[House Rules] More D&D stat musings…

As I was saying:

But…

I have another problem re D&D abilities…

The bog standard S, I, W, D, C and Ch seems entirely arbitrary and conceptually flawed. I have no idea what Gygax et al were thinking when they created those categories, but my guess is they were trying to determine a simple and abstract way to numerically model a real human, while trying to balance physical and mental aspects of a person. I also think they wanted to give each of the classes a prime ability, hence the inclusion of the utterly pointless Wis. All very well and what I’m considering is no less arbitrary or abstract, but I hope to make it slightly less flabby and to pay closer attention to the genre of epic fantasy rather than a realistic and balanced model of a human.

[Now I’m not the first to consider this. Here is just two examples of leaner approaches to ability categories that I've recently read: Into the Odd (a home-brew D&D variant) and this discussion on ability scores, which probably does a better and more succinct job of it than I’m going to do. But as I was going to gas on about this anyway, so I won’t let their finer efforts put me off…  And obviously there have been many other game systems over the eons that have also taken  a very different approach than D&D to abilities. But equally there have been many that have replicated the same/similar format too.]

Now my first area of contention is the stat-flab with D&D abilities!

1.       Strength plus Constitution = Prowess

I’m yet to understand why there is a distinction between Str and Con in D&D? If you are going for abstraction (and if you are a D&D fan, if you are going to celebrate that abstraction) then why not go a step further. Call it what you will, Might or Prowess or whatever, but unifying these two stats makes sense, as everything that Con can do that is separable from Str, such as resistance to disease, poison, etc… has little to do with the stat’s other properties, such as stamina and damage absorption. Sure, you can separate them if you want, as you can further divide Str into Muscle and Whatever, as 2.5 Options did, but I ask you, what’s the point? If it is better to keep skills and their numbers to a minimum, then why not abilities too? As a comment on TotG&D says, it is just possible to imagine a low Str/high Con character (a weak fattie, maybe…), but it is harder to imagine the opposite… Maybe an Arnie-type with asthma and a blood condition? Still, hardly someone who is going to go delving into humanoid infested jungles and the underdark is it?! Indeed, I’m struggling to think of any archetype or character in epic fantasy who could easily be described in having a Str and Con at opposite ends of the spectrum… Low Str & Con? Yes (Elric)… High Str & Con? Yes (Conan)… Medium Str & Con? Yes (many)… But contrary Str & Cons… It gets harder to rationalise. And I’d argue, in most circumstances it is unnecessary.

There could be game balance reasons, such as a unified Str/Con stat with bonuses to hit, to damage and to HP, might look a little gross, but by downplaying the emphasis on ability mods (using S&W White Box mods) this needn’t be a big factor. I suggest limiting a Str/Con combo stat to just damage and HP bonuses, as physical Str is unlikely to be a bigger factor to sword play than expertise. Indeed, even damage bonuses could be better justified by class and level should you want to…

2.       Dexterity

Dex is less flabby, indeed it is possibly too lean, as the combining of manual dexterity and agility into a single stat seems unlikely. So maybe there should be an Agility and Manual Dex  stat (or maybe a Skill stat as one of the comments suggested on Jack’s TofG&D said), one for defence/initiative, the other for skill checks and missile bonuses…

However it struck me yesterday, while watching Nadal and Djokovic battle it out in the final of the Australian Open, that the agility is really just a side effect of athleticism, thus really it should be combined with a Str/Con stat. But is that lumping too many potentially powerful bonuses into the one super-stat? Certainly a single high roll shouldn’t give a character a significant bonus on hit rolls, damage, HP and AC and initiative as well! Hmmm… Something else is needed…

3.       Dumb Smarts

My other problem stats are Int & Wis. There are many reasons to distrust them, so let’s play with some bullet-points:

• Can a stupid player play a smart PC? Maybe the opposite is possible, but that assumes your players like to play someone radically different to themselves, which might happen, but I’d argue that most players most of the time play themselves or a Randian version of themselves.
• Apart from making all your players take an IQ test then determining a Int score from that (something I’m sure your players are going to object to), I see no way around this, unless you bin mental stats altogether…
• But could such a thing be possible? Yes, I’d argue it could. In D&D the game function of Int & Wis is minimal. Apart from the mod these stats give to spell casters, all other modifiers (saves and additional languages) could easily be removed from the game with little-to-no impact upon the rules. I hardly think multi-linguistics is a function of intelligence. Really cultural background and education (a product of background) is the only function of this, so maybe a CoC type Edu stat might work or just a skill system, but Int is pretty irrelevant.  Also is Wis really a determining factor to resisting a charm spell? Surely, bloody-mindedness and Willpower make more sense, so a Will or maybe a Pow stat, make more sense. The spell casting modifiers could again easily be ignored or more closely tied to class/level.

So, yes, I’d argue that neither Int or Wis are vital to the game.

But what about Int & Wis test, I hear you ask?

Well, I’m not sure if I’ve ever known any DM call for either. If it did happen it must have been a rarity, so I see no reason why an arbitrary rule couldn’t be used in such rare circumstances, such as a similar mechanic used for secret door check on a d6 or whatever.

The other problem, as Jack’s ‘Wrong Ones’ post rightly calls it, is the vagueness of Wis? If it is perception or willpower then call it that. And shouldn’t the rules be an abstract model of the genre it’s modelling? I can’t think of a single ‘hero’ in fantasy literature who can in any way be described as “wise.” Indeed, I’d argue that charging into monster-riddled holes in the ground is a singularly unwise course of action. Even the populations of non-heroic fantasies like Gormenghast are hardly renowned for their great wisdom. Nope, Wis has no place in fantasy fiction, thus it should have no place in a RPG that tries to emulate it.

If Int & Wis have to be numerically represented then I’d suggest a singular IQ stat and be done with it, with maybe equally separate Perception and Willpower stats, if needed.

But in reality Wis is a function of the need to the game to give Clerics a prime attribute for XP bonuses and minimum criteria, etc… Pretty prosaic, really… How about ditching minimum prerequisites and XP bonuses, as both are poor rules or adding a Piety stat (something like Campaign Ratings, as discussed below).

4.       This Charming Man…

But, my real bugbear is Cha!

What a useless stat! For almost every practical purpose the effect of Cha should be a product of role-playing and not dice rolling – thus it is useless.

The other aspects of Cha are preposterous:

• Max number of henchmen should probably be effected by level, as a measure of a PC’s renown and influence, than anything else. But money should be the principle factor here.
• Loyalty: I’d suggest that role-playing, danger, pay/reward, should all take precedence over an arbitrary score.
• Reaction adjustment: This is the most ludicrous rule in D&D (actually, it is not, but that’s only because most of the rules aren’t played). Let me suggest that if a PC enters a tavern, with minimum weaponry and a good word for the proprietor, then a botched reaction roll should lead to a mass attack by the patrons… Equally if the PCs kick in the door of a goblin guardroom while armed to the teeth then the result of the reaction roll be damned! Maybe they’ll stick and fight or maybe they’ll run, but they’re surely not going to say “Ah, I like the look of you, young paladin – pull up a chair and we’ll talk it over…”

The only reason for Cha or social skills in a RPG is if there is a significant Winter Phase, a la Pendragon, where wooing and the maintenance of a castle, etc… are needed to be abstracted into a few dice rolls.

But, still I’d argue that wouldn’t it be better for Cha type stats to be determined by roleplaying rather than random rolls? I’d suggest ‘borrowing’ something like Campaign Ratings from Golden Heroes. Of the top of my head why not a Cha Rating determined by three sub-Cha ratings, each with a numerical value between 1-6. These rating will be adjusted up and down after each session by the DM based on role-playing during that session. I’d suggest a starting value of 3 in each sub-stat. These sub-stats of Cha Rating could be any three of the following (depending upon the campaign):

• Leadership: adjusted for leadership skills within the party and those of NPCs, especially henchmen: 1 = a player who shows very poor leadership qualities, 6 = excellent leadership.
• Loyalty: no one is going to be loyal to someone who shows no loyalty to others. Fair distribution of treasure, generosity to others and other fair actions should result in higher scores, while betrayals and selfishness could be penalised.
• Tyranny: fear of failure might make people loyal of dictatorship, etc… Power and its misuse can be beguiling, thus possibly in some campaigns this might be a factor.
• Bravery: in a heroic game bravery and cowardliness might result in loyalty or popularity or the opposite.
• Cunning: bravery and the like might not cut much sway in the thieves guild, equally an king or knight who uses his brains rather than brawn might appeal.
• Or how about: Charm, Wit, Success, Wealth, Social Status…

I’m sure there are many others. They could be arbitrarily chosen by the DM across the entire campaign or maybe Cha could be customisable for each character based on his alignment, class, race, concept and background… Or many or all of these sub-Cha rating could be used, while the exact three that makes up a Cha Rating for a given ability check is determined by the DM on a case for case cases, thus a Thief might add his Tyranny, Wit and Cunning to determine his loyalty or reaction checks in the thieves guild, but Bravery, Loyalty & Leadership would be added together to determine Cha rolls regarding those men-at-arms he has hired on an adventure…

The downside is, of course, more book-keeping for the poor DM and is such detail really essential to most campaigns?

So, what am I left with?

• Prowess: a mix of Str and Con and maybe the Agility portion of Dex
• Skills: the manual dexterity portion of Dex
• IQ: a combo of Int & Wiz
• No Cha, but maybe a Cha CR: that varies over time due to role-playing

Anything missing?

Well, T&T gets a few things right that D&D doesn’t and that’s a Luck stat. Luck plays a part in all genre lit and is an intrinsic part of all dice-based RPGs, so a simple LK rating would be good for those circumstances that are hard to categories with anything else. Also, LK could be used instead of a saving throw in many circumstances, which would remove many useless numbers from a character sheet (I’ve never understood why ability rolls weren’t used for saving throws).

A good case can be made for both Perception and Willpower as stats. I’d suggest ‘borrowing’ Golden Heroes Detective CR system for D&D for a Percep stat, as good investigative role-playing would be rewarded by a better roll in those circumstances when an arbitrary dice roll will do… In Golden Heroes some CR were partly determined by traditional statistics, so there’s no reason why Int or Wis or IQ or level couldn’t be used to determine one of its sub-stats.

While the functions of Will could be combined with Luck for a RQesque Power stat. It wouldn’t be an exact fit as many of the functions of RQ’s Pow are really a function of character level in D&D, but for circumstances such as magic resistance, if might work well. Also who says the ability to resist poisons and diseases should be the sole provision of a Con based stat? I’m not sure if the ability to run a marathon means you have a greater immune system or have a better survival chance against arsenic poisoning… Surely luck or some other genetic intangible plays a bigger part?

A Piety CR stat could also be used which might determined by such sub-stats as: Spreading of Faith, Obedience and Belief, etc… with modifiers for saving verse supernatural threats opposite to your faith, turn undead, spell casting for Clerics…

The only other thing that seems to be missing is Speed, which isn’t necessarily a function of an Agility-based Dex stat nor as simple as physical strength. Really size should also be a factor, a la RQ (again), but maybe just a racial mod for size could just be used for Spd instead…

So, at the moment my D&D character sheet looks something like this:

• Prowess (combining Str & Con)
• Speed (agility portion of Dex and Move Rate)
• Skill (manual Dex-based skills and missile)
• IQ (Int/Wiz/Edu)
• Power (luck, willpower and possibly other bonuses as DM sees fit)

Plus CR in the following:

• Cha
• Percep
• Piety

So, four to seven stats or four abilities plus three optional campaign ratings with a little more precision and less flab.

Advertisement