The Fourth Attribute...

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by JLV

It avoids that, it gets rid of the weird "fST" concept, it spreads attributes out in general to avoid attribute bloat, it permits sensible encumbrance and strategic movement rules, it permits more effective accounting for things like disease and poison, it does a lot of things.

For me, those are secondary, but still important, reasons.

[tbeard1999]

I would object to HT as a new attribute because it devalues ST. Currently, high ST allows a figure to use bigger weapons and take more damage. If you make HT the measure of hit points, then it becomes much tougher on fighters.

If your main issue is the Conan the Wizard problem, why not add "Mana" instead to power spells? That doesn't devalue ST, yet provides a different mechanism for Wizards to power their spells with.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I would object to HT as a new attribute because it devalues ST. Currently, high ST allows a figure to use bigger weapons and take more damage. If you make HT the measure of hit points, then it becomes much tougher on fighters.

If your main issue is the Conan the Wizard problem, why not add "Mana" instead to power spells? That doesn't devalue ST, yet provides a different mechanism for Wizards to power their spells with.

I proposed that way back at the beginning of January too -- no interest.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by JLV

I proposed that way back at the beginning of January too -- no interest.

Perhaps you were just ahead of your time :D

Since I've never had a strong urge to add a HT stat, I really haven't thought about it too much until now.

[JLV]

I was talking about the mana proposal, just to clarify!

I think HT is an obvious choice for literally dozens of reasons; but there seems to be a lot of hostility over it for some reason -- possibly because I'm some nobody and also the one suggesting it. (Were Rick or yourself to make the suggestion, it would suddenly become totally the thing to do.) It makes a lot more sense (since it's much more fundamental to the character) than adding a "Charisma" (or "presence") attribute, or splitting IQ to gain a "perception" attribute (which only applies in limited circumstances) and so on.

Similarly converting XP to "character points" (which seems to me to be nothing more than renaming XP), or adding "talent points" (the effects of which could just as easily, and more simply, be obtained by doubling or trebling the number of talents/spells a character can learn by multiplying the number of IQ slots by two or three) seem pointless -- and aren't actually "attributes" at all, anyway.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by JLV

I was talking about the mana proposal, just to clarify!

I think HT is an obvious choice for literally dozens of reasons; but there seems to be a lot of hostility over it for some reason -- possibly because I'm some nobody and also the one suggesting it. (Were Rick or yourself to make the suggestion, it would suddenly become totally the thing to do.)

While almost no one can deny Rick, my influence is sadly nowhere near as great. :D

My issue with HT is that I don't want fighters to have to rely on 3 major attributes. Of course, Mana or Power avoids that.

It makes a lot more sense (since it's much more fundamental to the character) than adding a "Charisma" (or "presence") attribute, or splitting IQ to gain a "perception" attribute (which only applies in limited circumstances) and so on.

Charisma can be handled with a talent (which it already is in TFT). Perception seems to be worth doing to me. BUT...Wizards were never very popular in my campaigns, so I didn't have to deal with the Conan the Wizard syndrome. If I did, and I only had one attribute to add, I'd probably go with Mana instead of Perception.

As an aside, it seems to me that several attributes in other games can be replaced by a talent. Charisma is already replaced by the talents Charisma and Sex Appeal. Perception is partially addressed by Alertness and Acute Hearing. Of course, TFT still bases the latter off IQ rolls.

Similarly converting XP to "character points" (which seems to me to be nothing more than renaming XP), or adding "talent points" (the effects of which could just as easily, and more simply, be obtained by doubling or trebling the number of talents/spells a character can learn by multiplying the number of IQ slots by two or three) seem pointless -- and aren't actually "attributes" at all, anyway.

Yeah, I've always been ambivalent about talent points. I used them in some campaigns, but they didn't really "stick". I always liked the way that TFT gave you just enough talent points to be a decent fighter, a decent thief etc. It allows the same kind of clear distinction between roles as classes do, while feeling more natural. Making it easier to get talents could blur those distinctions.

I've long held that every character should have a strongly defined role. I.e., he's the best in the party at *something* useful. I believe that this enhances player interest and party cohesion. Allowing too many "multiclass" characters can sabotage that. Of course, your mileage may vary.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I would object to HT as a new attribute because it devalues ST. Currently, high ST allows a figure to use bigger weapons and take more damage. If you make HT the measure of hit points, then it becomes much tougher on fighters.

If your main issue is the Conan the Wizard problem, why not add "Mana" instead to power spells? That doesn't devalue ST, yet provides a different mechanism for Wizards to power their spells with.

I previously made the same point. If you split the Health aspect away from ST and put it in a new attribute then you've devalued both of them relative to DX and IQ. If you're going to do that then really you should split them all to maintain the parity between attributes. There's no "hostility" to the idea it's just clearly not a well balanced one.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

I think HT is an obvious choice for literally dozens of reasons; but there seems to be a lot of hostility over it for some reason -- possibly because I'm some nobody and also the one suggesting it.

Maybe because that's what GURPS did?
I added an Endurance attribute in my first TFT campaign, about 1983, because I was adding in Gamelords' Traveller "The Desert Environment" which used one, and it was clear that hiking endurance (physical condition) should not be the same as Strength (because there were plenty of characters without high ST who marched around a lot, and plenty of big strong guys who weren't in good shape). However I treated it as a status level that just went up and down with your physical conditioning (in play, mainly from hiking or inactivity or illness) and wasn't part of experience or attributes. It felt like a really clunky add-on, and was only used for certain outdoor travel situations, but it filled a need for that distinction.

Originally Posted by JLV

Similarly [...] adding "talent points" (the effects of which could just as easily, and more simply, be obtained by doubling or trebling the number of talents/spells a character can learn by multiplying the number of IQ slots by two or three) seem pointless -- and aren't actually "attributes" at all, anyway.

Talent points aren't attributes but they're currently determined by IQ, and create a need for high IQ. In house rules where you can use experience to get talents above IQ instead of increasing IQ, it can tend to effectively counter IQ bloat, which to me is the main point, whether or not one considers it an attribute. They can also reduce DX bloat or even ST bloat, if there are talents which can improve things you'd otherwise have to buy up DX or ST for (e.g. to overcome armor DX penalties with great ST or higher DX - if there were talents that do that that cost less than great ST/DX, characters can get those instead of having extreme attributes).

[Chris Goodwin]

I think the wish for HT stems from two similar problems: Conan the Wizard and Conan, Ph.D. Wizards want high ST for the casting ability, and warriors want high IQ for the talents.

Adding HT, for fatigue/mana, gives us another attribute to deal with. But we don't really have anything for warriors to use fatigue for, and if we want to base a wizard's casting ability on their physical condition we can as easily do that by adding a separate trackable mana resource, and starting it equal to their ST. We end up with marathon running wizards with high HT.

Adding Talent Points to me seems like a better idea, but if it starts out equal to IQ then it's sort of masking the problem. Fighters have to start out pretty smart in order to be able to afford a decent amount of talents, and it's still a point sink. If it starts at 10, it would work okay, but I don't think quite ideal.

I'm going to reiterate my previous suggestion. We expect warriors to have high ST, and be good at fighting, but not so good at the nerdy pursuits. We expect wizards to have high IQ, and to be good at spells and the nerdy pursuits, but not so good at the fighting.

We can make the existing attributes do double duty. First, we make all the talents cost more in terms of talent points -- double them? Next, all characters choose an attribute at character creation; you have talent points to spend equal to that attribute. If you choose ST, you get a discount on the primarily fighting talents (the weapons-based ones, mainly, but also Warrior, Veteran, etc.; maybe things like Tactics as well). If you choose DX, you get a discount on the thief-type talents: Climbing, Stealth, Acrobatics, and so forth. If you choose IQ, you get a discount on the brainy talents (Literacy, any sciences, etc.) and also on spells and magic-related talents.

Characters' hit points are always equal to their ST. Those who cast spells have a mana value equal to their IQ. If a wizard runs out of mana, they can continue to cast or maintain spells by burning ST, but this represents actual wounds.

I can see at least one interesting new spell; call it Wizard's Shield. Cost is 3 to cast, 1 per turn to maintain, plus one point per point of damage stopped. For a wizard, essentially lets them turn their own mana into hit points. They can put it on a friend, though, and it protects them for the same cost.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I would object to HT as a new attribute because it devalues ST. Currently, high ST allows a figure to use bigger weapons and take more damage. If you make HT the measure of hit points, then it becomes much tougher on fighters.

If your main issue is the Conan the Wizard problem, why not add "Mana" instead to power spells? That doesn't devalue ST, yet provides a different mechanism for Wizards to power their spells with.

Because Mana is pure dump stat to non-wizards. Utterly worthless.

Health, however, solves not just the Conan the Wizard issue, but also the scrawny guy who can drink Conan under the table but can't even pick up his sword.

Strong and Healthy are not synonyms, but TFT had them functionally so.

ST should stay HP.
HT takes fatigue use, not HP use. It also takes the resistance rolls.