Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 10:39:18	I decided against using Honor and Sanity as suggested in the D&D and instead opted to make them  modular subsystems that may come into play from time to time but generally will be left alone. Instead, I decided to rework the 6 core attributes into 8 in a way that I think makes way more sense and should have been done already - Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intellect, Wisdom, Charisma, Agility, Thaumaturgy.   Strength, Constitution, Intellect, Wisdom, and Charisma are largely unchanged except I've restructured some of the skills (con has 2, int has 3, wis and cha have 4) and moved around a couple of concepts (willpower is now rooted in charisma rather than wisdom; wisdom is now more akin to awareness).    Agility and Dexterity have been broken up and recombined.  Dex governs finesse/ ranged attack rolls and sleight of hand while Agility covers AC, Initiative, Stealth and Acrobatics   Thaumaturgy is a new attribute that replaces "spellcasting ability" for all classes and is also used for rituals. I've always preferred the idea that someone's aptitude for channeling magic is independent from their "mind" attributes.  Bonus prepared spells and other class features still use the original attribute, so Wizards will still want Int, etc.   Intellect gets a new mechanic to make it more generally useful and prevent it from always being a dump stat - Tactics, which is a variation of Hero Points but works very similarly. Medicine is now a knowledge skill tied to Int.   Wisdom and charisma are both used for sanity/madness and the latter is also utilized in Inspiration. The goal is to have Str, Dex, and Tha operate as "primary" attack-based attributes and to make Con, Int, Agi, Wis, Cha as competitive with each other in general as possible to make characters more diverse and give them lots of interesting choices.
#2 Cyber-Dave Dec 23, 2014 10:51:24	This is a terrible idea that will really screw over a number of classes that are not overpowered. My 2 cents.
#3 rampant Dec 23, 2014 10:58:49	Thamatury especially is going to be problematic because it's only useful to the caster classes thus creating an easy dump stat for non-casters.
#4 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 12:33:37	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#5 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 12:26:13	rampant wrote:
#6 Karnos Dec 23, 2014 12:28:15	In D&D, the basic 6 attributes is, to me, one of the defining concepts of the game. I wouldn't screw with them.   That said, I do like your ideas. I think you could create a fun clone game that uses a completely different attribute system like you are suggesting.  It just wouldn't be D&D, like how Dungeon World isn't D&D.
#7 edwin_su Dec 23, 2014 12:33:13	How will you generate these new abilities Agility and Thaumaturgy ? Are they roled like the other stats, or dirived in some other way ?     I could see them work as a kinf of direived ability score dependent on other scores. For example you could generate the normal 6 scores. Then say Agility is equal to your dex score, but you can raise agility by  reducing dex and the other way around.
#8 ChrisCarlson Dec 23, 2014 12:36:51	I don't think I like it. At least not until I can see the rest of what you are trying to do.   If you want more granularity and variation, maybe look to the ol' AD&D Players' Options: Skills & Powers for subabilities. Each of the standard six were broken up into two related halves. Like this:   Strength Stamina Muscle   Intelligence Reason Knowledge   Dexterity Aim Balance   Wisdom Intuition Willpower   Constitution Health Fitness   Charisma Leadership Appearance
#9 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 13:19:27	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#10 mellored Dec 23, 2014 12:50:00	Monk seem kinda screwed.
#11 Cyber-Dave Dec 23, 2014 13:57:09	Rogue also gets screwed. And, the original poster's assumptions about which classes and/or stats are currently more powerful are inaccurate. As a player, these changes would make me walk away from the table.
#12 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 14:21:20	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#13 mellored Dec 23, 2014 14:35:25	Einlanzer wrote:
#14 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 14:59:59	mellored wrote:
#15 Koetsu Dec 23, 2014 14:53:03	I really like the direction this is going. Basically it looks like every character will have Multiple Attribute Dependencies, so the players will need to ensure that their characters are somewhat well-rounded. This should really benefit the players in non-combat situations, but encounter difficulties might need to be toned-down until the effects of these changes are seen firsthand. As an L5R player, MAD is pretty standard for every school.   On a slightly different note, and not meaning to sidetrack this conversation too much, I've noticed quite a tone difference between Legend of the Five Rings (where I normally post) and this board. Players seem entitled and hostile towards DM's here. Now I get that the player wants to play the game their way, but the amount of time, effort, and financial resources the DM puts into a game seem to be easily thrown to the wayside when a player feels that their ideal experience isn't being met exactly.   So on to specifics: Tactics being a "Hero Point" pool seems interesting, but how will you handle negative modifiers? Will "Hero Points" be equal to modifier+2, etc? While this ties in nicely with the flavor of the Fighter (Battlemaster), the concept is already doubly covered with Superiority Dice (different application, but same flavor). I *do* like the Intelligence requirement, however, and wish that the number of Superiority Dice was actually tied to the Intelligence Modifier. Thaumaturgy: Same attribute for every class? Or would Clerics use "Devotion" or something similar? On the "Devotion" attribute idea, I'd personally tie "Hero Points" into a Devotion attribute, where a diety intervenes on the part of the hero, and those with negative modifiers have the gods actively working against them a number of times per session equal to their negative modifier.
#16 dafrca Dec 23, 2014 14:58:34	Einlanzer, while Cyber-Dave is being a little harsh in his comments, he is not wrong. The system you propose, while interesting, is going to cause a lot of changes that will need to be addressed by significant rewrites to classes, skills, and other rules. I think looking at splitting the attributes can be fun, but it is not an easy thing to do nor is it something that is low impact the way changing a single spell or weapon might be. You are impacting some very core elements to the rules with these suggested changes.
#17 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 15:07:04	dafrca wrote:
#18 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 18:09:50	Koetsu wrote:
#19 dafrca Dec 23, 2014 15:14:55	Einlanzer wrote:
#20 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 15:26:45	dafrca wrote:
#21 Einlanzer Dec 23, 2014 20:48:58	So the proposed changes will result in indirect "nerfs" through increased MAD to all classes except Barbarians and Champion/BM Fighters.  Champions arguably could use the help relative to other options and are intended to simplistic, so they're probably okay. I also plan on incorporating Int. into the Battlemasters' dependencies, so no real worries there either. So, that really leaves only the Barbarian, who I worry will comfortably outperform other classes more often than not. I'm trying to think of a cool gimmick to introduce to their rage system. Part of me feels like I should tie Rages to Wisdom in an limiter capacity, but perhaps in an inverse way.  Like, less wise barbarians are more likely to lose control while raging.  Something to that effect.
#22 Brock_Landers Dec 23, 2014 23:42:49	Einlanzer wrote:
#23 Einlanzer Dec 24, 2014 6:25:52	Brock_Landers wrote:
#24 Cyber-Dave Dec 24, 2014 6:46:05	Einlanzer wrote:
#25 Einlanzer Dec 24, 2014 10:43:55	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#26 ChrisCarlson Dec 24, 2014 8:28:43	Einlanzer wrote:
#27 Einlanzer Dec 24, 2014 10:36:31	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#28 Maine Dec 24, 2014 11:34:55	Einlanzer wrote:
#29 Cyber-Dave Dec 24, 2014 11:36:25	Einlanzer wrote:
#30 Einlanzer Dec 26, 2014 16:14:19	I can't believe I forgot to talk about Dex's disproportionate significance with tools.  Even though the rules don't state it (probably out of fear of Dex appearing too powerful), it's obvious that Dex is the most appropriate attribute to use for most tools more often than not.  With that in consideration as well, the gap is almost laughable.   As a balancer for the spliltting up of Dex, I've more or less ruled that, for most tools, Dex is the default attribute that is used.  That should help ensure Dex has an appropriate level of potency after the introduction of Agility.   Regarding the above, it's worth noting, as you know, that it doesn't require full investment in Str to get maximum AC.  Some Dex-based attackers, IMO, will have an interesting choice between investing in Str (with mostly redundant offensive benefits) to get improved AC through heavier armor (and superior grappling), or investing in Agility to get improved armorless AC, Initiative, acrobatics and stealth.  Characters who are "dependent" on being armorless like Monks will have an interesting choice between being str or dex primary, which doesn't really exist by RAW as they are all but pigeonhold into a Dex build.  In other words, there are numerous side benefits of this system, I just have to make sure that nobody suffers too much relative to other classes, which I will do.
#31 mellored Dec 27, 2014 9:19:51	Spells usually beat tools.
#32 Einlanzer Dec 29, 2014 8:04:08	mellored wrote:
#33 arnwolf666 Dec 29, 2014 10:22:16	In my own system that is a bastardized version of BECMI, 1E/2E, 3.x, 4E and some other games I like, I have 3 attributes, Toughness, Prowess, and Wit.  Toughness is damage and hit points (stamina in my game), Prowess; to hit and defense, Wit; magic, NPC interaction, knowledge.  Works very well for me.  Ability scores range from 3 to 18, with 13 being +1, 16 +2, 18 +3.  Attributes higher than 18 do not exist for any race or critter.  Intimidation runs off of toughness.  Toughness isn't how strong you are, it is your badass rating.  Prowess doesn't neccessarily mean dextrity, it can be timing and accuracy for sure.  And wit just covers general mental ability, not neccessarily 200IQ at 18 or whatever.
#34 Istbor Dec 29, 2014 15:17:03	You were worried Dex was too powerful so you decided to tie critical hit range with it?
(Reply to #33) dafrca	arnwolf666 wrote:
#36 Einlanzer Dec 29, 2014 19:06:46	Istbor wrote:
(Reply to #35) arnwolf666	dafrca wrote: