What do the 3.x stats mean?

Endovior · Post by **Endovior** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:34 am

Really, I'm not sure why you'd hold up famous scientists as paragons of stats that aren't Intelligence.

Einstein was Intelligent.
Confucius was Wise.
Hitler was Charismatic.

Now, all three of these individuals almost certainly were above average in all three categories. Indeed, unlike in D&D, most people who have a high ability in one of these categories aren't terrible at the others, since a well-developed human mind would normally develop in a well-rounded way, rather then in a savant-type way (unlike in D&D, of course, where people frequently abuse point buy to have a high score in the stat they care about and dump the others). Even so, to the point where we're wanting to note individuals of exceptional talent in these areas, you'll want to note your smart scientist-types in the first category, your sagely mystics in the second, and your confident politicians in the third, because those categories are where those types of people wind up.

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:11 pm

Maj wrote:Where does knowledge obtained with study and research (insight) fit? Ignore?

Skills.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 pm

My bad. I meant to type "without."

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:27 pm

The idea that it's possible to be 'wise' without being 'intelligent' is bullshit anti-intellectualism wishful thinking.

Wisdom shouldn't have anything to do with how smart you sound or perceive things. The only effect that it should have is your level of mental willpower and the strength of your primary senses. That's it.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:57 pm

I would cut out Wisdom, give Willpower trait to Charisma, and give senses bonus to Constitution.

Still in favor of 3 stats since it's less mess, but the issue of inappropriate abstraction is still there.

For Valor · Post by **For Valor** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:06 pm

but then, what is charisma?

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:24 pm

A mistake.

The worst interpretation I keep encountering is "appearance", and then those with counter opinions go and make a new stat called "Comeliness", which is even worse.

I settle for "force of personality" but even then if you've ever met, say, a true guido from Jersey Beach, they have too much personality. To be bursting with "Charisma" by that definition is to be an irreconcilable douchebag because you will only be tolerated by other douchebags.
That's not "socially competent" at all, but somehow the same stat for Intimidate and Bluff judges the Diplomacy bonus as well.
Obviously this doesn't work in a realistic sense, but my preference for less stats and more abstraction at least removes the pain of slapping ridiculous subdefinitions for mental properties. I'd rather call it all an abstract "Mind" and be done.

For Valor · Post by **For Valor** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:29 pm

what did Frank recommend..?

Intelligence, Perception, Willpower. Yeah. That was it. Willpower to Will Saves, Perception to Init I think, and Int to skills and stuff.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:12 pm

I think Alternity has something like that.

CCarter · Post by **CCarter** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:19 am

sigma999 wrote:I think Alternity has something like that.

Alternity has Intelligence, Will, Personality

(e.g. see here; here's a list of the stats used for a large-ish number of systems)
http://www.fudgery.net/omnium-gatherum/lag.html

Awareness is a Will-based skill is Alternity.

K · Post by K » Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:23 am

I think DnD has too many stats in general. I mean, the saves and base stats can just be folded into each other and no one would notice and you could lose 3-4 stats without anyone even noticing.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:09 am

CCarter, thanks.

K wrote:I think DnD has too many stats in general. I mean, the saves and base stats can just be folded into each other and no one would notice and you could lose 3-4 stats without anyone even noticing.

What would you take out and what would you leave in?

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:34 am

Well, I suppose you could have "Mind" and "Body" as your stats, and then cover the details with traits like "Absentminded Intellectual: +2 bonus to knowledge skills and -2 penalty to will saves and perception checks"

power word wedgie · Post by **power word wedgie** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:05 pm

Maj wrote:Where does knowledge obtained with study and research (insight) fit? Ignore?

In my opinion, that would fit in with experience points.

Actually, the ability wisdom would be a lousy stat for that since players can "start off from youth" with a high wisdom. With it fitting under experience points, it is showing that one is learning over time.

Saxony · Post by **Saxony** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:52 pm

So experience points is more a measure of age, then number of monsters killed?

Interesting.

In DnD you can kill monsters to learn more about the planes, so breaking away from that works with me.

power word wedgie · Post by **power word wedgie** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:37 am

Killing monsters is only one way to gain experience points - it is the most common since it is the most direct way with a prescribed manner of reward through the game. However, gaining experience points for accomplishing a goal is not uncommon - it has been done forever in adventures. In fact by killing monsters you are accomplishing a goal if you think about it.

After all, there are various levels of commoner who never adventured, and clerics at temples were not "100%" all adventurers that retired. It is just that the game focuses more on the adventuring since that is what all the players are. (I guess the commoner roleplaying game never took off ...

)

Saxony · Post by **Saxony** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:40 am

Stream of consciousness:

Kill experience improving non-killing related characteristics is unrealistic.

But it makes games easier to play. If improving knowledge of the planes required accomplishing goals related to knowledge of the planes, the game would be more tedious.

A game's entertainment is based off many variables (realism and playability among them). I was getting hung up on just one.

Silly me, not thinking of multiple variables.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:08 pm

I'd like to see a skill system that rewards PCs and NPCs for repetitively using a skill over long periods of time, such as seasons or years, so that the bonus is independent from level.

You could have a blacksmith with Craft checks +20 for doing it for 20 years, or a clerk with Profession +10 for similar reasons. The bonus would be best accumulating the first 5 or so quickly and then tapering off as time increases.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:26 am

With the skill rules as they are now (DC 20 is masterwork, DC 30 is legendary), you wouldn't even need to advance them that much, just a couple levels makes you pretty highly skilled:

L2: 5 ranks + 1 Int + 3 Skill Focus + 2 Tools => Already a master, capable of producing Masterworks reliably and unaided.
L4: 7 ranks + 2 Int + 3 Focus + 2 Tools + 2 Assistant => Able to produce incredible works (DC 25) reliably. On a good day, can produce items of legendary quality.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:55 am

sigma999 wrote:I'd like to see a skill system that rewards PCs and NPCs for repetitively using a skill over long periods of time, such as seasons or years, so that the bonus is independent from level.

You could have a blacksmith with Craft checks +20 for doing it for 20 years, or a clerk with Profession +10 for similar reasons. The bonus would be best accumulating the first 5 or so quickly and then tapering off as time increases.

Easy, just give skill points for leveling up AND ALSO give them for aging or training or whatever else you want. That way your PCs can get lots of skills within a few months, and the normal useless people have to work for months or years to get the same level of training.

You would have to decouple the idea of maximum skill ranks from level though, and so such a plan wouldn't work out of the box for DnD at all.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:00 pm

Why would skill ranks be affected at all?
Call it a Time Bonus for what accumulates over performing the same skill 8 hours a day, every day, for years.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:51 pm

If ranks aren't affected, then you can't go from untrained to trained in a skill. If ranks aren't affected, then your rank based effects (such as [Skill] feats from Tome) aren't going to get benefit from you having trained your skill for 20 years.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:54 pm

There could be a cap on Time Bonus due to a character's ranks, yes, but one shouldn't need more than Craft (Armorsmithing) Rank 4 for a degree of mastery over the course of a decade that rivals that of any Fighter's casual investiture of skill points.

In fact that's absolutely how it should go since the blacksmith is doing nothing but that while the Fighter only does it on their downtime.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:19 am

Funny then that you'd pick the one skill that is a class skill for all classes, and thus anyone can just throw points into at full value. better that you picked a value that a person can casually get at level 1 by just not giving a fuck what their other skills are.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:50 am

Assuming L1 Commoner or Expert, that is.

You know, your average NPC.

The same applies to your average Merchant (Expert) with 4 ranks in Appraise, Bluff, and Sense Motive, and your average Barkeep (Expert) with Profession (Barkeep) and Gather Information.
They're going to be damned good at what they do. It's just not right that a PC can throw extra SP at a skill and say "You're no better than I am, and I do this for one day every few months"