headedness and metacognition (or, the ability to assess and practically apply that reasoning and knowledge). This actually runs the opposite of the common perception about the relationship betweeen these two attributes. Among other quandaries, this means that the skill Investigation really makes no sense falling under Intellligence and really should just be considered the "active" version of Perception, keyed off of Wisdom. This also means that several things that currently fall under Wisdom arguably shouldn't, like willpower and piety. My third major issue is the lack of an attribute spefically related to spellcasting. Thematically, I don't like how your ability to channel mystical energy is somehow 100% correlated with either your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. Sure, they should play a role I suppose, but to me this aptitude should primarily be governed by its own attribute. It would also hypothetically be a great way to balance spellcasters with nonspellcasters. My last major issue is the overt inequality between the attributes. Int is laughably a dump stat for everyone but wizards, largely because of the role it is pigeonholed into playing for wizards' spellcasting prowess. Why? Where is the Int-based mechanic giving tactical bonuses in combat? This is in part what precipitates my desire to overhaul the attribute system as it is. Charisma can be useful, but is far too dependent on the DM actively making it useful. There should be a concerted effort on WotC's part to ensure that all attributes are attractive in some way to all characters regardless of the style of game being played. That's what makes character building compelling and interesting and leads to greater diversity. So, I guess my system would use 8 attributes instead of 6 with some rearrangement of existing skills/mechanics and a few new ones - Strength, Constitution, Agility, Dexterity, Intellect, Wisdom, Magic/Heraldry, and Charisma What are your thoughts?
#2 CulveDaddy Dec 31, 2014 15:24:40	Einlanzer wrote:
#3 rampant Dec 31, 2014 16:53:50	I don't think charisma as it's implemented in the traditional d20 systems really rates an ability score I mean it's supposed to be people skills and force of personality, Well people skills are SKILLS and frank force of personality seems kind of one dimensional. Frankly the mental stats are kind fo a mess. I'd break it up into awareness, will power, and intellect. Although I'd also ditch the intrinsic link between attributes and skills and run it where the skill and attribute used in a check are variable. So intelligence could be used to intimidate if you start going into detail about all the ways you can breaka body, while willpower intimidate would be the wordless staredown, while awareness intimidate would be the whole sherlock holmes routine, or maybe the "i know you better than you know yourself" or stuff along those lines. A lot of the other stuff that wisdom and charisma try to cover just aren't really going to be stuff you can put numbers because they're too situational and malleable. I agree that dexterity is a bit overbroad in dnd however using the definition you did it seems like very few creatures would rate solid dexterity. I advise breaking it into agility and reflexes, witht hte devision being more about your conscious control vs. your ingrained or reactive movements. FOr example a gymnastics performance would be agility while catching hold of the rings after slipping would be reflexes. This also helps because you can separate the offensive aspects and defensive aspects with the defensive stuff being reflex's domain, and offense going to agility or some other stat, awareness for crossbows maybe? The other big problem is that certain stats have uses in building up the character's skeleton, notably constitution. While the others only apply during checks. Some sort of sub-stat system where all the stats contribute to things like HP, maybe speed, possibly some sort of action points, just something to make all the stats at least useful if not important to every class beyond checks. Balancing spell casters with non casters isn't going to happen because casters have a different number of stats required, that's just going to make them more common for players who roll high or are playign a high powered game. Thus excaerbating the problem. Just like in older DnD editions where you got access to better classes by having higher stats, thus making the power difference between characters wth low and high stats even bigger than the stats alone would indicate. Th emagic system and the non-magic systems have to be balanced in order for the casters and non casters to be balanced. Frankly as long as the non casters and casters are trying to play separate games it's just always gonna be an issue. I find the problem is a lot more manageble if I making attacking a skill and magical attacks use the same skills as the mundane version. So grabbing a person is the unarmed/grappling skill, and shocking grasp is a spell that lets you make an unarmed/grapple attack to deal electric damage instead of just grabbing someone. Fireball conjures a compressed sphere of fiery power that you throw much like a person tossing alchemists's fire would throw their flask, only yours is bigger, and doesn't cost gold. This makes magic work as an expansion of capabilities rather than a replacement for capabilities. This way mages actually suffer for having less invested in other areas because they can't just pick up spells at random, but actually have to have skills to back their magic up. Summoning an outsider doesn't do you much good if you don't have the skills to keep it on your side, a lightning bolt spell is nice and all, but being able to aim it is important. TUrning into a dragon is awesome but if you don't have the skills to use those claws you'r enot gonna get as much out of it. Furthermroe the checks are made with the stat apporpriate to the spell you're using instead of the class that granted the spell. The other side is of course forcing the casters to pay opportunity costs to learn new spells, because seriously divine casters are broke as heck and wizards aren't much better.
#4 CulveDaddy Dec 31, 2014 19:24:24	My second major issue is the muddiness between Intelligence, Wisdom, and to a lesser extent Charisma. Not only are the definitions of these terms within the core rules a little.....unsound, but the applications often don't correspond with the definitions. Wisdom is an aspect of intelligence, not a separate attribute (unlike agility and dexterity). Intellect would be a more appropriate term than Intelligence. Intellect specifically describes a person's aptitude for reasoning and the acquisition of knowledge. Wisdom describes level-headedness and metacognition (or, the ability to assess and practically apply that reasoning and knowledge). This actually runs the opposite of the common perception about the relationship betweeen these two attributes. Among other quandaries, this means that the skill Investigation really makes no sense falling under Intellligence and really should just be considered the "active" version of Perception, keyed off of Wisdom. This also means that several things that currently fall under Wisdom arguably shouldn't, like willpower and piety.
#5 pukunui Dec 31, 2014 19:44:22	From the PHB, pp. 175-178: Strength measures "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force" Dexterity measures "agility, reflexes, and balance" Constitution measures "health, stamina, and vital force" Intelligence measures "mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason" Wisdom measures "how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition" Charisma measures "your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality" The only one that bothers me - and has always bothered me - is Wisdom. In the real world, a wise person is generally someone who shows good judgment rather than someone who has good sensory awareness or whatever. I suppose that's why Wisdom has generally been keyed to tests of willpower, though. I think the devs would've been better off making Perception an ability score, rather than a skill with both a passive and an active mode. But I suppose that wouldn't have felt enough like D&D for most people. By way of comparison, Green Ronin's *Dragon Age RPG* uses the following eight abilities: Communication covers "your character's social skills, personal interactions, and ability to deal with others" Constitution is "your character's fortitude and resistance to harm" Cunning measures "your character's intelligence, knowledge, and education" Dexterity encompasses "agility, hand-eye coordination, and quickness" Magic determines "your character's innate arcane power" Perception covers "all the senses and the ability to interpret sensory data" Strength is "your character's physical prowess" Willpower encompasses "mental toughness, discipline, and confidence" I quite like that spread myself.
#6 cowleymen Jan 01, 2015 14:03:34	pukunui wrote:
#7 sleypy Jan 01, 2015 14:24:02	cowleymen wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Einlanzer

Dec 31, 2014 15:10:28

This is my third post recently on this topic, but as opposed to the first two I wanted to start this one as a high level, generalized discussion rather than as a presentation of proposed changes leading to an argument about gameplay ramifications.

So, I'll begin with a question - if you were designing a paradigm to work with for attributes for a new edition of D&D - how would you do it?

My first major issue with D&D's system is the consolidation of agility (balance, reflexes), with dexterity (fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination). I just think these two things don't really fit together as neatly as D&D tries to make them. As an example, felids are significantly more agile than we are but are lacking in anything that would be considered dexterity. Combining them would make sense in a very basic system (like a trinity of body, mind, and spirit). But, the system already separates strength and constitution (both aspects of fitness) and intelligence and wisdom (both aspects of intelligence). These attribute are more closely related to one another than agility and dexterity are, so the consolidation has always felt arbitrary and inappropriate.

My second major issue is the muddiness between Intelligence, Wisdom, and to a lesser extent Charisma. Not only are the definitions of these terms within the core rules a little.....unsound, but the applications often don't correspond with the definitions. Wisdom is an aspect of intelligence, not a separate attribute (unlike agility and dexterity). Intellect would be a more appropriate term than Intelligence. Intellect specifically describes a person's aptitude for reasoning and the acquisition of knowledge. Wisdom describes level-headedness and metacognition (or, the ability to assess and practically apply that reasoning and knowledge). This actually runs the opposite of the common perception about the relationship betweeen these two attributes. Among other quandaries, this means that the skill Investigation really makes no sense falling under Intellligence and really should just be considered the "active" version of Perception, keyed off of Wisdom. This also means that several things that currently fall under Wisdom arguably shouldn't, like willpower and piety.

My third major issue is the lack of an attribute spefically related to spellcasting. Thematically, I don't like how your ability to channel mystical energy is somehow 100% correlated with either your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. Sure, they should play a role I suppose, but to me this aptitude should primarily be governed by its own attribute. It would also hypothetically be a great way to balance spellcasters with nonspellcasters.

My last major issue is the overt inequality between the attributes. Int is laughably a dump stat for everyone but wizards, largely because of the role it is pigeonholed into playing for wizards' spellcasting prowess. Why? Where is the Int-based mechanic giving tactical bonuses in combat? This is in part what precipitates my desire to overhaul the attribute system as it is. Charisma can be useful, but is far too dependent on the DM actively making it useful. There should be a concerted effort on WotC's part to ensure that all attributes are attractive in some way to all characters regardless of the style of game being played. That's what makes character building compelling and interesting and leads to greater diversity.

So, I guess my system would use 8 attributes instead of 6 with some rearrangement of existing skills/mechanics and a few new ones - Strength, Constitution, Agility, Dexterity, Intellect, Wisdom, Magic/Heraldry, and Charisma

What are your thoughts?

CulveDaddy

Dec 31, 2014 15:24:40

Einlanzer wrote:

rampant

Dec 31, 2014 16:53:50

I don't think charisma as it's implemented in the traditional d20 systems really rates an ability score I mean it's supposed to be people skills and force of personality, Well people skills are SKILLS and frank force of personality seems kind of one dimensional. Frankly the mental stats are kind fo a mess. I'd break it up into awareness, will power, and intellect. Although I'd also ditch the intrinsic link between attributes and skills and run it where the skill and attribute used in a check are variable. So intelligence could be used to intimidate if you start going into detail about all the ways you can breaka body, while willpower intimidate would be the wordless staredown, while awareness intimidate would be the whole sherlock holmes routine, or maybe the "i know you better than you know yourself" or stuff along those lines. A lot of the other stuff that wisdom and charisma try to cover just aren't really going to be stuff you can put numbers because they're too situational and malleable.

I agree that dexterity is a bit overbroad in dnd however using the definition you did it seems like very few creatures would rate solid dexterity. I advise breaking it into agility and reflexes, witht hte devision being more about your conscious control vs. your ingrained or reactive movements. FOr example a gymnastics performance would be agility while catching hold of the rings after slipping would be reflexes. This also helps because you can separate the offensive aspects and defensive aspects with the defensive stuff being reflex's domain, and offense going to agility or some other stat, awareness for crossbows maybe?

The other big problem is that certain stats have uses in building up the character's skeleton, notably constitution. While the others only apply during checks. Some sort of sub-stat system where all the stats contribute to things like HP, maybe speed, possibly some sort of action points, just something to make all the stats at least useful if not important to every class beyond checks.

Balancing spell casters with non casters isn't going to happen because casters have a different number of stats required, that's just going to make them more common for players who roll high or are playign a high powered game. Thus excaerbating the problem. Just like in older DnD editions where you got access to better classes by having higher stats, thus making the power difference between characters wth low and high stats even bigger than the stats alone would indicate. Th emagic system and the non-magic systems have to be balanced in order for the casters and non casters to be balanced. Frankly as long as the non casters and casters are trying to play separate games it's just always gonna be an issue.

I find the problem is a lot more manageble if I making attacking a skill and magical attacks use the same skills as the mundane version. So grabbing a person is the unarmed/grappling skill, and shocking grasp is a spell that lets you make an unarmed/grapple attack to deal electric damage instead of just grabbing someone. Fireball conjures a compressed sphere of fiery power that you throw much like a person tossing alchemists's fire would throw their flask, only yours is bigger, and doesn't cost gold. This makes magic work as an expansion of capabilities rather than a replacement for capabilities. This way mages actually suffer for having less invested in other areas because they can't just pick up spells at random, but actually have to have skills to back their magic up. Summoning an outsider doesn't do you much good if you don't have the skills to keep it on your side, a lightning bolt spell is nice and all, but being able to aim it is important. TUrning into a dragon is awesome but if you don't have the skills to use those claws you'r enot gonna get as much out of it. Furthermroe the checks are made with the stat apporpriate to the spell you're using instead of the class that granted the spell. The other side is of course forcing the casters to pay opportunity costs to learn new spells, because seriously divine casters are broke as heck and wizards aren't much better.

CulveDaddy

Dec 31, 2014 19:24:24

My second major issue is the muddiness between Intelligence, Wisdom, and to a lesser extent Charisma. Not only are the definitions of these terms within the core rules a little.....unsound, but the applications often don't correspond with the definitions. Wisdom is an aspect of intelligence, not a separate attribute (unlike agility and dexterity). Intellect would be a more appropriate term than Intelligence. Intellect specifically describes a person's aptitude for reasoning and the acquisition of knowledge. Wisdom describes level-headedness and metacognition (or, the ability to assess and practically apply that reasoning and knowledge). This actually runs the opposite of the common perception about the relationship betweeen these two attributes. Among other quandaries, this means that the skill Investigation really makes no sense falling under Intellligence and really should just be considered the "active" version of Perception, keyed off of Wisdom. This also means that several things that currently fall under Wisdom arguably shouldn't, like willpower and piety.

pukunui

Dec 31, 2014 19:44:22

From the PHB, pp. 175-178:

Strength measures "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force"

Dexterity measures "agility, reflexes, and balance"

Constitution measures "health, stamina, and vital force"

Intelligence measures "mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason"

Wisdom measures "how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition"

Charisma measures "your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality"

The only one that bothers me - and has always bothered me - is Wisdom. In the real world, a wise person is generally someone who shows good judgment rather than someone who has good sensory awareness or whatever. I suppose that's why Wisdom has generally been keyed to tests of willpower, though. I think the devs would've been better off making Perception an ability score, rather than a skill with both a passive and an active mode. But I suppose that wouldn't have felt enough like D&D for most people.

By way of comparison, Green Ronin's Dragon Age RPG uses the following eight abilities:

Communication covers "your character's social skills, personal interactions, and ability to deal with others"

Constitution is "your character's fortitude and resistance to harm"

Cunning measures "your character's intelligence, knowledge, and education"

Dexterity encompasses "agility, hand-eye coordination, and quickness"

Magic determines "your character's innate arcane power"

Perception covers "all the senses and the ability to interpret sensory data"

Strength is "your character's physical prowess"

Willpower encompasses "mental toughness, discipline, and confidence"

I quite like that spread myself.

cowleymen

Jan 01, 2015 14:03:34

pukunui wrote:

sleypy

Jan 01, 2015 14:24:02

cowleymen wrote: