Attributes derived from Skills instead of Ability Scores

[Harshax]

I've been looking very closely at the skill lists between Magic World and RQ6 lately. I've always liked MW's quick character creation, but RQ6 fixes all the problems I had with the POW economy and other aspects of BRP that prevent me from using Magic World as written. As I read the skills, it becomes glaringly obvious that regardless your ability scores, you can eventually excel in every aspect of adventuring life except one - professional combatant. For example, even a fumbling buffoon with a Dex of 8 can, with diligence exceed 100 percentile in lock-picking. Additionally, there are lots of skills that are dirived similarly as other attributes but otherwise have no bearing on combat abilities. For example, a slight weakling's damage bonus never improves, even if the character has an exceedingly high Brawn skill, which is a skill that is very clearly defined as, '<...> the efficient application of technique when applying raw physical force. The skill covers acts of applied might, including lifting, breaking and contests of strength.'  I'd argue that the words "efficient" and "raw" work counter-purpose to defining what Brawn is meant to represent in that opening sentence, but I'm not here to discuss semantics.

So my question is: What if Brawn was the basis for damage bonus? It could have a starting value of (STR+SIZ) * 2.5. The tiers for damage bonus would also be modified by 2.5. A human with an 18 in both STR & SIZ, would have a starting percentile of 90% which equates to a 1d6 damage bonus. Additionally, Attributes could have skill limits that reflect species maximums. In RQ3 for example, this limit was always MIN+MAX of any score. In other words: 21. Using the formula above, this would limit the skill to 105% and the damage bonus would cap out at 1d8 without the use of magic.

Hit Points would be a reflection of Endurance and would be calculated using CON + SIZ, instead of CON * 2.

HarnMaster uses a skill called Initiative, which reflects a characters training to react quickly and decisively in combat. This skill would determine combat actions and of course be based on (INT+DEX) * 2.5.

Another skill could represent one's ability to hold mana or magic energy and would reflect training beyond the value of one's initial POW.

In summary, Ability Scores represent a starting character's initial focus and training and are used to derive all skills. It represents there natural ability to pick up new skills. However, a character's overall competence in all arts (martial or otherwise) are uniformly represented in their skills, not their original Ability scores. A character's devotion to martial training can be summarized by their Fighting Style, Brawn, Endurance, and Initiative and not just their raw Ability scores and Fighting Style Skill. I think this combination is a better reflection of the devotion required to be a professional soldier.

If you take the existing rules at face value, I realize now that they can be easily abused by simply placing your highest Ability Scores in slots that affect Attributes that are too costly to improve through normal Characteristic Improvement rolls. In turn, this allows you to focus on improving skills that aren't limited by a character's natural talent (Ability Score), which is the current definition of Ability scores.  My Sorcerer? Yeah he has an Combined CON and SIZ of 33. He has the hit points of a teenage oxen, with his INT of 8 he's barely smarter than one, but because he single-mindedly devotes all his improvement rolls to the magical arts, he rivals the Archmage of Winterhold in magical arts.

Please, spare me any argument that rely on oaths to refute min-maxers or otherwise ban power gamers from the table. This is an attempt to engage in a discussion about the way the game works mechanically, not the way the game should work if we promise to pretend these loopholes don't exist and that we'll never ever ever abuse them.

EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe these starting skills have initial values determined like every other skill.  A character with an 18 STR and SIZ has a starting Brawn of 36. This gives him an initial damage bonus of -1d4. The character has to learn to apply might to wield weapons effectively and train his body to apply force efficiently. As his fighting style improves, he must also improve his brawn so he can strike with both accuracy and deadliness.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Harshax

[Sean_RDP]

I have never agreed with negative damage modifiers for STR to begin with, so everyone starting off in the negatives seems problematic to me. I realize that is not your overall point, I would just start them at 0 Damage Mod. 

How does this change reflect in GM controlled adversaries? A naturally strong creature might not have very much training in martial skill and would be denied the bonus to damage their natural ability implies based on that fact. OR they would be given artificially high skills to account for damage bonus? Just something that seemed problematic to me.

[Harshax]

I wouldn't change anything about the way I create creatures or other supernatural adversaries. These ideas may result in more varied human adversaries and also contribute more options for creating rabble.

In regards to damage bonus, I long ago opted to use the modified as a step change in die type. So if you are wielding a sword, and have a -1d2 DM, you simply roll a 1d6 for damage instead of 1d8. A positive DM will likewise increase the die type of a weapon.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Harshax

[Harshax]

23 minutes ago, ReignDragonSMH said:

I have never agreed with negative damage modifiers for STR to begin with, so everyone starting off in the negatives seems problematic to me. I realize that is not your overall point, I would just start them at 0 Damage Mod. 

How does this change reflect in GM controlled adversaries? A naturally strong creature might not have very much training in martial skill and would be denied the bonus to damage their natural ability implies based on that fact. OR they would be given artificially high skills to account for damage bonus? Just something that seemed problematic to me.

It seems that this is already to the purpose of a Brawn score. An elephant for example is incredibly strong and while they already have an equally impressive Brawn (120?) I think the score would be much higher if the elephant could articulate that strength more precisely.

[skoll]

If I understood your post correctly, your main issue is with characters with 90% in Lockpick but only 8 in DEX, or 90% in Sorcery skills but only 8 in INT. I have been pondering the same problem, but eventually took a completely different approach. Basically any skill development is capped by your characteristics. Right now I'm applying this only with Endurance and Willpower; they are capped to 6xCON and 6xPOW respectively. In the next campaign I'm thinking of taking this into use with every skill - the cap would be base skill x 3.

[Harshax]

I do think you have summarized part of the issue correctly, skoll. The other issue being presented is that certain character traits have zero skill development. eg - Combat Actions and Initiative. A character is only ever going to be as good as the Ability scores they rolled at the beginning. After spending an hour or two trying to trim down the skill list to its most essential list of valuable skills (for my campaign) I began to notice that while RQ replaced Ability Checks (the BRP Effort, Stamina, Idea, and Luck Rolls for example) with skills (Brawn, Endurance, Willpower), there are still vestiges of these permanent values in derived Attributes. How can you have a 100% Brawn but a -1d8 damage modifier? 

I know there is a mechanic for improving Ability scores in RQ, but the game heavily dissuades its use. Ability scores improvements must be maintained with constant Improvement Roll expenditures and there is a racial maximum that an Ability score can achieve.

If derived Attributes were calculated from a Skill rather than raw Ability scores, you could set caps on skills universally and dispense with the Ability score improvement sub-mechanic altogether. The cap could also determine the power-level of your game and could be used to better emulate different genres. Want gritty realism? 60% + Ability1 + Ability2. Grim heroic fantasy? 200% + Ability1 + Ability2. Are the characters Paragons but not super-human? Set the skill cap even higher.

[Pentallion]

RQ3 was better in the attribute departments.  Endurance check?  Conx5.  Brawn?  Str vs Str.  I don't like having to bother figuring out what it could possibly mean for a STR 6 person to have 100% Brawn skill.  So what?  It's stupid.  Whole skill is stupid unless a better example of the various ways it comes into play can be used.  But why? STr vs STR works fantastic.  Attempt to fix something that was both elegant and unbroken.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Pentallion

[General Panic]

I cap skills at basic (stat+stat) x 5. Does the job.  And I still ask for stat x 5 or x 3 rolls if it's quicker or more appropriate than thinking about the right skill to use

[hkokko]

I dislike overall the stat based capping in almost all the cases and much prefer having skills that can be developed instead of being directly stat derived or capped by stat. I see some whining about badly rolled stat even now when it is not directly capping (many) things. About having fewer skills still than current RQ6 - I think it hits the balance about right. If there are even fewer skills players will be very good at those fewer, more universally applicable skills faster and in longer campaigns will be paragons... For my Glorantha this part of rules seems not to be broken - so I do not use house rules for this or desire changes to current or future rules. YGWV. This can be very taste dependent...

[bturner]

On 1/15/2016 at 8:29 AM, Harshax said:

I know there is a mechanic for improving Ability scores in RQ, but the game heavily dissuades its use. Ability scores improvements must be maintained with constant Improvement Roll expenditures and there is a racial maximum that an Ability score can achieve.

I looked at the rule of requiring improvement roll expenditures to increase ability scores and immediately discarded it. The optional rule for permanent stat increases (cost = 1 + [current] - [minimum roll]) is much better. It doesn't require players to do nearly as much accounting, and it doesn't leave me worrying that one player is permanently stunting their character for the sake of a temporary gain.

[Harshax]

I'm still on the fence about this idea, but I had a chance to work on it some more and so I thought I would share what taking the idea to its logical conclusion would look like.  I think this created some interesting effects. 

Brawn replacing STR+SIZ for calculating damage bonus: This was a early example. It allows for odd characters that are otherwise large but not particularly effective at utilizing their strength and size.  The +/- for Damage Modifier is using the aforementioned idea that DM alters the die rolled for damage up or down as opposed to adding more dice to the damage roll.

   Skill       Old
   Brawn%    STR+SIZ  Dmg Modifier
    15          5         -4
    25         10         -3
    40         15         -2
    50         20         -1
    65         25          -
    75         30         +1
    90         35         +2
    100        40         +3
    115        45         +4
    125        50         +5
    150        60         +6
    175        70         +7
    200        80         +8
    225        90         +9
    250        100        +10
    275        110        +11
    300        120        +12
    325        130        +13
    +25        +10        +1

Endurance calculated from CON+SIZ for calculating both Hit Points and Healing Rate. This was an interesting combination that almost resulted in removing a table. The logic behind SIZ and CON being used for Hit Points could also apply to Healing Rate and to the Endurance Skill itself.  Healing rate is essentially Endurance divided by 40.

   Skill       Old                                                Healing Rate
 Endurance%  CON+SIZ     Head     Chest   Abdomen   Arm     Leg
    15          5          1        3        2       1       1        1
    25         10          2        4        3       1       2        1
    40         15          3        5        4       2       3        1
    50         20          4        6        5       3       4        2
    65         25          5        7        6       4       5        2
    75         30          6        8        7       5       6        2
    90         35          7        9        8       6       7        3
    100        40          8        10       9       7       8        3
    +15        +5         +1        +1      +1       +1      +1   3, +1/40 pts

 

Initiative suggested itself as a new skill, based off INT and DEX. As a skill, it measures a character's ability to read a combat situation and act decisively, acting decisively should also translate into more opportunities and contribute to the calculation of both Strike Rank and Action Points.

   Skill       Old
Initiative%  INT+DEX  Action Points
    30         12         +1
    65         25         +2
    90         36         +3
    +30        12         +1

Influence granting an Experience Modifier. This also seemed obvious. Characters with high Influence and ties to their community should benefit from an Experience Modifier. Characters with high CHA who are the village pariah should not.

   Skill       Old
 Influence%    CHA
    30          6         -1
    60         12          0
    90         18          1
    +30        +6         +1

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by Harshax

[auyl]

My game Eternity Realms has hp and combat action increases via skill increases instead of just characteristics but not so much anything else

[Mugen]

I've also been considering removing most characteristics in favor of a game more focused on skills.

Nevertheless, I kept CON (making it a mix between CON and SIZ), POW and WILlpower. CON are the base of Hit Points, POW Magic Points, and WIL... Will Points, which I use in spiritual combat.

I don't need any other derived attributes. Instead of Damage Bonus, I use the 10s of the attack roll as damage base value, modified by weapon. Concerning Actions, I'm very Old Fashioned, and keep using the old standard RQ3 action economy (1 attack and 1 parry with one weapon, 2 attacks or parries with 2 weapons). Nevertheless, I would let one declare additional actions for a cumulative -30% malus.

[Atgxtg]

I've worked on a variant where attributes are replaced with traits which give appropriate bonuses and penalties.  People are assumed to be average unless they have traits that indicate otherwise. For example a STRONG trait would up the damage die, and give a bonus to things like lifting or STR-based resistance rolls. 

 

 

[eyraud]

I've pondered using stats to cap skill use...e.g. The max amount of your sword skill you could use in a combat would max at 5*STR (just an example). Even tho your skill might be much higher. 

Perhaps, one could then use the extra skill points like one could do with skills over 100 (split attacks, reduce opponents parry...)

also, the cap could also affect skill experience and training progression. E.g. After reaching the cap, an exp gain would be limited to 1% or d3 or similar.