Ability Scores

 My first couple of posts were sort of rambling attempts to get what I've been kicking around in my own head down. I'll be referring back to them and refining my thoughts as I work on this. It is important to have some goals written and the actual design work regularly evaluated against those goals.

Now it is time to get some actual rules on paper.

Ability scores are fairly straight forward. This is going to be D&D, even if Hasbro disagrees, and the long standing scores are going to be my starting point. There is a been some pretty consistent usage of the scores through the various versions. AD&D was the first to expand their usage and add some mechanical weight to the scores and not simply as prerequisites for classes. 5e puts a massive load on the ability scores with every major mechanical system being affected by them. I'm going to land somewhere in the middle.

So what should be the mechanical functions of ability scores?

• Bonus or Penalties to combat, both attack roles and damage rolls.
• Adjustments to some class features, Thief skills, et. al.
• Adjustments to common actions, searching, opening doors, etc.
• Bonuses to some racial features, Dwarven poison saves, for example.
• Encumbrance and lifting and carrying.
  
• Target number for ad-hoc adjudication.

What are some of the things ability scores have been used for that I don't want to carry forward?

• Racial or gender minimums or maximums.
• Blanket adjustments to Saving Throws.
• Bonuses to experience earned.
• Adjustments to number of spells known.
• Chance to survive certain spell effects.
• Skill use.
• Number of uses of a class feature.

So looking at the list, I'll need both a score and a set of adjustments tied to the score. I'll stick to the 3-18 traditional score range. Generated using 4d6 drop the lowest. Arrange as the player wants. For the bonuses, I like the consistency of 5e but I like a more bell curve approach to how they tie to the ability scores.

Score	Adjustment
3	-4
4	-3
5	-2
6	-2
7	-1
8	-1
9	0
10	0
11	0
12	0
13	1
14	1
15	2
16	2
17	3
18	4

 Scores above and below this range are possible in play, through magic items, wishes, etc. Scores above 18 get an additional +1 per point above 18. Scores below 3 get an additional -1 adjustment per point below 3.

The Abilities

Strength is the most important ability for melee combat. Attack rolls with melee weapons use the Strength adjustment. Damage rolls with melee weapons and thrown weapons are also adjusted by strength. How much a character can lift and carry is based on the Strength score. Certain weapons and armor will need a high Strength score to access their full benefit. There are a wide range of physical tasks that may require a strength roll.

Dexterity affects a characters armor class. The Dexterity adjustment is added or subtracted from AC. Attack rolls with missile weapons and some melee weapons use the Dexterity adjustment. Thieves class skill rolls are adjusted by Dexterity.

Intelligence determines the maximum number of languages a character can know. The roll for a spell caster to attempt to learn a spell from a found scroll or book is adjusted by Intelligence. Making out ancient carved texts and archaic books is affected by the characters Intelligence. Arcane spell casting is enhanced by Intelligence.

Wisdom affects Divine and Primal spell casting. Characters likelihood of spotting hazards they are not actively searching for is adjusted by Wisdom. Chance for being surprised when entering combat is affected by a characters Wisdom.

Constitution is an important attribute for all characters as Hit Points per level are adjusted by Constitution. How well a character handles adverse terrain and weather is also affected by their Constitution score.

Charisma affects characters in two key ways. First, the maximum number of Henchmen and the loyalty of those henchman is based on the Charisma adjustment. Second, how NPCs and monsters react to a character who is trying to engage them socially is adjusted by the character's Charisma.

Design Considerations

One of my biggest frustrations with Wizards of the Coast versions of D&D is the time it takes to run a combat encounter. Fifth edition trimmed some of the issues with 3e, so many bonuses to walk through every attack, and 4e, so many off-turn actions added to the combat round. Still, in our sporadic Monday night game, a couple of smallish combats are all we can squeeze into one session and do any social or exploration play at all. I've heard this same complaint from other old, grumpy gamers, like myself; but, interestingly (to me anyway), in a fairly brief discussion in a different forum, a friend of mine who isn't much older than the release of 3.0 wrote the following:

"You hit the nail on the head regarding 5e combat being slow and frustrating. I think I've isolated the key sources of why that's the case.

1: initiative - whenever it isn't someone's turn, they check out of the game. This system also discourages teamwork as it focuses on one person at a time.

2: action bloat - there is no restriction on how many special powers you're allowed to use in a turn, so most players try to maximize the number of things they can do in their turn. This slows the game down exponentially, and also contributes to the teamwork problem as players spend more time staring at their sheets while disregarding the rest of the table

3: hp bloat - this will be the controversial one, but ascending hit dice is one of the worst ideas ever conceived for the hobby. The game offers a wealth of tactical options but then punishes any choice that doesn't focus on big damage numbers. Plus, every enemy having a large hp pool makes combat feel less like a fight and more like chopping down a tree. This also leads to players checking out mentally as battles slog on."

Now Owen has played a lot of other games and I know he's played some older versions and OSR/retro-clones so his opinion is probably shaded by those experiences as mine is. Still, I think he has masterfully encapsulated the major issues with combat speed in 5e. I'm going to dig into each one and then add one more factor of my own.

 

Initiative, and its related system Surprise, at first glance, seems pretty slick and it is pretty easy to explain to even new players. Basing it on the d20 mechanic and unifying it into the check system gives it a built-in set of levers for character customization. Abilities, feats, and bonuses from Inspiration of various spells can all be used to game the initiative roll. Here's the deal though, Initiative, like Hit Points, is a complete game concept. A pure holdover from D&D's war game roots. It is pretty important to decide who goes first but when you add all the levers and possible bonuses and the need to step all the players and the NPC/monster roles and put them all in order, it becomes a time sink and the combat hasn't even really started yet. As Owen rightly stated, there is an emergent problem with each player's initiative being unique and bulky to arrive at, it gets in the way of character coordination and diminishes player engagement. 

 

I am going to use 1e's initiative system. A d6 for the party and a d6 for the NPCs/monsters. The high roll goes first. More importantly, no ability scores modify the initiative roll, except in one corner case. On the player's turn, play will go around the table but if a player wants to wait for someone else to go then it's simple enough to adjust the order the party goes for that round. Initiative is re-rolled every round which gives the added excitement of making the order of play a little more dynamic which I think helps keep the players engaged and reduces the feel of repetitiveness that arises from the 5e system of rolling once at the start of combat and then walking the checklist in order however many times it takes to complete the encounter.

 

The corner case is when initiative is tied, which will be 1/6th of the time, characters who start the round in melee range with an opponent will use their Dexterity modifier as a tie-breaker. If the modifiers are the same, then actions will be simultaneous. For those not starting the round in melee range, there is no tie-breaker their actions will be simultaneous. Every once in a while this creates a "death blow" situation where a character or monster is rolling an attack as they are taking a mortal wound. 

 

AD&D has some special case handling of initiative. I am still uncertain if I will stick to all of them. The most common are mid to high-level fighters with multiple attacks per round. AD&D has those fighters always getting the first attack, then the opponent attacking with the fighter getting his additional attacks at the end. This rule essentially sets aside the initiative role for those combatants. It is also somewhat inconsistent in that a monster with a multiple-attack routine, say claw, claw, bite, always makes all of those attacks as one action. The inconsistency slightly favors players so I am sure it was a deliberate and subtle way to increase fighter power by guaranteeing their first attack would go before an onslaught, but it also keeps a fighter from winning initiative and delivering his attack combo before his opponent can respond. 

 

I think in this instance I am going to follow the 5e concept (and the 1e monster concept) and consider all of a character's attacks as a single combat action. It's simpler and creates less head-scratching at the table. Speed of handling is still one of my primary concerns. 

 

The other fairly common special case is combatants under the effect of magical haste or slow. I'm going to slightly depart from AD&D here as well. A hasted character will get their first attack before any non-hasted combatants but their second attack will come on their side's initiative, instead of always coming last which is the AD&D method. Slowed combatants always go last in the round, in initiative order if there are slowed combatants on both sides.

 

Action bloat and the action economy, here I think Owen miss-states the issue, slightly, while touching on the gist. There is a limit on the special powers a player can use in a round, but the three-action structure, especially the bonus action, does encourage players to scour their character sheets so as not to "waste" their round. The class-build game can create a very busy set of powers, and for casters, spells add to the list of options. With a lot of the options allowing you to swap in powers in place of actions, it becomes a complex decision loop for most players in each round of combat. This creates a classic analysis paralysis situation. Even for experienced players who don't hesitate during their turn, it takes some time to get through the action resolution, especially when you start throwing in all the ways other players can affect an ally's turn with bonus dice and reactions. 

 

I admit this adds a lot (and I mean a lot) of tactical depth to combats. This tactical depth adds a lot (and I mean a lot) of handling time to a round of combat. When it takes a few minutes, each, for all of the other combatants to take their turns, players get distracted. The tension and flow start to suffer and the distraction tends to add to the time when players have to be reminded that it is their turn. 

 

Again, AD&D has a quick-paced action economy in a round. In essence, you get one action. You can move or attack or cast a spell or (every fighter's favorite) charge, where you can move and then attack if you started the round outside melee range. AD&D also was very generous in how characters can interact with stuff, with only one action to resolve it can afford to be. So a character can quaff a potion, switch weapons, use a wand, or open a door while performing their action. 

 

The action economy was heavily house-ruled at most tables, at least to the extent that a lot of tables allowed a move and an attack for unengaged combatants without requiring a charge. Later editions have added a lot of rules that amounted to codifying common house rules. Understandable, but in this case, it is pretty easy to look back over the history of the game and see how this common house rule evolved into the action bloat of 5e. I'm going back to the one action a round. 

 

This also lets me re-introduce another concept that has been gutted because of the time to handle during combat, companions and pets/summons that do not use a player's action. I think I can hear faint cheering from Druid and Ranger players.

 

HP bloat is a great way to characterize monster design in 5e. The designers created a very elaborate Chinese puzzle box of character powers, actions, and spells, greatly increasing the damage output of a player party. With initiative being manipulable and damage dice being stackable, if monsters don't have huge honking stacks of hit points or punitively high defenses it is very possible for a party to go first and nova blast down an encounter before the monsters get to act at all. 

 

Occasionally, this is fun, and the players certainly feel awesome when it happens, but it grows old quickly when all sense of challenge disappears. So monsters have huge bags of hit points and do large amounts of damage because even with their huge bags of hit points they won't live long so they have to seem a creditable threat while they last. This is the best possible outcome for a given monster, too many of the monsters miss even this ideal. A good many of them have defenses just a little bit too good and a huge bag of hit points and then the party is stuck chopping down Owen's tree. 

 

This idea of monster design took away a classic encounter type, the party being heavily outnumbered but able, through smart play, to overcome. Slaying a dragon is an awesome feeling, but so is wading through a cave full of hobgoblin warriors and defeating 3 or 4 to 1 odds (or more). This issue isn't a combat rules issue. Class design and monster design play a bigger role. So do the magic system and spell designs. Even equipment and magic item design play a part. I will say this before moving on, lair actions and legendary actions in 5e monster design are a very cool addition to the game. They will be included in the modified monster designs.

 

Here's my last factor before I close this post. How in the world is adding so many ways to add additional die rolls as a bonus to checks and damage rolls an improvement over adding a bunch of static bonuses? 

 

The design team came up with a very slick idea with the advantage/disadvantage system to take out a bunch of finicky bonus fishing and weird chasing of circumstance bonuses and neatly wrapped them into an elegant construct. They rightly touted how this speeds up play and reduces the amount of mental arithmetic required for each attack or use of a skill. 

 

Then they added back in a broad array of bonus dice from spells and class powers that bypass the advantage/disadvantage rule and reintroduce not just bonuses, but variable bonuses, so you still have to do the extra math, but only after you roll some extra dice. It is even more annoying because some of them happen on other players' or monsters' turns as reactions. I'm looking at you, Silvery Barbs, you bastard spell. So now I have a reaction spell that disadvantages an opponent, but doesn't use the elegant disadvantage rule, oh no, it makes the opponent stop, roll an extra die, and subtract that roll from the already calculated result; and it's a fucking cantrip so it can be used on every single combat turn, it doesn't even burn an action of any kind on the casters round, its a reaction to an opponent attacking. 

 

There are a whole series of these kinds of design decisions. Each one looked at by itself seems like a neat idea, but the net result of all of them is slowing play and adding complexity and bloat in combat handling. The handing out of extra dice to be used as bonuses or penalties to future rolls will not make the cut. Most powers and spells that are simply about adding numerical bonuses (other than direct damage) will not make the cut either. There is very little of that in classic D&D and the introduction of them by Monte Cook wanting to force Rolemaster bullshit into D&D during the 3.0 design has been a bane to modern D&D.

Why?

 There are a lot of D&D clones kicking around so why am I working on my clone? 

Trust me, I own a bunch of them and I've read a bunch more. I was sure there had to be something that offered what I was looking to run at my table. I'm essentially a pretty lazy DM. I like to use other people's work and mostly just wing things when I'm not "borrowing". Thing is, I still haven't found what I'm looking for.

So what's the problem? 

Hmm, well, let's see if I can put it into words. I started playing D&D a few years after its first release. I loved it from the beginning and eagerly bought all the TSR products I could get my hands on. In the heady, early years of D&D there was a lot of space in the games design that people were rushing to fill, including TSR and Gary Gygax. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was amazing when it came out (and still is). It codified a lot of the experimental things that were being written about in the Strategic Review and later Dragon. It expanded the spell lists, added class levels, and modified the utility of ability scores. In general, it increased the power level of the player characters while leaving the core mechanical engine of D&D intact. That last bit is important and I'll be coming back to it.

But, there are some issues with AD&D and this is reflected in the wide variance of handling from table to table. Weapon speed and length, weapon vs. AC adjustments, Morale Checks, and Reaction Rolls, were all sub-systems that were often ignored, either because they were misunderstood (looking at you, grappling rules) or felt bulky or cumbersome in play. That bit is also going to be revisited.

The long and varied history of D&D from the 90s on will follow that general pattern. Expand the rules to fill new design space, and sometimes try to clear up the confusion of earlier rules. Make the game more complicated and as a result, more cumbersome to play. Somewhere in the 2e days, towards the end of TSRs existence, enough complexity was added to the game that the core mechanic was obscured and finally lost. 

I believe that the core mechanical structure of the original rules is crucial to the magic of D&D. The speed of handling and emphasis on time-keeping and resource management broad a dramatic tension and rhythm to the game that gets lost as the game grows more complex.

I've played all editions of D&D and lots of other RPGs. Some amazing designers have worked and are still working in this space. There are additions and ideas I admire in all of them. I think the 5e team in particular did some really solid work blending the previous Wizards editions, pruning some miss-steps, and adding some new ideas. But, they did not recapture the core mechanical wonder of EGG's work.

What I will be doing in this blog is stealing their work and making it fit into the core mechanical structure of AD&D/OD&D. A lot will have to be stripped down. Speed of handling is one of my core design goals.

We'll see how it goes.