|
Post by gaptooth on Oct 23, 2012 13:20:16 GMT -5
Thanks, Dekh! The ability scores are ordered by an arcane sequence I learned in my wizardry training: A-B-C. If I redesigned it so you could fold it, would you prop it up like a mini Dungeon Delver Screen?
|
|
dekh
5th Level Troll
dekh by Grumlahk
Posts: 622
|
Post by dekh on Oct 23, 2012 13:30:57 GMT -5
Thanks, Dekh! The ability scores are ordered by an arcane sequence I learned in my wizardry training: A-B-C. Possibly less than ideal ;D If I redesigned it so you could fold it, would you prop it up like a mini Dungeon Delver Screen? Never thought of that. It just looks like it should be foldable.
|
|
|
Post by gaptooth on Oct 23, 2012 17:47:57 GMT -5
The ability scores are ordered by an arcane sequence I learned in my wizardry training: A-B-C. Possibly less than ideal ;D I'm open to hearing why you think so. I've never seen any rhyme or reason in the order used in the rulebooks or other character sheets I've seen. If there are objective criteria for sequencing the ability scores, I'd love to learn about them! ;D
|
|
|
Post by gaptooth on Oct 23, 2012 18:56:00 GMT -5
Actually, I'd be happy to hear a persuasive theory about the best sequence of ability scores, even if it's not quite on the level of "objective criteria". My earliest notebook-paper sheets used ST, DX, IQ, CN, LC, PW-- just because I played a lot of GURPS years ago before I found T&T. When I got the 7.5 edition rules, I began using the order on the Kindreds table, but not because I thought it was better. The alphabetical sequence used by LotFP Weird Fantasy seemed elegant and simple to me, and I've been using that order since I stumbled across WF. Over a couple years of actual play, I've never heard a player say that one method made any more sense than another.
The 7e ability scores could easily be divided into physical (CON, DEX, SPD, and STR) and intangible (CHA, INT, LCK, and WIZ/POW), but the usage of each ability offers no logical reason for that. Then again, they could be grouped by those that contribute to Adds (DEX, LCK, SPD, and STR) and those that don't, but again, the actual system offers different uses for each ability that make even these grouping arbitrary. Weapon use (for instance) depends on DEX and STR, two physical abilities that both contribute to Adds; while learning spells depends on DEX and INT, a physical and intangible ability that have no other system functions in common. The system works, and I'm not complaining about a lack of complete parity and symmetry between the ability scores, I just don't see any sequence as natural or ideal.
|
|
|
Post by runequester on Oct 24, 2012 0:35:36 GMT -5
I would have to group the abilities by 'Physical' and 'non-physical' groupings (so for 5th/7th ed. STR, CON, DEX (and SPD for 7th) and IQ, LK, CH and POW/WIZ. Of course my own house ruled 5th ed. rules kind of redefine attributes a bit to erase some of the logical inconsistency of Ken's standard rules but that is another subject. I am just kind of anal about rules being "elegant" and logical (even when they are simple and not really given to complexity and realism) so the D&D way of just listing attributes by no particular grouping or relation just won't work for me. I suspect most are not so obsessive-compulsive.
|
|
|
Post by khaboom on Oct 24, 2012 13:00:28 GMT -5
I never really thought about changing the order I first came across in 5.5 - ST, IQ, LK, CON, DEX, CHR. It didn't matter to be that there was no logic to the sequence. Then I added in SP and it went to the end. Then came PWR and I put it before IQ because it related to wizards. Now I have WIZ ( a rose by any other name) and IQ has become INT (so what) and ST and SP both get a third letter. But not LK. Over at the Outer Sanctum, there are some great new character sheets on display as part of a competition, the winner maybe to go into 'de luxe' (go vote, hurry, ends today!). Some think poor LK should get a third letter but I think 'No', let it be unique and special. As Khenn so often says 'Better lucky than good'!
|
|
|
Post by ProfGremlin on Oct 24, 2012 13:27:30 GMT -5
I've always been a fan of grouping physical attributes first followed by mental and then miscellany. It would seem that physical attributes are relied upon a bit more in delving than mental so it makes sense that they would get top billing.
|
|
|
Post by gaptooth on Oct 24, 2012 13:40:22 GMT -5
It depends on how you delve, Prof.
If your best tool is a warhammer, all the orks look like nails. If your strong suits are Charisma and Intelligence, a mine full of monsters might look like a delicate network of loose social ties waiting to implode. ;D
|
|
dekh
5th Level Troll
dekh by Grumlahk
Posts: 622
|
Post by dekh on Oct 24, 2012 15:07:07 GMT -5
I'd say the sequence doesn't really matter, you'd get used to it whichever way. But I'd prefer following the convention in the rulebook. For no other reason than that's what I'm used to. 5th ST IQ LK CON DEX CHR SP POW (if you must) 7th STR CON DEX SPD INT WIZ LK CHR But pretty much any way is good.
|
|
zendog
4th Level Troll
Posts: 250
|
Post by zendog on Oct 24, 2012 15:19:51 GMT -5
To me looking at 5th ed it appears to arranged around the types. You have the most important stats for each each Type: St for Warriors, IQ for for Wizards, and LK for Rogues, followed by the second most important stats Con for Warriors, Dex for wizards, and Chr for Rogues. In 7th ed it looks more like a common sense grouping physical and mental stats.
|
|
|
Post by gaptooth on Oct 24, 2012 15:45:11 GMT -5
That's a very interesting observation, Zendog. Thanks!
|
|
gufnork
3rd Level Troll
Pfft.... karma is so last year!
Posts: 138
|
Post by gufnork on Oct 24, 2012 16:06:06 GMT -5
Huh... Yeah, I never noticed that before. That's actually quite cool. I'm going to assume it's intentional rather than a happy coincidence. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by runequester on Oct 24, 2012 16:33:31 GMT -5
I think it is much more likely to be a happy coincidence but that is still an interesting observation from Zendog.
|
|
gufnork
3rd Level Troll
Pfft.... karma is so last year!
Posts: 138
|
Post by gufnork on Oct 25, 2012 16:09:18 GMT -5
I don't know... Why would they be arranged in exactly that sequence though? Sort of thing I wished I'd noticed ;D
|
|
|
Post by runequester on Oct 25, 2012 21:57:09 GMT -5
I don't know... Why would they be arranged in exactly that sequence though? Sort of thing I wished I'd noticed ;D Bob Ross would've called it a "happy accident". It's not all that odd when you think about it. But it could have been intentional...I just think that to be unlikely myself.
|
|