"Party Composition and Social Skills"

[User3]

Look at the rules before you press too hard for an unusual class/race combo, such as a halfling barbarian, an elf cleric, or a half-orc sorcerer. Maybe such characters sound interesting to you, but think about why you don't see them too often. It's not because they're not interesting; it's because they're not as good as other character types from a rules standpoint. Players usually repeat the obvious combinations because they are demonstrably better than the alternatives.

Aside from being somewhat incorrect about what a "suboptimal" class/race combo is (oh no, not an elf cleric...), this is frighteningly honest. And apparently not a problem.



I also find it a little disturbing that Jason Nelson-Brown is seriously suggesting the use of [IC] sexual bribery in a game for 'children 11 and up.' Yes, we may use it in our campaigns, but we aren't marketing to pre-teens either.

Link: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050722a

[Josh_Kablack]

1122061303[/unixtime]]

Look at the rules before you press too hard for an unusual class/race combo, such as a halfling barbarian, an elf cleric, or a half-orc sorcerer. Maybe such characters sound interesting to you, but think about why you don't see them too often. It's not because they're not interesting; it's because they're not as good as other character types from a rules standpoint. Players usually repeat the obvious combinations because they are demonstrably better than the alternatives.

Aside from being somewhat incorrect about what a "suboptimal" class/race combo is

2 out of 3 counts as more than "somewhat" in my book.

this is frighteningly honest. And apparently not a problem.

Honest, yes. Problem, that's arguable either way.

I can make a good case that every core race should be playable as every core class. I can also make a good case that certain races should be entirely restricted from certain classes (even if people who find the idea of dwarf wizards wrong because they played 2e still appall me.)

[dbb]

I view it as a problem, but honesty compels me to admit that I don't think it's widely viewed as one.

I would like to see racial bonuses and penalties make much less of a difference than they do now -- about on the level of the core Half-Elf all around would make me pretty happy. Characters who play against type are interesting, or at least more interesting, and it seems senseless to penalize players for that.

--d.

[PhoneLobster]

If starting character bonuses and penalties were individually selectable and not tied to specific races then THAT would be the best way to allow "play against type" characters.

(Why the hell SHOULDN'T my dwarf sorcerer who dedicated his life to being a flashy socialite and determined font of mystic power start with a charisma BONUS? If a human grows up with elves who train him as one of their own shouldn't he get their skill and proficiency bonuses? If an elf grows up with humans shouldn't he get the bonus feat and the skill points?)

But yeah, screwing over war forged Wizards is pretty much a bad idea.

Its almost exactly like when certain game designers insist that ticking the box marked "female" on a character sheet should screw you over if you then tick the box marked "fighter".

As in its probably not good flavour and it probably IS totally stupid.

[Murtak]

With how little impact race bonuses/penalties have compared to your class or even your spell selection I don't think they are worth worrying over. Sure, ideally your dwarven or half-orc sorcerer would not get that -1 to DCs and that one bonus spell less, but given how many game-breaking crap is still present in DnD is that really an issue?

Heck, you do not even get a whole -2 to your casting stat - after all you got a bonus somewhere else. With point-buy that probably comes out to a -1 overall. About the only issue I can see is with small races trying to be fighters - getting a penalty to your damage stat on top of less weapon damage stinks. But even then you get a bonus to AC and no penalty to your to hit rolls.

I say, fix the races so they are all on par with one another overall and then forget about the issue until polymorph, slots-per-day-spellcasting, gate, divine power and fighter-type equipment dependancy are solved. Then - around 9th edition - it may be time to look at race/class combinations again.

[PhoneLobster]

I say, fix the races so they are all on par with one another overall and then forget about the issue

I say, no way.

Balancing races is as important as balancing classes. Everyone has one and it better work to enhance their game play, if its working against that goal that is very bad indeed.

Saying "You wrote half orc in your background so we screw you on mental stats" is exactly the same as saying "you wrote female in your description so we screw you on your physical stats". It punishes you for putting flavour elements into your background for no good reason, its disgusting.

And don't forget getting down and fixing races PROPERLY doesn't just fix the warforged cleric, it also fixes the succubus wizard, the illithid cleric and the fairy whatever.

And its seriously time already for those things to be fixed, 9th edition my ass, they promised us (again and again) these things work in THIS edition, Gate can go screw itself until I can actually play a robot-man warforged wizard as advertised , and do it right beside the party fairy druid, elf fighter, dwarf sorcerer, half-orc bard and umber hulk cleric.

Gate and Polymorph don't even happen for levels and levels, but a war forged sorcerer is messed up for his entire career.

It sure as heck isn't some little petty matter, its about a system that actually accounts for characters people want to play. Some of the issues mentioned are at least as important, but Gate? Divine Power? My ass.

[Murtak]

Well, I was talking about the player's handbook races there. If you want to make ECL races playable (or worse, playable for casters) that is an entirely different thing. I doubt it can be done within the current system, but at least you are going to be working on something that is worth fixing in the first place.

As for your "screwed" half-orc bard, well, he is only screwed because half-orcs suck overall (which I propose to fix). Let us instead pick a race that does not suck overall, like a dwarf. Is a dwarf bard "screwed" compared to a human bard?
- Down 2 Cha, Up 2 con. That is probably a wash. Con is always good, especially if you have a weak fort save.
- Maximum Cha -2. That is a downside, allright
- Down a feat. Another downside.
- Down a skill point a level. And another one.
- Up +2 to all saves. That however is a great great upside.
- Has Darkvision. This is pretty useful too.

So our "screwed" dwarven bard exchanges two useful stats for another, has 2 less max cha and switches a a feat and one full skill for +2 to all saves and darkvision. Oh, and he is a little slower. Is that a bad deal? I don't think so, but maybe to some it is. Is that "getting screwed"? Hello, no.

In short, the Player's Handbook is not in need of basic fixing, merely of rebalancing (the races to one another that is). Savage Species however needs every bit of help it can get.

[dbb]

I'm with PL on this issue: if bonuses and penalties are going to be important enough to really matter (and they are for Dwarves and Elves and Half-Orcs, anyway), just give out additional selectable abilities for the "racial package" and let people play a charismatic Dwarven Bard if they really want to. If they aren't going to be important enough to matter (like the Half-Elf), I don't really care what they are.

This has the added bonus of making it so you can just go out and model whatever damned race you feel like. Arctic Elves? Desert Halflings? Just pick the abilities that say "Desert Nomad" to you and move on.

--d.

[Username17]

The attribute system doesn't work. There, I've said it. Any system of stats that is divisible by a prime factor that isn't 2 is inherently unbalanced by definition. The six stat system is flawed to the point where a truly balanced approach is by definition impossible.

But even on top of the fact that the game's attributes can't be balanced until they drop Wisdom and Constitution or add Agility and Power, the further fact of the matter is that the things that move stats up and down are also unbalanced. Especially for casters. And warriors. And that's everybody.

AD&D had a system of attributes that almost worked. You rolled up some stats, in order, and almost all of the variation was meaningless. 10 wasn't really different from 12, so a few people rolled 17s and got bonuses that noone else did, but by and large it was a wash. Getting a stat high enough to matter was like winning at bingo. It was supposed to be unfair, but people were supposed to be happy for you rather than resentful. But the thing that really made it all work was that your stats basically never changed.

But if every change in stats matters, and stat changes are in such great number that the closet door can't be properly closed, that doesn't work.

----

You could have a balanced Race system. It just wouldn't look very much like the current system.

Every Race would be a template that added a few abilities that scaled with your level. And it would also throw in a couple of purely flavor text abilities. Possibly it would have a "spell list" of things that you could spend your manas on at various levels. I suggest that humans, for example, should have the abiliity to spend their manas to protect themselves from magical attacks at high level. Succubi, on the other hand, should be able to mana up peoples to make them socially pliable.

But the point is, the thing that's really unsalvageable about D&D races, is the attribute modifiers. Races should have a suggested attribute array, they shouldn't have racial modifiers to your stats.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Yeah, ability scores need to go, I've been saying that for a while.

They're an old legacy mechanic which is based on Gygax's attempt to model reality instead of create a game system. Somewhere along the line somebody said "well Legolas has a lot better hand eye coordination then Aragorn, so shouldn't he be a better archer?" "Conan is stronger than Zorro, shouldnt he be doing more damage?" and so on.

The D&D ability scores are actually contrary to any form of balanced game, because they're there solely to create imbalance. They create primary class stats and dump stats for each class. They exist so that you can have a level 10 wizard who is awesome and a level 10 wizard who sucks. Before we had feats or skills or free multiclassing, Gygax apparently wanted a way to further differentiate one level 6 fighter from another, so he came up with ability scores.

Nothing good ever came out of ability scores, it'd be a lot easier if we just got rid of them. In a free multiclassing system you've got enough ways to have character diversity. Wizard spell DCs can just be 10 + character level, damage scores can be based on level similar to the monk, and so on. Strength should just be a special effect that lets you lift boulders, rip through bars and so on.

If you did that, then you could balance races and fix a lot of other problems in D&D, like shapechanging magic.

Feats already offer enough diversity that you don't even need ability scores anymore. They should be put out to pasture like the sacred cow that they are.

[User3]

I've got it....the perfect fix for all DND!

The "one-stat system!!!!!"

Yes, there will be only one stat to compare for all rolls. No feats, no class features, no racial features, no bonuses or buffs, no debuffs or penalties, no maneuvers, no movement rates....nothing but the one stat!

Perfect balance! Roll one die for the illusion of control and dramatic tension, and the battle/negociation/craft check/weather check is resolved in a win or loss!

The gods themselves will weep at our perfect mathmatical mastery! Never again will any player ever feel weaker than other players....never again will a rules debate stop a game...never again will we need to make another rule!

One-stat system forever!

-----------------------------

Ok, you get my point, right?

You are not going to get perfect balance.

Ever.

The only stat sytem that works is called "one stat vs one stat" and the only ability-based system that works is called "rock, paper, scissors."

Anything more complicated than that will always have inbalances. As long as player choice is involved, some players will bull rush the BBEG into a lava pit and some people will do the 13 round battle where 2 party members die, some players will pick synergystic abilities and others will be jack of all trades, and some will sell or discard the good magic item and others will use it in a key moment.

Right now, DnD works "pretty well." Its far from perfect, and a few key mechanics could be fixed, but creating entirely new mechanics that fall into the "less fun, more balanced" or "more fun, less balanced" category seems rather pointless to me.

--------------------
Two ability points are a 1 point difference in any roll that matters. Half Orc Sorcerers are not "totally useless." You'd never even notice the difference in play if the DM didn't let you see the roll results and didn't tell you about it.

Yes, you might be down one low-level bonus spell. This migh mean a little something at level 1-3, but I promise that for the rest of the game you won't care.
------------
And I hate dwarven wizards. Why even be a dwarf if you are going to play against type? Its like playing a Faetouched / Fighter / Ur-Priest / Demonologist / Geomancer/ Half-Dragon / Half-Vampire.

Sure, its legal by the rules, but what are you trying to prove?

If you want selectable abilities, just play a human stat and ability block and write "dwarf" on your character sheet and RP as a dwarf and leave the rest of our game alone.

Sheesh.

[RandomCasualty]

Yes, you want some stats to add diversity to the game, but you don't want them to add imbalance either.

D&D stats don't really add any fun or balance to the game. nobody wants to play a stupid wizard who sucks, so why even have that in the game in the first place. If you want to describe a wizard who sucks, you just make him 1st level.

You could run a 1 stat game, just the level stat, along with a bunch of abilities, and it might actually be a pretty good and fun game.

[Crissa]

Actually, stats are salvagable.

But only if they mean the same thing to everyone - no one stat is better than another.

Having one caster type per stat is fine - except when one stat says 'you get lots of skills' and the other stat says 'you get to make spot checks better' and the last stat doesn't do anything in 90% of games.

The stats have to start out on balanced ground. If you can get more out of one stat - if a Rogue gets Power from strength, and Power and Defense from Agility - the stats aren't balanced.

Of course, the mere fact that races give stat bonuses for no reason is frustrating.

Why does a centaur get +8 strength? This ruins balance, and doesn't add anything to the game - the rules already state that a four-legger carries more, so poof, a strength 10 centaur can carry as much as a pony and there's no reason to add stats to the mix. Actual abilities are far more insteresting.

But as long as stats aren't balanced among races, you will have that slight edge. As long as the spell for the halfling and the gnome isn't scaled, but the fighter's damage is... It's not balanced.

-Crissa

[Username17]

Yeah, the one stat system works.

The two stat system works.

The four stat system works.

The eight stat system works.

RPS works. But a pentagon works, as does a septagonal ability path. Furthermore, your color wheel or RPS matrix is iterable as long as it is separated into columns and noone is allowed to "just have more rock".

RPS and color wheels can be prioritized or they can be selected from and still retain balance. They can't have points assigned to them and still be balanced.

Really, we've been at this for thirty years. We know the things that don't work and we've done the math to know what would. I have no idea why people cling to the old instead of progressing to the new. People who want to keep six attributes because Gygax or Arneson wrote them done in the late sixties are like people who reject modern medical care because the old ways were good enough for Jesus.

We can do probability. We can run the numbers. There's no fvcking excuse to put a bunch of crap into a book and hope that it's so complicated that noone will figure out what's better and what's worse.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Half Orc Sorcerers are not "totally useless."

Wrong, it isn't just an issue of -1 to all DCs of spells cast, -1 to all social skills, less spells per day, a greater urgency to "point buy" a more expensive Charisma or a need to one way or another spend more points in Charisma as you level up to keep up.

The issue is also that the (minimal) positive abilities the half orc gets do not sit well with a sorcerer.

See a dwarf wizard, he isn't so bad off, his various bonuses are nice enough on most characters and a Cons bonus is actually pretty nice to have as a wizard. Even as a sorcerer his Cha penalty is less of a deal than it is for the half orc because his bonuses actually help at being a sorcerer.

The half orc brings nothing to the table as a sorcerer. Your "its only -1 get over it" is a comparison to a blank nothing race who gets no bonuses or penalties at all. That half orc could have been a human, not suffered penalties, and had a feat and some skill points that boosted his sorcerer abilities.

That IS a damn big difference you would notice if the rolls were kept secret.

The attribute system doesn't work. There, I've said it.

I'm not too concerned. The attribute system can be fixed with the race system still broken and visa versa. Until racial abilities are, perversly, no longer tied to race (or better yet chosen from the same pool as other selectable abilities not tied irrevocably to the more generic flavour elements) then its a system that makes life harder for the red headed step children of D&D.

Every Race would be a template that added a few abilities that scaled with your level.

Nice, it makes races useful and meaningful in an interesting manner. But ultimately it is unnacceptable.

Because as with your example it still means the human is stuck being magic resistance guy and the succubi is stuck being social seduction guy.

Why shouldn't the human be social seduction guy sometimes? Why should the Succubi sometimes be Fire Resistance Gall?

As long as the race label provides an ability, bonus or penalty, and regardless of your attribute system, that is set in stone then it is producing a reduction in choice in character creation rather than an improvement.

Somewhere along the line someone is going to realise that succubi social powers bring little to the table for characters of a certain type (depending on the implementation probably either already social or strictly anti-social characters) and thus realise a whole swathe of potential devilish seductress backgrounds that are totally ass when implemented in game.

The template system proposed, like the standard system, makes things like the all human or all succubi party suck. It makes things like the human raised by succubi and the succubi raised by humans, or the orc runt with an interest in books, also all suck.

So that is still a bad thing.

[RandomCasualty]

1122160716[/unixtime]]
Because as with your example it still means the human is stuck being magic resistance guy and the succubi is stuck being social seduction guy.

Racial abilities are always going to be give people some kind of universal abilitiy, Because that's all a race really is in an RPG, a collection of beings that has the same ability or set of abilities.

If you're playing a birdman race, then you have wings and you can fly as a racial ability. Now you can either look at it as being "stuck" with being the winged guy, or you can just say that's a consequence of being a birdman. At some point being a certain race has to mean you've got a specific ability. That's how a class system tends to work. If you want a mix and match system, then generally you're looking more at a point based system like GURPS. It's much easier to build a succubi without any seduction using that system, but it also requires a lot more math and point systems are much easier to break.

Having seduction or magic resistance doesn't inherently disqualify you for any other class so I wouldn't say it's all that restrictive. It isn't like -2 intelligence in D&D, where you now suck at a series of classes. Seduce or magic resistance are separate abilities, which actually dont' have any bearing on anything you may take in the future, ability adjustments are pretty much abilities that say "you get bonus X if you take class Y", and that kind of stuff is unacceptable unless you deliberately want to hose certain class/race combos, but in that case you shouldn't even allow people the option of taking them for PCs.

[User3]

The issue is also that the (minimal) positive abilities the half orc gets do not sit well with a sorcerer.

Hate to break it to you, but no race brings anything useful to being a Sorcerer. Every race has abilities that either add random abilities of little value to his core schtich(halfling, gnome, dwarf, elf), or allows you to pick a tiny feat available to a 1st level guy(human). Nominally, humans are the best Sorcerer race, as you might be able to knock out a required feat for a PrC early, but there's very little you can get at 1st level that makes or breaks a character.

The template system proposed, like the standard system, makes things like the all human or all succubi party suck. It makes things like the human raised by succubi and the succubi raised by humans, or the orc runt with an interest in books, also all suck.

People want two things:

1. They want to know what a race/class means when you say it. If I said Halfling Rogue 4, then everyone knows what that class/race combo does and generally knows what you did with your skill points (max Hide, Dex fighter with Finesse or ranged sneaker).

2. They want to make off-color combos. They want Halfling Monks because they've seen too much Mexican wrestling.

Here's a solution:

A. Start each race with a single required racial feat. Make it only those things intrinsic to a character's biology, and not culture. It will be the things that even an dwarf raised among elves would have, and that a human raised among elves would never get even with the best training. For example, dwarves and half-orcs both get Darkvision, Halfings get Small-sized, and Elves get Elf Senses (Low light and Detect Doors and Search bonuses).

B. A return to racial core classes. For example, the Halfling Class grants one-time bonuses to Str and Dex, Hide in plain sight, taking 10 on Hide, and sneak attack dice. The Saves, BAB, and skills are the same as Rogue.

Let people take racial classes at 1st level only despite their race with a Monk-like continuation rules (once you stop taking levels, you can't go back).

These classes count as Substition levels for core classes. For example, Halfing levels sub for Rogue. A Halfling 4/Rogue 2 gets a Rogue's 5th and 6th level class features).

-------------------
In this way, you can have human's with Succubus levels (that don't have the racial Outsider feat and are subbing out Warlock levels) and Succubus Paladins (that only have the racial Outsider feat and don't have an insane Cha for berserko-insane, game breaking saves).

[PhoneLobster]

Racial abilities are always going to be give people some kind of universal abilitiy, Because that's all a race really is in an RPG, a collection of beings that has the same ability or set of abilities.

Races are more than that. They are a major element of your characters background. And character backgrounds can, and sometimes even should, be full of additional details, variations and twists.

Mighty Bird Man is trained from birth as a paragon of bird man warriors and as a backgrund racial ability picks kick ass combat flight.

But poor Pretty Bird Girl was raised in a guilded cage by cruel slavers and her wings though pretty are small and stunted and useless, but she has a totally kick ass magical singing voice...

Yes this leans to a point based selection type system to some degree. But I look at it in a manner similar to the feats system, a set of selectable attributes to customize a character, whether this means that all attributes in the system need to be individually selectable is up to you, I'm just pointing out the following simple fact...

Unless characters of the same race can be functionally different to each other the rules system is fighting AGAINST diverse and interesting backgrounds.

There ain't no way around it. Well, short of race being truely meaningless (which is pretty much the same and almost as good).

[PhoneLobster]

People want two things:
1. They want to know what a race/class means when you say it. If I said Halfling Rogue 4, then everyone knows what that class/race combo does and generally knows what you did with your skill points (max Hide, Dex fighter with Finesse or ranged sneaker).

2. They want to make off-color combos. They want Halfling Monks because they've seen too much Mexican wrestling.

Not on your life buddy.

1. People often want to define themselves by MORE than just race and class. They don't want to be a halfling rogue, they want to be a halfling rogue raised by nomadic desert orcs specialising in archery combat while mounted on camel back. An option which by no means prevents anyone else from playing the halfling rogue who gets a lame bonus to throwing weapons and hobbit spin off flavour who put his skill points on the same boring damn skills he always selects.

2. This is far more than just a matter of off colour combos due to mexican wrestling (great train of thought justifiying your position there). It stretches from the basic principle of war forged wizards as advertised in flavour text and illustrations actually working to the potential for a system where with minimal effort you suddenly have a much broader range of potentially entertaining character backgrounds.

3. People want a lot of things. Sometimes they want thematic campaigns where everyone has the same race. But race is just a bit of background story so it sucks when it means that EVERYONE in the group ends up being a war forged fighter because thats all war forged are good for.

4. People want EVEN MORE THINGS (gosh darn those complex folks) They DON'T want a system that screws over any caster character who takes levels of their racial non caster class, as per your second suggested fix.

5. People EVEN want variation right down to the physical attributes of a characters starting race. Orc? What about a Runt? Bird Man whose wings were clipped? Dwarf who suffered a wasting disease as a child? etc... These are nice flavourful ideas that rigid systems as proposed essentially eliminate.

Should writing "Orc" on my character sheet suddenly define utterly every aspect of my character (as suggested by your comments regarding the halfling rogue) or should it just be ONE element in a complex and interesting background that MIGHT be the stereotype you favour, or might not?

Indeed should writing Orc mean ANYTHING other than that they are, merely technically, and purely in flavour text, an Orc.

Because if it also suddenly means they are also a fighter with X strength and Y charisma with THAT weapon specialization and THIS many hit points and a bonus against THAT race, that just really really sucks.

[User3]

Yeh, and with my system you can have a Halfling 4/Rogue 2 and that works for people who want to play Iconic Halflings, and you can have a Halfing Sorcerer 6, and you know what that means.

The Halfling 4/Rogue 2 has all the weirdo racial things that make halflings good rogues like in The Hobbit, and the Sorcerer is just a Sorcerer.

They only share the Small size (racial feat).

And if you want to do a Halfling Succubus 4/Warlock 2, you've got a demony halfling that makes everyone want to do the bad touch to the small-sized woman.

Racial abilities should be small 1st level things. Racial classes should have all the class feature stuff like weapon profs. and spell-likes that are obviously learned abilities.

The Dwarven Racial class has things like "wears armor as if it was one class lighter" and "bonuses vs giants" and dwarven exotic weapon profs".

But if the Dwarf wanted to be raised by elves and taught elven secrets, then he'd learn Elven Racial class that subs for Wizard and grants the Bladesong (swift action longsword attack when a spell is cast) instead of Scribe Scroll and a set "spells learned" with spells like Wraithstrike and True Strike instead of free wizard learning.

It works man. It really does.

What can't this system do?

[Josh_Kablack]

1122170777[/unixtime]]
It works man. It really does.

What can't this system do?

It can't be explained as quickly as the current pick a race, bang you're done with that, system.

Seriously, the point of a class+race system is that it offers you a sufficiently large degree of flexibility (7 core races x 11 core classes = 77 potential character choices) while having a small enough selection that players can keep them all straight (7 core races + 11 core classes = only 18 things to stereotype)

Any extensions to that system add complexity.

If I wanted a system where someone of any race could be anything at all without any concrete penalties, I'd play HERO, GURPS or another point-based system and just write up a list of pre-cost computed "suggested skills, talents, powers and drawbacks" for each race.

Any system short of total HERO/GURPS style point-buy will offer less flexibility.

To argue for a middle ground, you have to show that the gain in flexibility is worth the gain of complexity even though more flexibility will always be available by playing another game system.

[Crissa]

None of this balances the party.

Nor does Frank answer why six stats is worse than five, aside from theatrics.

-Crissa

[User3]

It can't be explained as quickly as the current pick a race, bang you're done with that, system.

Seriously, the point of a class+race system is that it offers you a sufficiently large degree of flexibility (7 core races x 11 core classes = 77 potential character choices) while having a small enough selection that players can keep them all straight (7 core races + 11 core classes = only 18 things to stereotype)

Any extensions to that system add complexity.

Extensions like multiclassing? Or prestige classing? Or playing a monster race?

Those are all Core, and mean that your numbers are awfully low if they are to represent the current system of race and potential class combinations.

We already have a system more complicated than the one I'm proposing. My system has the benefit of actually doing what people want it to do when they play a non-human race.

You can:
A. Make weird ass combos like humans raised by dragons.
B. Neatly avoid the current system of LAs and ECLs.
C. Still know what a PC can do with easy keyword recognition. "Yeh, I'm a Dwarf 2/ fighter 6."
D. Avoids some of the flaws in multiclassing.

[User3]

Nor does Frank answer why six stats is worse than five, aside from theatrics.

He oversimplifies. A simple system has one stat being opposed by another for one roll.

Since DnD has any one stat doing multiple jobs, any attack on the stat system is a push to take the entire system and toss it in the trash. Nothing would be salvagable.

But who cares? Its easy to be a critic, but its even easier to just play another game.

Why people spend time pissing on this game instead of working on, and improving, its core conceits is beyond me.
They could spend their time better by talking about some game they want to play.

[Username17]

Nor does Frank answer why six stats is worse than five, aside from theatrics.

The mayth is a bit complicated. But the long and the short of it is that regardless of whether you are setting up stats circularly or statically, a stat system based on fours or twos can work. A stat based on any other prime number can't.

There's a run down here.


The short version is this: if your choice of point assignment is inherently binary, the things you aren't buying are of equal value with those things you did buy. This makes each choice equally valid, and is repeatable indefinately in order to have a total number of choices of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc. etc. But if there's a non-binary prime number in there, then the points you didn't spend in other things are split up two or more ways. Thus, putting everything into one pile is inherently superior to doing things any other way.

A six stat sustem always punishes characters who want to diversify. Always.

Why people spend time pissing on this game instead of working on, and improving, its core conceits is beyond me.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. D&D has the advantage that people basically know how it works, and you can play a game with some people you just met at the game store - but that doesn't mean that it's fair.

After careful consideration, I don't think that working within the core conceits of D&D is a useful goal to have. 3.5 is garbage. It's garbage that you can play at a moment's notice with people whose play style you don't know, but it's still garbage. Playing D&D is like drinking Coors or Fosters, and no colorful cup or hand made pretzels are going to change that.

And in the world of RPGs, there really aren't any games that match the quality even of Samuel Adams. If you want something better than a Corona Light you have to make it yourself.

And the reason things are like this is because people sit back and get pissy every time people bring up math and question the early bad decisions made by some ego-tripping madmen in Wisconsin before most of us were born.

What can't this system do?

Well, your system isn't really a system at all. It's the age-old buck passing concept of "just make some classes up and everything will work itself out". Tht hasn't. Ever. Worked.

Basically there's nothing particularly "Dwarven" about your proposed "Dwarf" class. All you've done is committed yourself to the creation of a fvck tonne of classes that can all be taken at first level. There's a "mountain warrior" class (that from flavor text is often taken by dwarves), there's a "farmer thief" class (that from flavor text is often taken by hobbits), and there's a "brain sucking psychic" class (that from flavor text is often taken by mind flayers). Well yippee-doo-daw, now that you have dozens or hundred of playable core classes, what have you actually gained?

There's still no rubric for making sure those classes are anything like game balanced, and there's still no meaningful correlation between the names of these classes and their capabilities. Telling someone "I'm a halfling Wizard" is, under your proposal, even less informative than it was previously (which was honestly not much).

So really what I guess I'm saying is that what your system can't do is have any advantages or merit.

-Username17