Boolean wrote:How about one "universal" attack for each stat?
STR v STR = Disarm?
DEX v DEX = Trip
CON v CON = Bull Rush
INT v INT = Distract
WIS v WIS = Hide?
CHA v CHA = Intimidate
:trying to figure out why health is more relevant to pushing people around than strength:
I don't see that as being worth the conceptual trouble. So long as each stat is good enough in the right circumstances, there's no need to try to come up with some 'ideal balance' where an attribute is always opposed by the same attribute and every attribute has one general combat attack.
That said, having reasonable uses for each attribute in combat for every character is a worthwhile goal.
[Edit] To clarify, I don't think that it's worth the trouble when using an attribute system that's inherently unbalanced. [/Edit]
Last edited by CatharzGodfoot on Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
We can likely merge some of those effects. I can see bull rush including trip in its tiered effect (though maybe not the other way around), distract/hide being part of the same ladder, etc.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
I would indeed really like it if there was a list of a couple of things you could do with each stat inherently just for being a humanoid. One of the biggest (justified) complaints about D&D 4e is the fact that there's so little normal stuff that people can just do. I would like it if not only were your actual cultural and caste abilities something to write home about, but that your basic tactics were varied and interesting without falling back on them.
For example: Charisma should allow you to Intimidate (to damage morale), Feint Attack (to stab people for real damage), and Draw Off (to delay an enemy), and Rally (to try to raise morale). Just inherently that should be a list of things that anyone with a decent Charisma Modifier should consider doing. They get a little AoE attack (Boo!), a little combat stalling (Psyche!), a little damaging attack (underhanded stab), and a little healing (We can do it!).
Everyone should just be able to do stuff, with attributes determining at which substantial list of the even more substantial overall list that they are able to use consistently well. But I mean even then monsters should have some very big defensive discrepancies, so even someone who is not a Dex fighter should seriously consider trying to trip up an Ogre while in melee.
But what about that other goal you mention, concerning people only being able to remember up to 7 things before forgetting stuff more than half the time? Just having two abilities per attribute can add up to a large sum of combat actions.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
virgileso wrote:But what about that other goal you mention, concerning people only being able to remember up to 7 things before forgetting stuff more than half the time? Just having two abilities per attribute can add up to a large sum of combat actions.
I think that's what levelling up is supposed to help with. At first level, you can do everything that anybody could potentially do, plus a few gimmicks that require a bit of training.
Anybody can doodle, but to draw a caricature you need to pursue an Artistic Bent. You can give anyone a sword and they'll know that the pointy end goes into the other man, but you have to learn how to fence before you can be called a swashbuckler.
I had a signature here once but I've since lost it.
Sounds like it. The remembering all that crap is less of a problem than you'd think. Just making it a separate list really helps the brain sort it all out and seeing its the default stuff it won't be a surprise when someone pulls one of these actions out.
Frank, does your comment about tripping Ogres mean you've abandoned the "correct ability targeting should give no more than a +/- 4" standard?
Also, a problem I had in trying to stat up a playable Narakan demo the other day:
Could you clear up for me what the conceptual differences are between Strength and Con and Wis and Cha?
I get that Strength defends against being shoved/grappled and CON against being poisoned/blown up, but how do I know whether an active ability should be STR or CON based?
For WIS and CHA, the opposite problem. I have a feel for CHA-based vs. WIS-based attacks, but not for the defenses. Right now I'm assuming illusions and feints target INT, Charms and maybe stealth target WIS, and Fear targets CHA, but what is the distinction between attacking WIS and CHA?
EDIT: oh, and where is the thread where you spell out the six schools of Naraka and their names/themes? I can't find it in the compilation thread.
Last edited by Orion on Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Frank, does your comment about tripping Ogres mean you've abandoned the "correct ability targeting should give no more than a +/- 4" standard?
Only for "monsters." Giant slugs should have a wild disparity between speed and resilience based defenses. Wilder than a player character should have the option of having.
Boolean wrote:EDIT: oh, and where is the thread where you spell out the six schools of Naraka and their names/themes? I can't find it in the compilation thread.
It's there - of course, the name's deceptive enough.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
