3.xth Edition: Attributes

[MGuy]

This came up as a short side discussion in another thread but it has gotten me thinking about attributes. I've always thought there should be an attribute that represented mental fortitude (as no other attribute really caters to this) but I had not thought of any particular attribute worth folding over. Despite what was said in the other thread each attribute IMO seems to have an adequate role and use deserving distinction at character creation.

Strength represents physical Power, Dexterity is agility, Constitution is endurance, Intelligence measures reasoning/memory/etc, Wisdom is perception, and Charisma represents force of personality. I can't fathom a real reason to rid the game of any of these. In fact I'd add another attribute to more accurately represent will and casting power (lets call it Will Power for now) and have it represent the spell power for all casters along with being the attribute that affected Will.

However, I'm interested in knowing why people do/don't like how it is and how/why would you add/remove/change what's there. From what I gathered from the small aside over this subject Constitution isn't tied to enough subsystems in 3rd and has no real place in 4th's abilities. Charisma (according to Frank IIRC) takes away spotlight from those who don't care about it and makes would be leaders lacking in it sad.

[shadzar]

So you are looking for something for spell casting but INT or WIS is not enough depending ont he type of caster? Is that what you are saying?

You want a specific ability for the force of will that would be both physical and mental fortitude?

[MGuy]

Just mental fortitude. The reasoning for the separate stat being that the other three stats don't really have anything to do with mental fortitude or casting (I suppose Charisma fits for bards). But that's just what I'm thinking about doing. I'm really just looking for what other people think about it.

[shadzar]

Players option for 2nd edition introduced 6 sub-abilities including those that became the saves like Will, Fortitude, and Reflex for Wisdom, Constitution, and Dexterity respectively.

Nothing wrong with adding a new one, Charisma was broken into 2 for a time where Comeliness was the physical part of looks, and Charisma was just how one acted and presented themselves.

You would just need to figure out if it would be a prime ability for any class or race, how to add it in, or if it is just there to do its job, then it can be a throw away stat for others that wouldn't use it. Also is it connected to any existing skills?

Do you need another ability to pair up with it and a new save?

Just some questions thrown out there, all of which can be ignored if you so choose to. But things I would think about and look into, even if I never got beyond thinking about them and ignoring them during a game.

[erik]

The most expendable stat I see is Constitution. I tried thinking of good examples of characters who were strong without being enduring or the reverse, and came up lacking. Endurance just really isn't interesting enough to be its own stat. I say just bundle Strength and Constitution and call it Might.

Charisma is definitely #2 on the chopping block since it can be retooled as simple social manipulation skills. Attractiveness or whatever could be simple feats (obviously not tome style feats).

So you could do that to break it down to 4 stats (Might, Agility, Mind, Perception).

I used to be a fan of Willpower, but I think it falls into the same category as Charisma in having the protagonist problem that Frank noted. The protagonist is supposed to have it. Not having it makes you not the hero.

I had a temptation to include a Speed attribute, but it is just as one-dimensional as constitution and thus is utterly expendable as a primary attribute.

[MGuy]

@shadzar: I have been thinking about some of those questions. Mainly how the addition of the new attribute would impact the others. I find that with spell casting not attached to them the other mental attributes become significantly less important. Wisdom suffers the most from this because without being necessary for spells or will saves all it gives you is a bonus to spot, listen, and sense motive (the skills you care about) then heal and survival as an after thought. The new ability I'm planning on implementing will be the casting stat of choice determining everything that the other attributes used to determine as far as casting spells while giving its bonus to Will Saves. Skill wise there's not much I could do with it. I could make it the attribute for concentration but that's all it would do skill wise.

@clikml: I agree with you. Constitution is a passive ability, its not the kind of thing that gets spot the spot light like other more active attributes. However I think tying anything else into strength would be a bit much. Strength already covers carrying capacity, melee attack, damage, combat maneuvers, climb, jump, swim, and break checks, not to mention the occasional opposed strength rolls. I don't want to add HP, fortitude, concentration, and endurance rolls to it. What's more having them split up makes players have to divert their character creation resources to it and I'd like to keep it that way. I'd rather solve Constitution's problem by giving it more responsibilities.

Charisma on the other hand I do disagree with. The social aspects of the game are distinct enough from the combat portions to deserve a governing stat and a subset of skills (if only because of the way DnD works). If it were another system I was playing that used abilities to determine what characters were able to do, I would fold it over into int and call it mind. However, at least in DnD, it has a distinct enough purpose and a good number of skills dependent upon it to make it a reasonable attribute. Even without it being tied to a number of class abilities its stil just useful enough to be worth keeping IMO. Beyond that its a good dump stat for those who don't care about talking.

[Murtak]

The most expendable stat I see is Constitution. I tried thinking of good examples of characters who were strong without being enduring or the reverse, and came up lacking.

Corwin, from Amber. Still, that is the only one I can think of, and with him it extends to both physical and mental endurance, so even though I found a counterexample I still agree with you. Especially since a DnD-like system could just add a feat to cover these cases.

[Mask_De_H]

Charisma on the other hand I do disagree with. The social aspects of the game are distinct enough from the combat portions to deserve a governing stat and a subset of skills (if only because of the way DnD works). If it were another system I was playing that used abilities to determine what characters were able to do, I would fold it over into int and call it mind. However, at least in DnD, it has a distinct enough purpose and a good number of skills dependent upon it to make it a reasonable attribute. Even without it being tied to a number of class abilities its stil just useful enough to be worth keeping IMO. Beyond that its a good dump stat for those who don't care about talking.

The social skills are also either useless, fucked in half, or should be things that your character is decent at just by being a protagonist. The reason we cut Cha and Con out are because they're "protagonist stats"; a heroic character has willpower and some force of personality to get people to care about them and rally behind them. That's why they're the heroes. The Charisma stat ends up being a upper limit to how much your Magical Tea Party goes and with the things you can do with, say, diplomacy; the face and everyone else are playing a completely different game. If you want to be the talky guy, roleplay as such/take the talky guy feats and not gimp yourself in other regards.

[MGuy]

The social skills are also either useless, fucked in half, or should be things that your character is decent at just by being a protagonist. The reason we cut Cha and Con out are because they're "protagonist stats"; a heroic character has willpower and some force of personality to get people to care about them and rally behind them. That's why they're the heroes. The Charisma stat ends up being a upper limit to how much your Magical Tea Party goes and with the things you can do with, say, diplomacy; the face and everyone else are playing a completely different game. If you want to be the talky guy, roleplay as such/take the talky guy feats and not gimp yourself in other regards.

I disagree with your reasoning. Social skills have very clear uses. They are only largely useless in combat. Whether they are imbalanced or not isn't a reason to get rid of them. In DnD you start off "decent" at them (only suffering a -1 from lack of charisma but otherwise being average) unless you opt not to be. Social skills should only be relegated to MTP if all social situations are treated as such. I don't want to cast off social encounters as not a real part of the game. Nor do I believe that each and every hero should be a quick and clever talker. A hero is a hero because they do heroic things. Charisma does not limit the the amount of heroics you can pull off. Social Skills don't make you any more or less of a protagonist.

Edit for afterthought: I had read this in another thread somewhere but treating all social encounters as MTP also introduces a situation where you are playing a game where you have to guess what the DM wants to hear. What's more not every player who plays a charismatic character can be expected to produce the kind of eloquence as their character might. You might allow clever role playing to produce a circumstancial bonus or something but I wouldn't want to penalized everyone who don't know how to slick their way out of every situation with a clever quip or a well formed speech.

[mlangsdorf]

Attractiveness or whatever could be simple feats (obviously not tome style feats).

I think a Tome style feat for attractiveness would actually be a great addition to the game. At 1st level, you can get witless minions to do your bidding by smiling at them. At 6th level, your beauty inspires sieges. At 11th level, you have some reasonably game-breaking benefit that I can't think of. At 16th level, you can seduce things that aren't even vaguely related to you, like ropers or ice elementals.

Need to work on the mechanics, but taking a Feat for your background characteristic and having it become something legendary should be part of D&D.

[Mask_De_H]

I disagree with your reasoning. Social skills have very clear uses. They are only largely useless in combat. Whether they are imbalanced or not isn't a reason to get rid of them. In DnD you start off "decent" at them (only suffering a -1 from lack of charisma but otherwise being average) unless you opt not to be. Social skills should only be relegated to MTP if all social situations are treated as such. I don't want to cast off social encounters as not a real part of the game. Nor do I believe that each and every hero should be a quick and clever talker. A hero is a hero because they do heroic things. Charisma does not limit the the amount of heroics you can pull off. Social Skills don't make you any more or less of a protagonist.

MGuy, the problem with DnD social encounters is you're either Mr. Smoothtalk McPantydropper or you're worthless. Outside of said social encounters, you can be both. It's one of the many problems with being a Bard, you own the social minigame but it means shit when in combat. So you piss off your crew in and out of the action-y parts. This is a problem with skill scale as well, but Charisma also serves no purpose outside of being "I'm sexier/cooler than you, lol." Heroes are supposed to be like that as a general rule, so the stat, when it actually works, only serves to make you "cooler/sexier" than thou. Which is bollocks. You can have social skills without having that single stat.

Edit for afterthought: I had read this in another thread somewhere but treating all social encounters as MTP also introduces a situation where you are playing a game where you have to guess what the DM wants to hear. What's more not every player who plays a charismatic character can be expected to produce the kind of eloquence as their character might. You might allow clever role playing to produce a circumstancial bonus or something but I wouldn't want to penalized everyone who don't know how to slick their way out of every situation with a clever quip or a well formed speech.

Eh, I'm quick on my feet with words and like to play face characters, but I hate the Charisma stat nonetheless. You also seem to be pointing out the biggest problem with Charisma: it's only there as a crutch for those who want to be slick but aren't. That can be covered with a skill check or some feats like mlangsdorf brought up. A stat who's only purpose is to make up for the fact that the player is awkward is not a good stat, much like a stat that only exists for hit point inflation is not a good stat.

[shadzar]

@shadzar: I have been thinking about some of those questions. Mainly how the addition of the new attribute would impact the others. I find that with spell casting not attached to them the other mental attributes become significantly less important. Wisdom suffers the most from this because without being necessary for spells or will saves all it gives you is a bonus to spot, listen, and sense motive (the skills you care about) then heal and survival as an after thought. The new ability I'm planning on implementing will be the casting stat of choice determining everything that the other attributes used to determine as far as casting spells while giving its bonus to Will Saves. Skill wise there's not much I could do with it. I could make it the attribute for concentration but that's all it would do skill wise.

Then you are far onto the right track already. Just keep going in that direction and when a new question comes up, just be sure to chekc it, and you may make something better than what was in the books, and have the new hit house rule that everyone uses.

You noticed the thing I disliked about 2nd edition PO where the new ability made one of the 6 redundant, and have already gone into looking into make BOTH useful. Good luck as you progress.

[MGuy]

MGuy, the problem with DnD social encounters is you're either Mr. Smoothtalk McPantydropper or you're worthless. Outside of said social encounters, you can be both. It's one of the many problems with being a Bard, you own the social minigame but it means shit when in combat. So you piss off your crew in and out of the action-y parts. This is a problem with skill scale as well, but Charisma also serves no purpose outside of being "I'm sexier/cooler than you, lol." Heroes are supposed to be like that as a general rule, so the stat, when it actually works, only serves to make you "cooler/sexier" than thou. Which is bollocks. You can have social skills without having that single stat.

That's fine with me actually. MrSmoothtalk gets his spotlight in the talky scenes while Pantydropper gets to shut the fuck up. When combat is joined Smoothtalker takes a step back while Pantydropper starts making bad people fall down. Ideally there is a balance between the two but in the case of extremes I'll accept that. The bard is supposed to be using his charisma to help combat but the bard sucking is something else entirely. Yes Charisma means I'm sexier and more convincing (not necessarily cooler) than you. But that means I chose to be that kind of hero instead of being good at breaking things with my hands. Pantydropper should not be able to go around dropping panties AND be as charismatic as Smoothtalker.

Eh, I'm quick on my feet with words and like to play face characters, but I hate the Charisma stat nonetheless. You also seem to be pointing out the biggest problem with Charisma: it's only there as a crutch for those who want to be slick but aren't. That can be covered with a skill check or some feats like mlangsdorf brought up. A stat who's only purpose is to make up for the fact that the player is awkward is not a good stat, much like a stat that only exists for hit point inflation is not a good stat.

I don't see it being a crutch as a problem. If you don't find a player's roleplaying convincing hit him with a circumstantial penalty that reduces the results. However, asking that everyone be as charismatic as their character should be is like asking anyone who plays a scientist to know science, to have anyone who plays a ranger know survival techniques. Its a role playing game not a homework assignment. What's more is that Charisma only adjusts the skill result via modifier. There is no reason people with low charisma scores can't perform charisma based skills or even invest skill points into those skills. It merely mods it. Smooth talker (at first level) has a good chance at losing out to Pantydropper at lower levels.

[Psychic Robot]

The social skills are also either useless, fucked in half, or should be things that your character is decent at just by being a protagonist. The reason we cut Cha and Con out are because they're "protagonist stats"; a heroic character has willpower and some force of personality to get people to care about them and rally behind them. That's why they're the heroes.

I couldn't disagree more. That whole "you're the protagonists so you're an awesome hero" mindset is something that I feel is detrimental to any RPG. In D&D, you might be creating one of the main characters, but that doesn't mean that your character is likable or a persuasive speaker. You might as well say that all protagonists are good at dodging blows because "not being dead" is a protagonist quality.

Trying to push D&D away from creating realistic characters to manufacturing a vomit-inducing slurry of storytelling, narrativism, and an "everyone's a winner" mentality is distasteful in the highest degree.

[shadzar]

Not to mention it is hard to be the hero of the story, when the character is dead waiting for a rez like Roy, in OOTS. At least Roy got some screen time, but in actual D&D, you make a new character to replace if it will be a while before chance for a rez, and that new character becomes the one with a chance to be the hero and new protagonist.

Hero is earned, and the name level needs to return to D&D.

But all this has little to do with how to work the ability scores, just accept they do not define the character and are just tools for them to use. If an existing tool doesn't work, grab another one or build your own tool.

[tzor]

My driving idea behind a social system (which I see has never been realized, and I mean never) is that it must be exactly at the same level of granularity as combat; in fact it must be easily integrable with combat. Only when you reach that level of interoperability can you have a bardic character specializing in “social skills” be of any use to a party.

If you had such a balanced system, then most of the objections to a social system would fade away. I’m not even sure how to set up such a system but it would require the social equivalent of hit points. You would need to establish the same level of granularity as you have with combat actions in combat, enough detail to make things interesting and require tactics, but then again enough to require the dice to be the finial arbitrator.

This also needs to be integrated with skills in general. This appears to be the original driving idea behind 4E until they brain farted with this moronic notion of “skill challenges” which uses a completely different mechanic than combat in general. Integration with combat my ass.

I’m convinced that a system is possible. I’m convinced that no one is going to pay me to come up with it. Unless someone comes up with the NaNoWriMo equivalent of game design, it looks like I’m not likely to even consider all the problems of grandly unifying combat, social and other skills into a coherent system.

[Murtak]

That whole "you're the protagonists so you're an awesome hero" mindset is something that I feel is detrimental to any RPG. In D&D, you might be creating one of the main characters, but that doesn't mean that your character is likable or a persuasive speaker.

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

Some of these I would really like all protagonists to have. Others, not so much. Thus proposing to get rid of the stat and put anything I want to be optional into feats.

Force of personality is something all heroes should have. Persuasiveness is something I am fine with being either a skill or depending on DM fiat (with skills like Bluff or Intimidate giving you the option to mechanically influence the story). Personal magnetism and physical attractiveness are fine as feats in my opinion. And finally ability to lead is already a feat: Leadership.

[MGuy]

Again I think it is better just to keep it as a whole stat. Attractiveness and magnetism isn't important enough to waste a feat on. It does the job it needs to do. Again lack of Charisma hardly means anything at the game table if you don't use it regularly. Not having a lot of charisma doesn't prevent you from attracting followers. Lacking in personality doesn't stop you from using diplomacy or investing skill points in it.

[RandomCasualty2]

I couldn't disagree more. That whole "you're the protagonists so you're an awesome hero" mindset is something that I feel is detrimental to any RPG. In D&D, you might be creating one of the main characters, but that doesn't mean that your character is likable or a persuasive speaker. You might as well say that all protagonists are good at dodging blows because "not being dead" is a protagonist quality.

Trying to push D&D away from creating realistic characters to manufacturing a vomit-inducing slurry of storytelling, narrativism, and an "everyone's a winner" mentality is distasteful in the highest degree.

The alternative is being unable to have anyone other than paladins, bards and sorcerers who make good leaders, or even who can be handsome or attractive characters.

Everyone else is some 8 cha socially awkward fool who nobody takes seriously.

So yeah, Conan doesn't get the girl, nobody gives a fuck what Gandalf has to say and when William Wallace yells out "They can take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!", everyone else gives disinterested nods and tells him "good luck with that." Hell, even your huge half orc barbarian can't even intimidate people well.

Your other option is to take charisma and let your other stats suffer. So you choose between being an ugly socially awkward badass or an incompetent, yet attractive character.

Most people want to play heroes that have force of personality and are attractive. I mean really, that's what heroes are all about. Letting people choose how attractive they are won't cause the game world to implode. So I say, why not let them?

In actual play, most of us pretty much disregard the fact that the fighter has 8 cha when he's trying to get the girl. Why not just put this stat out to pasture? It's best handled by flat out ignoring it anyway.

[Psychic Robot]

The alternative is being unable to have anyone other than paladins, bards and sorcerers who make good leaders, or even who can be handsome or attractive characters.

Everyone else is some 8 cha socially awkward fool who nobody takes seriously.

Not really. You don't need an 18 Charisma to be a leader; the majority of your skill bonus is going to come from your training, anyway. Outside of that, you could give Charisma some usefulness to characters within combat--such as making feinting a worthwhile tactic and having it add to Will saves (something I feel that 4e did correctly)--and then let the leader characters do their leading thing.

So yeah, Conan doesn't get the girl, nobody gives a fuck what Gandalf has to say and when William Wallace yells out "They can take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!", everyone else gives disinterested nods and tells him "good luck with that." Hell, even your huge half orc barbarian can't even intimidate people well.

Being attractive is only loosely related to Charisma, sexual attraction isn't only based on being hot, people should listen to Gandalf because he knows tons of lore (not because he makes a good speech), and William Wallace can have Skill Focus: Rousing Speech.

In actual play, most of us pretty much disregard the fact that the fighter has 8 cha when he's trying to get the girl. Why not just put this stat out to pasture? It's best handled by flat out ignoring it anyway.

Because stats should reflect what a character can and cannot do. Dumping Charisma is like dumping Dexterity and saying that all characters should be able to dodge. The main difference is that we have a much more tangible measure of Dexterity than we do Charisma.

[Caedrus]

and William Wallace can have Skill Focus: Rousing Speech.

That is a bad joke, PR.

[shadzar]

I think charisma needs to be removed and replaced with comeliness, something the player themselves cannot put into the game, and the rest of charisma is part of playing the character.

*I don't care about shy players, they just have to open up enough to roleplay as is part of the roleplaying game.

As to being a leader, that is up to the group to decide if they have a leader, not any one stat on a character sheet. Either they just represent the party as the spokesman, or are the one best suited for it; but it is for the group to decide about the players, not based solely on the stats.

Shouldn't affect spell casting in either event anyway. Unless you have an emo spell that has to be coddled before you can cast it.

[Draco_Argentum]

I disagree with your reasoning. Social skills have very clear uses. They are only largely useless in combat.

You seem to entirely miss the point. We don't have a combat stat, we have six stats which do things in combat. If talking is to be a full featured minigame then it needs to have choices. If talking isn't a minigame then it shouldn't cost combat ability to be good at it. Neither of those fits with a single social stat paradigm.

[MGuy]

You seem to entirely miss the point. We don't have a combat stat, we have six stats which do things in combat. If talking is to be a full featured minigame then it needs to have choices. If talking isn't a minigame then it shouldn't cost combat ability to be good at it. Neither of those fits with a single social stat paradigm.

You missed my point.

It does the job it needs to do. Again lack of Charisma hardly means anything at the game table if you don't use it regularly. Not having a lot of charisma doesn't prevent you from attracting followers. Lacking in personality doesn't stop you from using diplomacy or investing skill points in it.

Having or lacking charisma does not in any way stop you from being competent at the social minigame. Even with a penalty or two you can still be good (if not optimal) at diplomancing. All your choices are still there (reason, lie, detect lie, disguise,, intimidate, gather info, make contacts, attract followers/cohorts, etc etc) and are not taken away from you by having a -2 modifier from charisma. Honestly only Strength and Constitution have anything directly tied to them and not just their modifier (carrying capacity/endurance).

[RandomCasualty2]

Because stats should reflect what a character can and cannot do. Dumping Charisma is like dumping Dexterity and saying that all characters should be able to dodge. The main difference is that we have a much more tangible measure of Dexterity than we do Charisma.

The problem is that you want all characters to be able to talk effectively. Otherwise, social encounters become like 3rd edition Shadowrun decking, where one player is doing everything and nobody else can contribute. The important thing to note about any minigame is it has to involve the party. Ideally everyone has different roles in that minigame, but everyone does something.

In D&D, we don't consider it acceptable that one character sucks in combat and can't do anything. We want everyone to have a combat role. That role isn't necessarily the same thing, but it's there. Social encounters are going to be something that everyone gets involved in, and so everyone should have a chance to contribute. Relegating people into social character or combat character is a terrible idea, because it means that you've got players sitting on the sidelines.

Stop kidding yourself and believing that a fighter is ever not going to dump charisma. That's just not going to happen. Seriously, you need high strength and that's going to be your main stat.

Now, you can do what combat does and try to make all ability scores useful in the social game, or you can just take ability scores out of it entirely. But having some "social stat" that you need to participate in the social minigame is terrible for the same reason that Shadowrun decking was terrible. Some people are going to have that stat and others aren't. And if you don't happen to be a decker, it means you sit doing nothing.