Methods of Improvement

I already had a system in place that would allow a character's Faith score to be malleable through the course of normal play, changing the score based on exceptional success or exceptional failure with Turning checks. Just today I wrote down and implemented a similar idea for the Luck stat, where the Luck would alter with exceptional critical hits (consecutive natural 20s), or exceptional critical fumbles (consecutive natural 1s).

I also allow stats to be built up using Combat Proficiencies (my term for Weapon Proficiencies, Non-Weapon Proficiencies, or Feats, depending on your chosen version. I don't know what the 4th Ed. equivalent is, but I don't care), but since I have these two stats as potentially variable I was wondering if there were other stats that people thought should be so quickly alterable. I know that physical stats such as Strength should not be so quickly or easily changed, but maybe Charisma might be affected by apparent wealth, or the Charisma scores of the people you're with?

Probably not, since it's a bit trickier than the systems I have in place for Faith and Luck. As it stands, Faith is really only important to one class, or anyone who wants to Turn or Rebuke undead. Luck is a bit more universally useful, since it affects saving throws, but there are two classes in particular that are majorly helped by having Luck as a primary stat. I like having these two stats alterable on-the-fly because I think it reflects the concept behind them well, but I don't know that any of the others really lend themselves to such.

Delusions of Shakespeare

So why am I "The Bard?"

Contrary to the title above, I'm not trying to horn in on Will's racket. I've always been very musically inclined, and am an accomplished vocalist. I've been operatically trained, have been appearing in plays and musical theater productions since Elementary School with an actor's resume some 5 pages long. I've played trombone, piano, and guitar, but my primary instrument is my voice. As a young child, brought to events by my parents, my goal in the SCA was to join the musician's guild (and go fight in full armor, but what kid doesn't want to do that?). I am a Master Harper in one such SCA guild, modeled after Harper Hall in the Dragonriders of Pern series (and sanctioned by Anne McCaffrey).

I even bring my guitar, a Martin Backpacker, to gaming sessions. When I was a regular attendee at the Tuesday Games(tm), I would have it out nearly every session. Because of its small frame, it didn't interfere with most dice rolling, and it's easy to put to the side when the action gets heavy.

One particular Tuesday night, playing 3rd Ed. D&D, the party was trying to make their way down a corridor that was bottlenecked by a horde of goblins. As the rest of the group began discussing options, I started plucking out a tune I'd picked up at the St. Louis Renaissance Faire a year or two prior, modified for the current events:

"They're standing in line.
They're standing in line.
They want to get killed so
They're standing in line.
They're standing in line
For a very long time.
They want to get killed so
They're standing in line."

"Everybody sing!"

And everyone did. I led half a dozen people on an impromptu sing-along reprise, most of which had never even heard the tune before. There was no hesitation on anyone's part. No one missed a beat, and no one missed a word.

To make a group of full-grown men break into song without prior training or expectation of performance? That's a powerful feeling. If I'd needed any more convincing of real-world bardic magic by that point in my life, that event would have satisfied me.

So that's why I'm the Bard.

Cunning is Confusing

In reconsidering a skill system, I'd come across the fact that I don't have a lot tied to the Cunning stat, and so was considering whether it should be kept. It plays a part in Psionics, and I had previously set it to determine how many fighting skills a Fighter would get per level. After some review, and re-reading the dictionary definition, I'm not sure the latter use is appropriate.

Cunning is this strange conglomeration, made up of aspects of the other mental attributes: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Bluffing or conning someone, or feinting in combat are good examples of using Cunning. Seducing someone could be Cunning mixed with Charisma, as would (potentially) disguising yourself or acting out a role. A master tactician would be intelligent (having learned about tactics and studied them in history), wise (know your enemy, know yourself), and also cunning (applying strategies in unpredictable ways, developing new techniques). Cunning seems to be concerned with the application of these other abilities (Int, Wis, Cha) in base, predatory ways, while preventing others from knowing what you're up to.

Despite the closely-tied nature of these stats, though, it's obvious that a highly developed Cunning can exist even without Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. Goblins and Bugbears are frequently considered cunning, despite not being the brightest or most beautiful. Captain Jack Sparrow showed a great deal of cunning, and had some Charisma to back it up, but was not portrayed as the most wise or intelligent individual.

As a character stat, it's difficult to pin down what exactly Cunning should (or should not) affect. I considered the option of having Cunning directly affect the amount of extra damage dealt by a Sneak Attack, but one of my players expressed the opinion that the ability to strike vulnerable areas is a learned skill and should therefore be improvable. I could make another Combat Proficiency which would allow for that.

My wife mentioned the possibility of Cunning as a skill, rather than a stat, making the argument that one's shrewdness and guile could be practiced and improved. The question there would be, though, what would Cunning, as a skill, do? Most of what we came up with would cause it to affect other skills, rather than do something on its own like the other skills.

Still exploring possibilities with this.

Ability Scores and Casting - Intelligence

Intelligence as a casting stat is a much better fit than Wisdom, based on the idea that a Mage or Wizard needs to be able to understand and remember the arcane formulae used in their version of magic. My main complaint here is that Intelligence is used solely for both the number of spells an arcanist may know as well as how many can be cast. In most literature on the subject, it seems that using magic, channeling the power either through or from your body, seems to have a physical impact on the magic user. Raistlin, for example, though he's hardly the only one. Even Miyazaki's Howl had physical difficulties when performing more powerful spells.

My solution to this is rather simplistic: keep Intelligence for the number of spells known or learnable, but make Constitution govern the number of spells that can be cast. In retrospect, perhaps a similar thing could be done for divine magics, keeping Wisdom for the number of spells known, and Faith for the number that can be cast, to correlate with the idea that the power comes from the deity, while the cleric is responsible for applying the power through the proper use of the spells/prayers/whatever gained from reading their sacred texts.

On second thought, however, this works well for Clerics but not necessarily so aptly for Druids. Druids, as a part of Nature, seem to draw their energy from it or from within, so they seem more closely related to Mages in that manner. Perhaps Wisdom (knowledge of the cycle of life and nature) to determine spells known, and Constitution to determine spells per day.

3rd Edition Sorcerers are a strange creature. Per the way 3rd edition spellcasting seems to work, Sorcerers should, even moreso than Wizards, have their Constitution determine the power available since it is stated that their power comes directly from within, rather than channeling latent power through the use of mystic formulae. WotC explains this as being due (possibly) to dragon blood somewhere in the lineage of the Sorcerer, citing some Force of Personality as being the power behind the spells. Yet none of this really seems to indicate how or why Charisma should determine the number of spells known. It seems that Sorcerers learn through trial and error what they can and cannot do, mostly learning Wizard spells since those have a known effect that they can try to reproduce. Sorcerer as a class really doesn't have anything going for it in 3rd edition. A specialized Wizard could cast the same number of spells, have more powerful ones available, and even get some free metamagic feats, whereas a Sorcerer actually sacrifices effectiveness with the feats, and only gets a piddling amount of extra weapons to choose from, none of which are necessary or even desirable to most people. I think I'd just as soon drop the class entirely.

Bards are odd, as well. They actually have enough difference to stand as their own class, rather than being a variation of something else, but again they're Charisma based casters, and again there's nothing that explains why Charisma, whether it's Personality, Leadership, Beauty, or whatever, should have an effect on the number of spells known. At least Bardic Tradition, whether it's passed on from one generation to the next or learned at a Bardic College, can explain how those spells are learned, but I would almost think that Intelligence, serving in its capacity as Memory, would govern what a Bard could remember and cast.

Well, I've gone beyond Intelligence here. Let's sum up.

Clerics: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Faith
Druids: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Constitution
Wizards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Constitution
Sorcerers: Are silly
Bards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Charisma

As always, comments are welcome, and constructive criticism encouraged.