"In my game the Mental Attributes are..."

[Foxwarrior]

I'm thinking lately that you could very well have an RPG that has NO stat for "bonus or pool of dice for social checks"

I kinda like the kernel of an idea that After Sundown had, where the kinds of social checks you could make well depend on which of your ability scores were high, it means that depending on which stereotype your ability scores put you into, you get to focus on appropriate stereotypical social interaction techniques. After Sundown also did another thing trying to make ability scores more interesting, where each power has two different ability scores it could use and then you try to match those up with the ability scores you decided to max out, but I felt that was a complete disaster that didn't make things more interesting, it just made me wish I had some database cross-referencing tools for chargen use.

Ability score checks are also potentially a decent way to be able to introduce character distinction to activities the players couldn't or shouldn't have done character optimization for, since every character has ability scores.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

It is however definitely not OK when all wizards are not orcs. Or ever charismatic. Or that if a wizard takes a little strength to invest in a little swording on the side, instead of the simple cost of spreading their investment of character resources slightly, they pay a cost of being seriously underoptimized because putting those extra points in Con is so incredibly more beneficial mechanically.

And it's not necessary. Attributes did not have to happen. They are an unneeded step on the path to the derived final values we actually need and use.

But I also want to ask something. You keep talking about "you should want players to want to have good attributes in multiple places" but also "If in your game all of those things are important and desirable, even if players must accept trade-offs that isn't necessarily a bad thing." and then your example of this at one point is that four sixteens thing.

And yeah, its a side track, but I must know because I think you might be a bit muddled on this.

Is your idea of trade offs, hard choices, and variety really a system where you can just have 4 out of 6 attributes one bonus point short of maxed out? Where the trade off you made for that was just not having one completely maxed out? That you didn't even pay the trade off cost of the last two attributes being I don't know, lower than whatever your default is? What does your "hard but important choices" or "should want multiple good things" attribute array look like for 3.infinity? Is it really 16,16,16,16,8,8? With the whole 18 trade off comment are the 8s even higher?

It might be informative.

[MGuy]

You could have all social interactions come down to fiat and make that just the standard in your game if you wanted. Players involved in socializing outside of just banter or other things that don't matter really only care about if they can get a person to do, or not do, a thing. Even getting people to like you I'd argue is done in an effort to do the same thing but longer term. Having a stat or a skill that gives you a number that says you're better at getting that to happen just means players who want to do that will pursue that number. If you don't have something like that I think you pretty much have to go with fiat or there's going to have to be something for players to pursue to get a better social result.

I'm not sure there's a way to make stats themselves more interesting. You can make them more useful for sure but a stat/skill/bonus will always just be a thing that says a person is better or worse at something. I think the interesting part comes with where you place the incentives.

So for social interactions what if the key to success wasn't just having a big number? What if every major social interaction (again I believe the only ones that really matter is getting person X to do/not do Y) simply followed the formula crpgs do where you have to collect keywords, key items, or accomplish significant/related deeds elsewhere in order to move a person to do Y thing? Then the pro gamer move is just to engage with the content. For people acting as the Face well they are good at the things you'd expect them to be good at. Knowing a lot of people (having bunches of contacts), being able to acquire things (discount on shopping), being seductive (distracting), getting info from a place (gather info or further use of contacts), and being good at fitting in (disguise). Those can be skills, attributes, or some combination of those but the interesting bit is going to be doing the legwork to resolve a social scenario by gathering clues, key topics, or through accomplishments.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I'm not sure there's a way to make stats themselves more interesting. You can make them more useful for sure but a stat/skill/bonus will always just be a thing that says a person is better or worse at something.

I tried replying to this but everything you said cancelled itself out with something else you said into a meaningless mess.

But lets try and just focus on one tiny thing you seem to be doing.

Attributes, stats, skills and bonuses are not the same thing and should not be conflated. Every number on your character sheet is not created equal. they come from different places, they perform different roles. The qualities that make base attributes bad do NOT inherently exist on numbers like Initiative Bonus or Armour Class or even something as trash as Knowledge(Monotremes). Numbers which do not HAVE to related to base attributes in any way.

So lets not get that mixed up.

[MGuy]

I do not know why you'd like to start with a thing I didn't say. I did not make a claim that all numbers on a character sheet are the same. The differences between them are also not relevant to the point I made. So while I can agree that they are difference and, depending on the context conflating then would be a problem I don't know how that's relevant.

I am unsure of what interpretation you got out of what I said. So I will instead ask you what, in the thing you specifically quoted here, do you disagree with? Do you think bonuses can be made more interesting (instead of just more or less useful)? Do you think they do not dictate how much better or worse a character is at doing a thing? Those are the only two ideas contained in this quote.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I am unsure of what interpretation you got out of what I said.

My interpretation was you are still, how many years now, promoting, but not doing, "infinite numbers of infinite bonuses" for social mechanics, now as a solution for Charisma as a base attribute being kinda bad. But because you waffle and prevaricate to the point of incoherence, and because its dumb and distracting from the actual topic there wasn't much point in engaging that.

And, uh, yes you very directly conflated "stats" "skills" and "bonuses" and described them all as not just uninteresting but unavoidably descriptive in exactly the same ways.

So I will instead ask you what, in the thing you specifically quoted here, do you disagree with? Do you think bonuses can be made more interesting (instead of just more or less useful)?

Absolutely. It's not relevant. However, it very much seems to me that if you cannot think of interesting things to do with bonuses outside of "they might let you win the roll"... what the hell do you even think you are doing designing RPG rules?

Personally I find direct interactions of bonuses interesting. So, I model a lot of my defense scores and attack modifiers on something resembling d20 Armour Class, and the way it stacks (or doesn't stack) and types its bonuses, and then in turn has some typed bonuses ignored with its Touch AC and Flat Footed AC. Extending on that by giving bonuses to attacks when certain typed bonuses are present on a defense, and changing the notation and accounting to stop pretending that it's a whole new defense score every time an attack ignores some typed bonuses pretty much gets you to the core of numeric bonus functionality in my game rules.

And I did that because I found THAT type of bonus interaction interesting, mechanically, without explosions or flowers or a 4 hour back story fetch quest for an arbitrary +14 pulled out of a GMs ass after I kiss it (or get it kissed) enough. By adding just this small amount of complexity it facilitates interesting interactions between different abilities (not the attribute ones the "I do things" ones) and creates and models interesting situations that exceed "we stacked all our same bonuses in the same pile we always do and mine was bigger".

Also you might notice, it wasn't base attributes that were interesting to me.

Your mileage may vary. But lets not pretend otherwise, I will probably think badly of you when it does. Because that's something I get to do if I want, which I will. Because WTF man ignore(armour) is the fucking bees knees and anyone who disagrees has no joy in their soul.

Do you think they do not dictate how much better or worse a character is at doing a thing?

No. I think SOME numbers on character sheets dictate how much better or worse a character is at doing A thing, while others dictate how much better or worse a character is at doing MANY things that do not otherwise need to be related.

This is advanced stuff. The difference between A thing and More than A thing. I will give you... another 15 years to figure it out.

Those are the only two ideas contained in this quote.

I felt I needed a quote to show who I was talking to and the quote included you conflating every number ever as being a boring unavoidable descriptor which was the only thing I felt was worth engaging with. Because the rest of your post was not worth engaging with. If I can't avoid describing the rest of your post, I would call it boring.

[MGuy]

Most of this stuff is irrelevant. I asked two simple questions and most of this wall of this text is not used to answer them.

So the answer to the first question seems to be that bonuses are more interesting to you if there are more fiddly bits in the game for them to interact with before arriving at a final number. I'd argue that this is still related to the thing I mentioned. That the numbers don't matter as much as the incentives. If the the bonuses are dependent on discreet mechanical interactions with other things in the game then the interesting bit for you would be that it gives the incentive to understand the web of interactions they invoke.

Your answer to the second question is basically that you don't disagree but you want to snark about semantics.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Shoulda made that fifteen minutes. Now I gotta wait for it to time out...

[deaddmwalking]

It is however definitely not OK when all wizards are not orcs. Or ever charismatic. Or that if a wizard takes a little strength to invest in a little swording on the side, instead of the simple cost of spreading their investment of character resources slightly, they pay a cost of being seriously underoptimized because putting those extra points in Con is so incredibly more beneficial mechanically.

I agree with this.

And it's not necessary. Attributes did not have to happen. They are an unneeded step on the path to the derived final values we actually need and use.

But I don't agree with this. Attributes are essentially saying 'this is a fundamental value that impacts multiple other areas'. It's highly unlikely that someone will be good a Strength based skill like weightlifting but not actually be strong. If they are strong, they'll likely be good at other Strength-based skills besides weightlifting.

This is the reality we all live in. If you are smart, you're going to be better at 'smart people things' than if you're not.

But I also want to ask something. You keep talking about "you should want players to want to have good attributes in multiple places" but also "If in your game all of those things are important and desirable, even if players must accept trade-offs that isn't necessarily a bad thing." and then your example of this at one point is that four sixteens thing.

In our system, a heroic character (18 point build) can start with an array of 5, 5, 4, 4, 3. They also get a floating +1 to add afterward, so 6, 5, 4, 4, 3 would be a very common character array. 6, 5, 5, 1, 1 would also be a possible build (18 points). The score is the bonus (ie, a six is +6 to attribute relevant checks).

Is your idea of trade offs, hard choices, and variety really a system where you can just have 4 out of 6 attributes one bonus point short of maxed out?

Not exactly. My point was that Monks need multiple attributes to even BEGIN to be effective. No matter how much you say a Wizard needs CON, every wizard ever would tank CON if they could get another point of Intelligence.

Since attributes are underlying values that apply to a wide variety of things, the difference between a 3 and a 5 can be meaningful. The difference between a 16 and an 18 Armor Class is noticeable. Needing to choose between an extra +2 to your Defense, or your Ranged Attack, or your weapon damage (and a host of related benefits like saving throws, initiative, and carrying capacity) does involve meaningful choices and differentiated characters.

There are a whole host of issues with 3.x, and racial penalties are a garbage fire. That doesn't mean that characters aren't well represented by 'fundamental attributes' that apply to a host of things. If you're as Fast as the Flash, but you can't also dodge bullets, does that even make sense?

[deaddmwalking]

Actually it's a double post...


Edit -
I don't mean to say that Attributes are the ONLY WAY to reflect a group of related abilities, but they are definitely an easy to grok method. You could make everything Strength related a skill, but limit someone from raising a skill to a certain level if they didn't raise every other skill to a certain minimum. Ie, if you want to raise a Strength skill to a 4, maybe the other nine strength skills must all be at 3. To raise it to a 5, everything has to be at 4. Effectively, though, you're keeping an attribute you're just obfuscating it.

In a similar vein, it is possible to have Strength skills that are 'worth it' and some that are not. +Damage might be valuable, but a bonus on Athletics checks isn't equivalent. If they both cost +1 skill point people will put a lot of skill points into +Damage and very few into +Athletics checks. Using an attribute allows you to get 'free' +Athletics when you spend resources you were planning on spending for +Damage. If done correctly, it helps ensure that a character can't be designed to be completely ineffective. If getting a bonus to Basketweaving also means you're getting a bonus to relevant skills, a character is less likely to be completely ineffective. In that way, using a 'base attribute' that helps ensure minimum competency in a group of related functions involves fewer decision points (and thus fewer places to go wrong) then a 100% skill based character where every skill is 'priced' by how relatively beneficial it is.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

If they are strong, they'll likely be good at other Strength-based skills besides weightlifting.

This is the reality we all live in.

Only two things, it isn't reality, it's a game, and it isn't likely, attributes make it set in stone.

And what are the other strength based things? For example... Swordsmanship? Being a good weightlifter makes you a good swordsman? And visa versa? But agile swordsmen can go die in a fire of wasted additional feats and other requirements just to even exist in the first place IF the system even lets them do that? And cunning swordsmen are probably even more screwed again?

In a system where you just put the resources in to be a good swordsman and the system is either agnostic to your cunning or lets you invest in something individual that you just say is "well that's because I'm so cunning isn't it" you would be good to go. In "Int is only good for knowledge skills and wizards" you are wasting an important primary character build resource an gaining nothing but Knowledge(Pocket Watches) in return.

Also weightlifting is a good example of something else, a descriptive quality of only marginal mechanical importance. That you do not get to have without tying it to other more mechanically important abilities, that by their nature are costly in character build resources.

It really shouldn't be that big a deal if you wanted to describe a character like a big wizard who is clumsy and useless at physical combat... but can lift up heavy objects. But no, if the wizard can carry that heavy treasure chest you found on his shoulder, then he is ALSO good with a great sword. And also he therefore didn't invest as much in 5 other attributes of far higher priority than he should have JUST so he could do the gimmick of "yes, I can pick that up!".

And sure, you can say "well screw the weightlifting non-combat wizard concept" what does it matter, we can't represent everyone! But the thing is it's just one of many concepts, and some of them, like the agile swordsmen, are a bigger deal than others, and all of them are screwed by the attribute mechanics, and there are SO MANY character concepts that are screwed like this, and for so many of them the only obstacle is the base attribute mechanics.

They also get a floating +1 to add afterward, so 6, 5, 4, 4, 3 would be a very common character array. 6, 5, 5, 1, 1 would also be a possible build (18 points). The score is the bonus (ie, a six is +6 to attribute relevant checks).

So, +6 is maximum? And a common profile is 6,5,4,4,3, or in other words only 8 bonuses points short of the maximum possible 30 bonus points or 6,6,6,6,6 profile? Or someone can randomly decide to be bad and have 6,5,5,1,1 and be 12 points short of the maximum possible which in a more run of the mill system would still be seen as a pretty generous stat distribution with only 2 dump stats in return for 3 nearly maxed out?

OK, so one of the things about base attributes I've encountered long ago and was originally deeply surprised by is how wildly different group expectations are about just how generous the numbers they get to have can be.

To me those numbers are just intuitively insanely generous. 6,5,4,4,3 (where 6 is maxed out), to me, doesn't feel like a "hard choices" system. To me, that feels like an easy choices system, only a few negligible points away from "ah whatever everyone maxes all the stats".

Under such a system... of course it doesn't feel like there is a big deal with base attributes limiting characters, because you are giving away so many points of base attributes you've almost cancelled out the very existence of the mechanical differentiation they provide.

Or in other words, approaching a point where the values you input into the mechanic, almost make the mechanic itself redundant.

There are a whole host of issues with 3.x, and racial penalties are a garbage fire. That doesn't mean that characters aren't well represented by 'fundamental attributes' that apply to a host of things. If you're as Fast as the Flash, but you can't also dodge bullets, does that even make sense?

First of all sure, why do you have to be good at dodging bullets just because you can run fast?

Plenty of character concepts could include "Run Away!" as part of what they want their character to be, without wanting their character to be a super hero level agility warrior.

But secondly. Just racial penalties? I'd say to some extent Elf(subspecies the smart one) is perhaps MORE of a punch in the guts of wizard character concepts and game balance than Orc(subspecies the stupid one).

There are of course other issues with Race mechanics, and they could have similar issues without base attribute modifiers at all. But the reason racial base attribute modifiers are so very obviously bad... is basically because what base attributes do to character builds and concepts is at it's very foundation just that bad.

[JonSetanta]

So, instead of giving Elves +2 Dex and orcs +4 STR, you might give the former a Dodge or Ranged attack bonus, and the latter a Melee+Thrown attack bonus and/or melee damage bonus?

The stats would be the same as Vanilla Human but they would be, hmm, at least slightly inclined to those abilities without doing things like boosting ability DCs, saves, skill bonuses, or any other class abilities.

Or you could just make sure class numbers far outstack the bonuses granted by stats, by a measure of 1/3 stat bonus and 2/3 class bonus. Or further.

[Foxwarrior]

Or you could just make sure class numbers far outstack the bonuses granted by stats, by a measure of 1/3 stat bonus and 2/3 class bonus. Or further.

This actually doesn't work at all in a d20 system, an extra +3 from ability score is just as good when your class bonus is +1 against DC 10 as when your class bonus is +100001 against DC 100011

[MGuy]

These are just bonuses and penalties at the end of the day. What these things do is create incentives. When you design your game you are deciding what you want to incentivize players to do. If you give an orc +whatever in strong stat you are telling the player that, all other things being equal, that orcs are by a margin of whatever better at doing strong guy things. If you give them +whatever at melee combat you are saying the same thing but for hitting people in punch range. The next question is are you ok with that? If not then you should do another thing. If you are then you just are.

PL is right that this is a thing but after you realize that this is the case you have to ask yourself if you care. Do you want what fantasy creature a player chooses to have implications on what class they choose? If you want that there's nothing inherently wrong with it. The problem comes in if you don't want that. It's the same with attributes. If you tie strong stat to multiple things then anyone who takes the strong stat are not only better at being a punchy person but probably are better at climbing. It's ok to acknowledge that and it's also ok to ask yourself if you are willing to accept it. A lot of people are completely fine with this being the case.

You can only care about supporting a finite number of character concepts. There are practically an infinite number of them. Over the course of designing your game you are going to exclude a lot of character concepts. That's ok. As long as you are supporting the ones you care about that's fine. Even in a product you put out for the masses it's fine to not support infinite character concepts. You can do it in your splat books.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Should you care about Race attribute modifiers and the way they punish real people who want play fictional people against fictional racist stereotype?

Did you care about Gender attribute modifiers and the way they punished real people who wanted to play fictional people against fictional gender stereotype?

Ok. So maybe MGuy doesn't care or think it really matters if you care. But I for one do care and think there is very good reason for the majority of gamers to care too. Even if they are, in the real world white, male, and most privileged of all, elfs.

See, I am VERY much "an ally" to the Orc wizard, just like I was... 20+? years ago when I was an ally to the Female Fighter in disagreement with people who thought attribute modifiers for Gender were awesome in the arguments that indirectly led me to join the Den.

I would LIKE to "virtue signal" because contrary to popular culture, it's awesome and cool to do that and everyone wants to.

But, actually this isn't really about being an ally to others, those characters are fictional. This is about being an ally to my god damn self because this is role playing, those characters are, potentially, ME.

And in a sense that is very different to the real world version of this sort of thing "Next time the person suffering from a harmful Racial/Gender/WTF stereotype could be YOU!". Because in the real world its the hypothetical next life, a significant geographical shift or a massive social upheaval away for you to experience it yourself.

In gaming it could ruin your night next Wednesday.

It's clearly less serious. But it is MUCH more imminent and personal for those of us that are otherwise normally more privileged. And unlike real institutional racism, it is completely within your power as a game designer to casually and personally end the fictional game mechanical racism that could effect you or your players with the stroke of a pen.

[Kaelik]

Mguy is certainly not helping by defending both in the same post with the same argument, but I really wish phonelobster would stop saying "attributes are bad because racial attribute modifiers are bad"

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I really wish phonelobster would stop saying "attributes are bad because racial attribute modifiers are bad"

It's mostly the other way around, racial attribute modifiers are bad because base attributes are bad.

I mean, Race mechanics in general are something nasty stuck to the bottom of gamings shoe even disregarding interactions with base attributes.

But it is the strong spice of badness from base attributes that brings the attention to the racial modifier.

[JonSetanta]

Orc wizards truly should be a thing without INT penalties, just as much as my Gully Dwarf Wizard shouldn't have been verbally shat upon by my (racist?) friends back in the 90s because of hurf durf Weiss/Hickman "it's in the books" stereotypes. I just wanted to play a race that wasn't Kender, yet part of the Dragonlance setting when my group did, well, that.
I really wouldn't be shocked if Weiss and Hickman play MYFAROG every weekend.


In my 3e experiences, Illumians (https://dnd.arkalseif.info/races/races- ... index.html) are The Ultimate Minmaxer Wet Dream, since you would obviously choose "Krau" for +1 caster level combined with... whatever else, and play as a Wizard.

Elves of all types are Tolkein wankery. The "trance" for four hours is pure cheese, better than ANY other species in the entire fucking omniverse, free "racial weapon training" means even if an elf were cloned and raised in an elfless world they would STILL be rewarded for using a longbow, Immunity to Sleep and Charm, +2 to the Best Stat In D&D (DEX), and the 1000-year life span means that without some kind of outside-the-PHB reason eventually every elf will become Epic level, the only exceptions being laziness, XP grind if the DM is using such a thing, or disease (-2 CON).
This probably lead to the LeShay in a previous D&D omniverse, and those godly elves then lived on into the current iteration, as by canon, keeping their class levels and more.

[MGuy]

I do not care what people decide to design. I really don't. If a person wants to design a world where orcs aren't good at being wizards that's actually none of my business. I'm glad you already called yourself out for virtue signaling so I don't have to. Hopefully the strat of calling yourself out so that you pre-empt the obvious thing you'd be labeled as doing works out.

My problem, and I'd argue this is the actual problem, I have with racial disparity in these games are with people who get mad when companies decide they are going to make a game where there is not an attribute based disparity between orc wizards and elf wizards. Any argument anyone makes in opposition of DnD and other games making the shift would necessarily come from a place of hate. Outside of that I do not care about what happens at PL's tables anymore than I care about what happens at anyone else's because it's not my business, I'm not there, and there is no point in making any decisions for people who are not me and don't game with me. The issue is and has always been people who want to make sure problematic ideas are reinforced at every strata of society. I do not actually care that WOTC decided to weigh in on the issue. It is good that they have but I wouldn't have otherwise cared if they never did because if someone ever wanted to play an orc wizard at my table I would happily accommodate. A thing I did more than 15 years ago when I was still in highschool. Anyone who would let a thing as easily adjusted for, and meaningless ruin their game night really needs to get better at gaming with actual people.

What we're talking about is designing a game. Whether or not a thing is 'good' or 'bad' depends entirely on what you want to happen in your game. It is not my job to give a shit what every individual wants to design in their game. What I'm critiquing is this braindead announcement that "X thing can happen if you do Y!!!!" being dropped on repeat as if that's some great insight that means everything on its own. So yes, this goes for the question of "are you ok with orcs being uniformly better at punching than elves" and whether or not you are ok with strong people being better at punching and climbing. No matter what the answer to those questions are (and again I do not fucking care) it is better to think about what you want to promote instead of just obsessing over the fact that your design choices will make a thing happen. If you are ok with (or even desire) either then you will need to keep the fact that you've made that choice in mind when designing the rest of your player creatures and attributes. If you are not ok with these outcomes then just don't do the thing.

[JonSetanta]

To use a real Earth example, take certain "bloodlines", humanity's various genetic bottlenecked physical and/or mental differences (no I'm not talking about skin color) that lead to, say, one mutation grows people to 7-8 feet in height, another doesn't stop muscle growth, another leads to extreme longevity even if the individual smokes and drinks all day every day, another leads to 3-4 foot tall people.
And sometimes you just get cancer. Or ALS. Or an IQ of around 200.
But even then, this is all within the Human Species. Quite literally, other than the rare exception of (just a guess here) maaaaybe combining blood types has some effect to do with fertility rates between individuals, or maybe that's just another mutation I really don't know but would love to lead a genuine study with teams of researchers, etc.

Personally, I'm between 120-140 pounds, 5'9", have an Alium Intolerance, high-functioning autistic, all these traits gear me towards certain activities and, well, exclude me from others, such as Heavyweight UFC MMA, or eating an entire clove of garlic without vomiting and internal itching.

In Fantasy Racism terms, beings very well might be the same race with maybe pointed ears or green skin or magic powers from birth, but IMO I do believe there should be some genetic inclination towards certain in-game behaviors such as food preference or move speed depending on size, but BIG ISSUES like class selection (favored classes? seriously?), combat survivability, and even that stupid "Racial Animosity" between Elves and Dwarves or Orcs and Goblins vs. Everyone Else (damn it Tolkein!) are more important matters to be addressed.

[MGuy]

When I actually think about what I want to design in my game, these days, I start off thinking about what I want people to actually do at the table. I do not think about real world considerations unless they are an immediate factor in what I'm creating. When I'm deciding on what I want Int to do in my game (because as I've said I am doing attributes) I'm not thinking about IQ totals or anything like that. I'm thinking about what am I incentivizing a person with high Int stat to actually do when they are playing the game. What kind of classes, skills, abilities, etc are bolstered by having a higher int? In my game it means you make stuff faster, know factoids about subject areas that come up in game, likely have a higher will save, and more 'slots' for abilities that require them. I'm making a roleplaying game and these attributes, and their related numbers, serve a function where game mechanics are concerned. I do not bother thinking about whether or not having a +1 or +2 in Int corresponds to some IQ score or whatever nonsense.

[JonSetanta]

Yeah... after 30 years of playing every iteration of D&D since 1e (hooo boy was that a mess) I've come to a conclusion that I don't hesitate to tell every gaming group I'm with:

Class abilities should not be as stat-reliant as they are.

If you look back at AD&D's THAC0 and the extremely bad scaling of STR bonus to attack rolls, it was ironically MORE BALANCED between PC and monster to have a slugfest, since you wouldn't have an armor-race to compare which side has the highest AC (and monsters get, what, 3 or 4 + level Natural Armor?) which is then bested by slapping on tons of Belt of Storm Giant STR, Greatsword +5, Bless potions, True Strike wand, I could go on.
It's ridiculous.

So, if you compare that to Spellcaster DC vs. Saves, whoever is Smartest/Wisest/Most Sexy or Whatever gets to not waste their spell slots each round with the target passing every save (NOT Charmed, half damage, NO damage, all the things) just because the PC isn't wearing a Headband of Intellect/Read a Tome of Smarts/Wish for +1 Inherent ON TOP OF +2 or more racial bonus to the SAD Wizard/Sorc/Druid/Cleric/Psion, and last but not least the feat or feats that pump Spell DC by 1... which is like having a +2 to the main stat, just more icing on the cheesecake.
And if a PC does NOT do all this, well, good luck succeeding on the Dominate or Banishment spell you just cast, because it'll have about a 20% chance of success.

[Whatever Jr.]

I do not care about what happens at PL's tables anymore than I care about what happens at anyone else's because it's not my business, I'm not there, and there is no point in making any decisions for people who are not me and don't game with me.

What we're talking about is designing a game.

Pick one, dipshit

[MGuy]

Do you think these quotes are contradictory somehow?

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

I guess one could argue that making decisions for people who aren't you and don't game with you is the point of designing a game?