Stat replacement... ruins the game?

[TavishArtair]

I've been mulling over a game-rule-thing recently, yeah, I know, we all have our personal game design. Well, one of the questions that came up in my mind was "Should I allow some kind of stat replacement?" For reference, the intended system has strictly delineated stats that do not overlap with each other (4 in total, two physical, two mental) very much in concept. However, in reality certain archetypes are going to be based more on one stat than another and I am pondering if I should allow some minimal frequency of that effect.

Specifically, I am talking about things that either let you make a de facto replacement... say, adding Wisdom to AC when Dexterity is the primary modifier most of the time... or actually de jure replace, such as using Intelligence for HP instead of Constitution. In a game with more strictly defined stats and clear niches, does this ever not ruin the game?

[Username17]

It can not ruin the game (as opposed to something that can't ruin the game) if you have a lot of tasks and you're replacing one stat with another for purposes of one of them at a time. Using Charisma instead of Strength for purposes of Climbing is really no different than getting a "magic" attack that lets you perform a ranged attack with Intelligence instead of Dexterity.

Replacing one stat with another for broad swathes of the game is almost universally unbalanced (see Charisma to Hit Points in D&D), and replacing your stat line with one you found somewhere in a monster book is apeshit.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

I can see it working if you're careful about how you allow it. It can be a clever way to reduce MAD, but you have to pay attention to ways PCs could pick up multiple abilities (if multiclassing is allowed) to turn themselves into SAD characters.

I have no problem in a system like this to have all PCs be two stat reliant. Although, maybe without something like this, they might otherwise be three stat. Lets say you want a monk to be primarily Str/Wis. Perhaps you want to let them apply Wis to AC instead of Dex. That in and of itself I think would be fine, but you'd have to be careful to make sure that they couldn't take enough feats/classes to get Wis to everything.

I suppose some easy fix would be some arbitrary bullshit rule that said that you can only ever get X stat replacements per character, but that seems like an ugly hack to me.

Alternately, if you don't allow stat replacements, you need to figure out how to let the Str/Wis guy get a good enough AC if he doesn't wear armor. So, an armor wearing Str/Wis samurai would be just fine, but a monk wouldn't, unless he's rewritten to be Dex/Wis or something.

[Doom]

I suppose in theory it can be done, but the lesson of DnD4.0 is that it's really easy to screw it up badly.

Using Intelligence to dodge blows, instead of Dexterity, might seem like a good balance idea, but it causes weird quirks (eg, Intelligence is almost universally a dump stat), above and beyond the unsettling "he's too smart to duck"; I'd rather be able to use BOTH stats to accomplish the same thing, much as great athletes generally don't rely on just one of their physical attributes to create success.

Doesn't it make more sense that a smart, agile boxer is better at avoiding blows than just a smart boxer?

And while sometimes being able to substitute one stat 'magically' for another (eg, Charisma to use a bow), too much of that--again, DnD4.0 comes to mind--and the character too easily visualizes into an amorphous blob. "I have a 22", instead of "I have a 22 intelligence" or "I have a 22 strength"; once you can trivially use intelligence or strength to swing a sword, climb a tree, and solve a crossword puzzle, the words no longer have any meaning.

[Judging__Eagle]

Doom314, Intelligence is most certainly not a dump stat for many players.

Usually, it's one of my primary stats in most of my characters. Caster or non caster.

and a good chunk of the people who play in my games tend to not dump Int.

[Doom]

Well, all classes are casters in DnD4.0.

In my campaign, except for when someone creates a wizard (played and abandoned every time) and swordmage (played only one time), it's been an 8 for every character. Since skills don't flow from intelligence anyway, there's just little reason to have extra intelligence. For the additional language feat?

I guess also for the Religion skill, but that's messed up anyways, and should be wisdom-based, seeing as there's a skill challenge example where a successful religion roll lets the character make a good prayer.

Dexterity, if all else fails, will grant a bonus to initiative and to ranged weapon attacks...there's no 'if all else fails' for Int.

Even though being able to solve a crossword puzzle is interchangeable for juggling for most everything, there're still combat benefits that Dex gets over Int, however miniscule, and a combat benefit is alot in a game that's designed around combat.

(Edit--oops, I remember now that there's a warlock for whom, presumably, int might not be dump, I'd have to go check)

[Username17]

Doom314, Intelligence is most certainly not a dump stat for many players.

Usually, it's one of my primary stats in most of my characters. Caster or non caster.

and a good chunk of the people who play in my games tend to not dump Int.

He's talking 4e. Where Intelligence just adds to some skills and the higher of Intelligence or Dexterity is 1 or 2 of your defenses (depending upon whether you wear heavy armor or not). In that instance, Intelligence is basically across the board inferior to Dexterity, because Dexterity does all that shit except that it also adds to Initiative.

In the 4e paradigm, your stat assignments are basically your class. And every ability is simply a "stat replacement" in the sense described by the OP. You get your Fearsome Smite and then you use Charisma to attack while using it. Or you get Riposte Strike and you use Dexterity to attack instead.

And in that model, the only reason to have stats at all is to have the ability pools be different. If you make Holy Strike (Strength to-hit with Strength + Charisma to damage) exactly the same as Sly Flourish (Dexterity to-hit with Dexterity + Charisma to damage), then there's no purpose in any of your stats existing at all.

And that's the basic problem with attributes across the board. If you have the different things they do be balanced enough to be interchangeable they are a waste of space on the character sheet and the entire subsystem is ruined.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Doom314, Warlocks are the worst class in the game by a substantial margin so I can't really be bothered by anything they do.

Sure, there are worse VARIANTS of classes, such as the STR/CHA paladin the game suggests you use or the beastmaster ranger or the STR/CHA barbarian, but for all-around suckage you can't really beat the warlock. Even bullshit classes like the invoker and the shaman aren't useless so much as being trivially outclassed by other ones, in the same sense that the 3.5E ranger is a better class than the 3.5E paladin. The warlock is the one class I actually ban newbies from playing when I run 4.0E games. I try to steer them towards wizards or rangers or if they absolutely have to play a Speshull Snohweflaykke caster even sorcerer, even though sorcerer is in every way worse than a STR/INT genasi wizard.

[NineInchNall]

Replacing one stat with another for broad swathes of the game is almost universally unbalanced (see Charisma to Hit Points in D&D), and replacing your stat line with one you found somewhere in a monster book is apeshit.

Unless everyone can do it with the same efficacy.

[ubernoob]

Replacing one stat with another for broad swathes of the game is almost universally unbalanced (see Charisma to Hit Points in D&D), and replacing your stat line with one you found somewhere in a monster book is apeshit.

Unless everyone can do it with the same efficacy.

In which case, why have stats at all?

[RandomCasualty2]

And in that model, the only reason to have stats at all is to have the ability pools be different. If you make Holy Strike (Strength to-hit with Strength + Charisma to damage) exactly the same as Sly Flourish (Dexterity to-hit with Dexterity + Charisma to damage), then there's no purpose in any of your stats existing at all.

And that's the basic problem with attributes across the board. If you have the different things they do be balanced enough to be interchangeable they are a waste of space on the character sheet and the entire subsystem is ruined.

Really I never liked ability scores in class based games in the first place. The purpose of your class is to determine what you can do. And when you have open multiclassing, you can dip into different areas. Ability scores tend to just fuck up any kind of multiclassing to the point where they just dictate what you can't do. Really the only thing ability scores ever do in 4E (and really 3E to a lesser extent) is close off what options you can take with regards to multiclasses. Having a 10 int basically means you can't be a multiclass wizard.

Only, that's stupid because your class levels are limited anyway, so you might as well just say that the limitation on people being wizards is that they have to take wizard levels (or wizard powers in 4E).

Really, ability scores just end up killing people's concepts and doing stupid bullshit like in 4E where you have to plan your character from the start so you can qualify for epic blade mastery feat or whatever the fuck its called.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't mind having ability scores or the like in games which have universally attemptable actions like in Shadowrun or D&D. I think that wizards should have a chance at forcing open doors or barbarians have a chance at deciphering magical scrolls.

The problem is that with skill rank inflation in D&D ability scores lose their benefit. While a wizard has a decent chance with a crossbow at low levels, even if their dexterity score isn't that great, their ability to use it falls off of the wayside.

In games like Shadowrun where it is expected that the rigger will sometimes have to do some shooting or the street samurai will have to try to assemble a knife and a flashlight to fend off ghouls then ability scores work fine. But that game is sane with skill rank inflation.

[RandomCasualty2]

I don't mind having ability scores or the like in games which have universally attemptable actions like in Shadowrun or D&D. I think that wizards should have a chance at forcing open doors or barbarians have a chance at deciphering magical scrolls.

Well honestly you really don't. D&D is a game of experts. When you want magic deciphered you hand shit to the wizard and he does that. It really doesn't matter if the barbarian has a 5% chance or a 0% chance of deciphering crap, because pretty much most of the time, it doesn't matter.

Now certain things you probably want to have a base chance, like stealth abilities. But really, for the most part, I don't think it's even necessary to have a dex score for people. You can set a base stealth chance based on the armor the guy is wearing. People won't even get upset if their character isn't slightly better/worse at a schtick that they didn't think was important to take, so really handing everyone the same chance is probably okay and tends to open up more options at the cost of slightly annoying the simulationists.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's almost as RC2 completely forgot that the skill challenge system was completely supposed to overturn all of that.

Of course, it didn't even come close towards doing that mostly because of bad math and conflicting design goals (seriously, I'm not sure whether your paladin supposed to roll Intimidate hardcore for the Explore the Jungle SC or the game expected them to primarily use Perception), but people love that shit so it's here to stay and is worth talking about.

[Doom]

Doom314, Warlocks are the worst class in the game by a substantial margin so I can't really be bothered by anything they do.

.

Hey, I never said the warlock was good...just that the one warlock I've had in my games might not have used Int as a dump stat.

[TavishArtair]

Yes, 4e design basically uses All Stat Replacement, All The Time. Which is kind of something I abhor. I don't really mind that you can kill a fool with any of the stats on your character sheet, including underwater basketweaving ranks, however, to me, having Mind Control be under Int, Wis, or Cha, aside from the absurd overlap of those stats, offends me by not giving a schtick to anyone, so no one gets a schtick. It's kind of like the Syndrome (of Invincibles) answer to Superheroes:

No one will be super when everyone is super!

In this case, I'm constructing a game that doesn't use rigid class hierarchy (though I expect the functional result will be akin to "archetypes" a la Shadowrun which effectively "class" you). Stats will be functionally associated with certain power sources, such that a single stat will have a proponderance of abilities from that power source. Since the different power sources will do pretty different things, and generally having a high resistance to a power source will also be associated with that stat, the question of "should I let someone avoid STR-based attacks with DEX-based defenses?" came up in my mind.

[RobbyPants]

That's Incredibles, not Invincibles. Still, I agree with your point. If you can use any stat for anything, why have stats?

[TheWorid]

Increasing the level of pedantry further, the line is:

"And when everyone's super - no one will be."

I as well agree with your post, however. It galls me that stat replacement allows the functional removal of certain scores as relevant.

[TavishArtair]

The sad thing is I actually looked it up, saw "Incredibles", noted to myself "It's Incredibles, Invincible is the comic." And then wrote Invincibles anyways. Sigh.

[Lago PARANOIA]

"And when everyone's super - no one will be."

This is beyond the scope of the thread, but I really hate that quote--or rather, what the movie was trying to do when they stuck those words into the villain's mouth.

[Cielingcat]

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say; could you make a new thread about it?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Sure, why not.

[Dagda]

From a purely mechanical view, stats in a traditional RPG system have two vital roles in the game's design. First, they encourage the player to focus on certain packages of abilities (someone with a high Strength has more reason to take ranks in Jump and wield a greatsword with the Power Attack feat, for example). Second, they're an elegant form of balance (or could be if implemented properly); a way to balance the multiclass fighter-mage against someone who focuses purely on cracking (or roasting) skulls, without resorting to ham-handed restrictions.

By increasing the degree to which someone can rely on a single skill, stat replacement mechanics can make specialized builds strong enough that more versatile ones aren't a viable option. But there's plenty of ways to compensate for that, even just by increasing the rate at which the cost to increase a stat escalates. And stat replacement can make the game more engaging, by giving players a chance improvise and strengthening the connection between the mechanics and the in-character events. What sort of maneuver could let me Feint using my constitution?

Of course, there's plenty of ways to keep stat replacement under control. Make it cost an action point, or treat the modifier of any replacement stat as being 1 or 2 lower. Both options make the system less restrictive without being too open to exploitation.

[TavishArtair]

One of the modifiers I am considering for this setup, to encourage people who want to play (for instance) psychics who have preternatural danger senses with high WIS and not so much DEX is to go "if X is higher than Y, then add (value) to Y for this task." This will help them close the gap for certain things which could be cross-schtick, without giving them a flat replacement that would allow them to completely overshadow people who had actually put points into that stat.