Quote from: Kuroth;1070761If you have characters in a game with only scores from 9-18 there is no reason to have an array range from 9-18, since no one has 1-8.  Just use 1-10.  NPC don't need ability scores and monster don't.  

'Array Ability Stats for Adventurer Conquer King' is your thread title.  I guarantee GMs that play it like threads about their main game.

NPCs do need ability scores; it hardly takes any effort to make them the same way as you would a PC and if they're the sorts with class levels there's no reason not to. So I see no need to ditch the existing stats and replace them with something else when what is there is perfectly serviceable. Though in my particular case there are no "monsters" unless you count animals.

People are monsters my friend.  Boo!

Nah, NPCs never need ability scores in D&D.

Classed npcs are typically given stats in all editions.

If you use d20 or 3d6 roll under stat checks you need the numbers to be in the usual range. Not 1- 10 or 0 to 3.

NPCs do not need ability scores.  You are simply choosing to do so.   Same with roll under with d20.

Quote from: Kuroth;1070766NPCs do not need ability scores.  You are simply choosing to do so.   Same with roll under with d20.

Do what you like in your game. In mine I will continue to give important NPCs (which includes henchmen and villains) proper stats.

What a limiting way to envision them.  Poor fellows.  Oh the tragedy.



Edit: Arrays worked ok in 4th by the book, however, being the way it was all set-up.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1070747They just need daring, wits and luck. Two of those three are in the control of the player. That's part of the fun of the game.

Wouldn't a character's wits be based on their INT/WIS stats?

Quote from: kythri;1070771Wouldn't a character's wits be based on their INT/WIS stats?

Stats don't matter when PCs are little more than interchangeable avatars of their players, competing in the beauty parade for who can impress the GM the most.

Quote from: Kiero;1070774Stats don't matter when PCs are little more than interchangeable avatars of their players, competing in the beauty parade for who can impress the GM the most.

It certainly seems that way, with all the bitching I've heard about the Diplomacy skill in 3E/3.5...

If you can't lift vehicles over your head in real life, that's OK, because your STR stat covers that, but if you can't shower someone with flowery prose in real life, well, fuck you.

Quote from: kythri;1070776It certainly seems that way, with all the bitching I've heard about the Diplomacy skill in 3E/3.5...

If you can't lift vehicles over your head in real life, that's OK, because your STR stat covers that, but if you can't shower someone with flowery prose in real life, well, fuck you.

Unlike lifting things, talking is the medium of the game, so it kind of takes away from it.

Imagine a cooking game where the game handles all the non-cooking parts for you, like shipment of goods and delivery, but leaves the cooking to you. That makes sense. But if it also does the cooking for you, what's left?

Quote from: kythri;1070776It certainly seems that way, with all the bitching I've heard about the Diplomacy skill in 3E/3.5...

If you can't lift vehicles over your head in real life, that's OK, because your STR stat covers that, but if you can't shower someone with flowery prose in real life, well, fuck you.

Unlike lifting things, talking is the medium of the game, so it kind of takes away from it.

Imagine a cooking game where the game handles all the non-cooking parts for you, like shipment of goods and delivery, but leaves the cooking to you. That makes sense. But if it also does the cooking for you, what's left?

Quote from: Kiero;1070707It's incredible that for a hobby that prides itself on people hacking things to meet a particular objective, there are so many purists who recoil at the notion of someone changing something as trivial as how ability scores are generated.

It open content, do you what you think best and don't worry about other people think.

However the changes you are making are not going to be liked by broad subgroups within the OSR. Don't be daft and think there is some ideal that doesn't exist.

You done what necessary you stated clearly why you want the changes you want. Just I do when people challenge me on including "skills" in my take.

As for the OP you are overthinking it. Just pick a starting point that "feels" right and run some campaigns with it. That will tell you whether it works for what you want to do.

What you need to do write down all the effects resulting from ability scores from in your chosen edition or retro-clones. Then see how you like various combinations.

For example if you make 13 the high score of the array while using the B/X rules then every player cleric will probably have at a 13 wisdom with +5% to earned XP and +1 to their magic saving throws.

If you are cool with that then great. If not you need to consider alternative or just living with the random system.

If the changes you are making keep piling up then you need to ask yourself what are you getting out of using an edition of D&D? From personal experience from writing and publishing my own rules the problem with extensive house rules is then using other classic D&D supplements and products are reduced in utility. With the enough changes they are no better (or worse) than say Pathfinder, Fate, GURPS, or Fantasy Age.

Finally some changes seem innocous but require a lot of work to implement even though the result is still largely compatible. For example in my Majestic Wilderlands allow certain magic user classes to have a focused art based on the metaphysics of how magic works. The mechanics of this is that a spell has a boost in effective when cast by somebody who is focused in the art of the spell.

For example a magic user who is focused in the Art of the Flame will be able to cast fireball with the following bonus;

QuoteThe fireball is now 60 feet in diameter and will expand to fill 196 5' by 5' squares. And does +1d6 damage.

Initially I tried just a small rule change of +1 caster level. But if one goes through a list of classic D&D spells not many of them have effects dependent on caster levels. Something that was quickly found out during the first campaign.

The flavor of the Arts of Magic is part of how magic works in the Majestic Wilderland so I bit the bullet and when through each spell and not only added what art is belongs too but also a focused art section and tailored the bonus effect for each spell.

For example

Light: Art of the Eagle: Light will radiate out to 30 feet and dim light and shadows extend to 90 feet. (instead of 20 feet and 60 feet)

Find Traps: Art of the Lantern: The range is now 40 feet, and the duration is one hour (instead of 30 feet and 20 minutes).

Both the original +1 caster level and the bonus effect came after discarding alternatives, most of which altered the core system to much.

As for what you are doing, what will happen is that most PCs will automatically get a small boost above and beyond their class descriptions.

Also you have to consider that unlike later edition the attribute scores are the primary mechanic as to how to roleplay a particular character. While not expresses in terms of mechanical bonus, a player should roleplay the differences in the various scores. A character with a 6 dexterity versus a 13 dexterity, or more obvious a 6 charisma versus as 13 charisma. It is the player side of the whole 'rulings not rules' ethos of OD&D.

Quote from: kythri;1070771Wouldn't a character's wits be based on their INT/WIS stats?

Not in terms of mechanics, but as referee if a player with a 6 int doesn't roleplay that 6 intelligence then we will be having a chat out of game about the issue.

There is player side to 'rulings not rules'. The referee ruling has to make sense in terms of how the setting works or it not fair. A player actions as a character has to make sense in light of what attributes they have or likewise it not fair.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1070779Unlike lifting things, talking is the medium of the game, so it kind of takes away from it.

I'm not suggesting the skill should replace talking, or replace conveying what you actually want to do.  The skill allows a not-so-eloquent speaker to roleplay an eloquent speaker, much like high STR fighters allow skinny/weak folk to portray high STR fighters.

The player is still going to need to verbally convey to the DM what he/she wants to do, and/or what he/she wants to persuade an NPC to do.  Obviously, that shouldn't be negated, but just because a player themself can't do something well doesn't mean a character shouldn't be able to.

Quote from: estar;1070788Not in terms of mechanics, but as referee if a player with a 6 int doesn't roleplay that 6 intelligence then we will be having a chat out of game about the issue.

There is player side to 'rulings not rules'. The referee ruling has to make sense in terms of how the setting works or it not fair. A player actions as a character has to make sense in light of what attributes they have or likewise it not fair.

That's pretty much what I'm suggesting.  A character's wits are based on their stats, not based on the player's wits.  If you've got a low INT/low WIS character, than that character doesn't have much in the way of wits about them.