3.xth Edition: Attributes

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:19 am

So, if you remove Charisma as a stat, what attribute modifies things like Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc etc.

Also, if Wisdom loses its perception role, what skills is it getting? Sense Motive, Spot, Listen, etc all go over to Int. Perhaps things like Intimidate are said to be an issue of willpower?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:05 am

Well those "feats" didn't originally exist, and do not need to now. So if you want to remove Charisma as a stat, you can go old-fashioned and do it as player and DM. While the DM knows all the facts of your character, and what lies may be being told, it doesn't mean that each NPC he plays should. So a good DM can separate the knowledge he has from the NPCs, just like a player doesn't assume a new character knows each monster and any potential weakness it has.

So for any social interaction between the characters and NPC, the players and DM would actually interact as those respective characters. You would use your skills based on the PCs abilities/background/design/etc to fulfill the role of the character in the social interaction.

Those for wisdom also did not exist prior to WotC, so you don't need them either. Searching an area takes care of spot. You own intuition handles sense motive sense the DM would be portraying the NPC. The DM should tell you (sometimes you have to ask) if you hear anything that would catch your attention. These things used to be held in modules outside of the spoken/boxed text, and included in the for basic room or other descriptions.

3rd edition in reading it, and playing it was vastly different experince than previous editions because of the amount of detail and inter-player interaction other than conversing with each other. The DM was already being removed from play prior to 4th edition which also contains those oddities such as feats that could be player activities rather than relegated to dice rolls and statistics.

In part it was done to grasp a larger audience, and it worked; but at the same time it lost a lot of what many looked for in the game.

None of those "skills" would be found prior to 3rd edition in D&D as based solely on an ability score. They would be handled solely through gameplay and interaction between the DM and the players.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:06 am

Caedrus wrote:So, if you remove Charisma as a stat, what attribute modifies things like Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc etc.

Either no stat or a set of stats made up specifically for the social minigame that are separate from the combat minigame stats.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:51 pm

Personally, I think that Intelligence should get the Willpower and Wisdom should get the perception. It just seems like mentally dominating a wizard should be harder than getting a priest to switch sides.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:55 pm

Frank wrote:Personally, I think that Intelligence should get the Willpower and Wisdom should get the perception.

This.

There is no reason why a pack of wolves should be harder to scare/charm than a militia of dwarves. Similarly, we also want to keep the archetype of 'giant badass who still doesn't know what's going on around their own ass', vital for the stories of Jack the Giantkiller and Bilbo vs. Smaug.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:19 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:How is that any different from deciding that you're going to translate the document in Old Draconic and then rolling dice to see if you succeed? The decision to try is the player's, but the ability to succeed is the providence of the dice.

Or how about deciding to go talk to the guys on the dock to see if any of them would be willing to part with some sun rods? Wouldn't rolling dice to see if that social endeavor was successful?

Some actions require rolls, others don't. For instance, it doesn't require a roll for me to cast wall of stone. If I chose to prepare it earlier and I haven't cast it yet, I can totally just cast that and it works every time.

In every game, some things are going to require dice, and others aren't. And that should be the goal. Not every action should require a dice roll. Randomness is a quality that can sometimes improve the game experience, but if you overuse it, in inevitably becomes a hindrance.

You can make a good game without randomness, but you cannot make one without player choice.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:50 pm

Nah. There's tons of source material in which wizards are weak against mindcontrol.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:38 pm

Oy vey.

RC2 wrote:In every game, some things are going to require dice, and others aren't. And that should be the goal. Not every action should require a dice roll. Randomness is a quality that can sometimes improve the game experience, but if you overuse it, in inevitably becomes a hindrance.

Wall of Stone is supposed to work 100% of the time. If it wasn't there would be a stat based on it and we would roll it.

When you talk to someone you're not supposed to convince them 100% of the time. That's why you roll THAT. If the outcome wasn't supposed to be random you wouldn't roll it.

There is no way in the fucking universe you can have randomness if you're relying on some arbitrary factor like the DM's mood or your acting skill.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:44 am

The way I see it, you'd be looking at two mental stats... intelligence and will. Social skills would fill up what Wis has lost in perception skills, as those have to do with exerting your will over others, and stuff like confidence and will helps with your diplomacy, intimidation, etc. By contrast, Int helps you figure stuff out, such as realizing that an illusion is fake, or searching more efficiently and thoroughly, etc.

I get what Frank's saying, though. He wants priests to be wis based and wizards to be int based and for those abilities to correspond with how he sees those classes acting, even if Int and Will seem to be very different things; at least in the fiction I'm looking at. But eh. I don't quite see it the way he does. The hero priests I think of are pretty willful (Paladins, anyone?), but I think of characters like Doc Ock in Spectacular Spiderman for high int, low will. But to each their own, I guess. The wis-->will-->cha thing also works in the sense that classically you'd have wis and cha go together for the attribute investments of divine sorts.

Moreover, Willpower and Intellect seems like a more concrete divide to me than Wisdom and Intelligence.

Boolean wrote:Nah. There's tons of source material in which wizards are weak against mindcontrol.

I agree. There's also plenty of source material where a person of faith is better able to resist mind control and otherwise being tempted from their course, guided by their faithful convictions.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:08 am

Caedrus wrote:I agree. There's also plenty of source material where a person of faith is better able to resist mind control and otherwise being tempted from their course, guided by their faithful convictions.

Sure. There is plenty of source material to justify splitting up the mental stats any way you like. There's an awful lot of source material that would justify making Diplomacy checks based on your Dexterity. And you know what? I don't fucking care.

At some point you have to decide what's most important to have. Willful and unobservant necromancers with insightfully observant but easily corrupted priests? Or vice versa? You have to make that call and stick to it. You can't just comb all fantasy literature for source material and argue for it.

For every Presto there's a Sauroman. That's just how the genre works.

-Username17

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:19 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
Caedrus wrote:I agree. There's also plenty of source material where a person of faith is better able to resist mind control and otherwise being tempted from their course, guided by their faithful convictions.
Sure. There is plenty of source material to justify splitting up the mental stats any way you like. There's an awful lot of source material that would justify making Diplomacy checks based on your Dexterity. And you know what? I don't fucking care.

...So... you're echoing the sentiment in my immediately preceding post:

to each their own

At some point you have to decide what's most important to have. Willful and unobservant necromancers with insightfully observant but easily corrupted priests? Or vice versa? You have to make that call and stick to it.

Yup!

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:21 am

Let me clarify.

I am strongly in favor of low will saves for "wizard" archetypes, especially in an iron age environment.

I didn't want to reprint my entire argument from the last time this came up.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:38 am

Assuming for the moment that most stuns and charms are wizard spells, I am strongly in favor of wizards having their highest defense be Willpower. If the achilles heel of a wizard is a wizard you have the beginnings of a serious balance issue going on.

-Username17

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:17 am

When an eldritch horror appears, it needs to have a fear aura. The fear aura needs to affect someone in the party.

It can't affect the fighter, because heroic warriors need to be able to stab monsters in the face. If "rogue" is separate, it can hit the rogue. It probably shouldn't hit the priest, if as in most D&D settings the JOB of priests in the setting is supposed to be quelling supernatural evil. Therefore it needs to hit the wizard.

Priests can only have low will if the setting is very different from the D&D standard.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:19 am

That would be like giving a fighter low hit points so that fighters could kill each other in a single blow.

Wizards need to be able to have a draw out fight with each other, I agree.

Their strength should be the thing they gain power from, which means they shouldn't be weak to their own power.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:33 am

Boolean wrote:When an eldritch horror appears, it needs to have a fear aura. The fear aura needs to affect someone in the party.

It can't affect the fighter, because heroic warriors need to be able to stab monsters in the face. If "rogue" is separate, it can hit the rogue. It probably shouldn't hit the priest, if as in most D&D settings the JOB of priests in the setting is supposed to be quelling supernatural evil. Therefore it needs to hit the wizard.

Priests can only have low will if the setting is very different from the D&D standard.

Alternately, protagonists can't be taken out by fear auras. It sucks to have your character reduced to gibbering in the corner any time, nevermind during the climactic battle.

The guy who gets driven off by the fear aura is the sidekick.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:08 pm

IGTN wrote:The guy who gets driven off by the fear aura is the sidekick.

So whose sidekick was Batman when facing the Scarecrow?

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:16 pm

Scarecrow's power is a targeted or area fear, effectively. He sprays it on people, it requires active effort on his part.

Fear effects can totally work on heroes without fear auras (a la 3.x true dragons) having to do so.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:24 pm

But the point is even stronger there. If the best way to drop the necromancer is with a fear effect, you have a balance problem. That concession alone is the beginning of the "Why am I even here?" question coming from the swordsman.

Character A should have his highest defense be against his own specialest attack. Because if he doesn't it breaks the teamwork synergy paradigm.

-Username17

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:25 pm

Then take mindwhammy away form "mage" and give it "priest." Make mages conjure shit and priests influence people.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:39 pm

What does fear have to do with wisdom? I have a fear of heights. I know that the bridges I was on are engineered and mechanically sound, but freeze when walking over them, and when/before driving over extremely tall ones.

Fear is contrary to INT not WIS. It is something that goes against what you know for a fact is not dangerous. You would have to also give and explain why you gave, illusions to "priest". For that matter since "priest" work form divine/god-like powers, then all creation would be given to them as well...might as well get rid of the "mage" entirely at that point.

Granted religion is all about fear, but in the game it isn't the only thing that should cause it, be it natural or "magical".

As it sits (in 2nd edition) fear affects both INT and WIS equally.

Intelligence
Intelligence (Int) represents a character's memory, reasoning,

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Wisdom
Wisdom (Wis) describes a composite of the character's enlightenment, judgment,

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

So fear should belong to both the "mage" and the "priest" if you would accept those definitions for those attributes.

What would you change from INT to give to WIS in order to give it all to the "priest"?

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:19 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Assuming for the moment that most stuns and charms are wizard spells, I am strongly in favor of wizards having their highest defense be Willpower. If the achilles heel of a wizard is a wizard you have the beginnings of a serious balance issue going on.

Well willpower as a save won't really help there, because wizards can attack all defenses. That's really what makes them the ultimate offense. To counter a wizard you need high fortitude, reflex, will and touch AC. Where as to counter a fighter, you basically just need AC or a miss chance.

And even if you have all that stuff to defend against a wizard, they still have spells that automatically affect you, regardless of defense rolls.

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:59 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Well willpower as a save won't really help there, because wizards can attack all defenses. That's really what makes them the ultimate offense. To counter a wizard you need high fortitude, reflex, will and touch AC. Where as to counter a fighter, you basically just need AC or a miss chance.

And even if you have all that stuff to defend against a wizard, they still have spells that automatically affect you, regardless of defense rolls.

The current state of D&D has little to no bearing on a hypothetical total rework of D&D.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:03 pm

Quantumboost wrote: The current state of D&D has little to no bearing on a hypothetical total rework of D&D.

Well, yes and no.

While the mechanics inevitably can change, since we are talking about a reworking, we're going to keep the flavor relatively similar. So long as you've got wizards tossing energy bolts, explosions and mind control, it's pretty obvious that wizards will attack a large number of defense types, simply because their range of possible attacks are so varied.

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:17 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote:While the mechanics inevitably can change, since we are talking about a reworking, we're going to keep the flavor relatively similar. So long as you've got wizards tossing energy bolts, explosions and mind control, it's pretty obvious that wizards will attack a large number of defense types, simply because their range of possible attacks are so varied.

Except that you can still have attack/defense symmetry then, because an explosion wizard bases their power off of strength and targets fortitude; a laser wizard attacks with dexterity and targets reflex; and the beguiler uses intelligence to attack will (hypothetically).

If the mechanics - especially the ability scores - are changing, a fireball being based off of Int is no longer guaranteed.