I'm interested on people's thoughts as to whether its a good idea to have special abilities for characters (merits, feats, advantages, call them what you will) and stats (STR, DEX, CON, whatever) bought with the same set of points, or whether they should be separated out.

5E D&D of course caused a big kerfuffle with now doing this (lots of ppls saying that no one would take Feats ever), but it seems to be something that GURPS has done for many long ages, as has White Wolf (freebie points), Palladium (physical skills giving stat boosts), and probably others.

Opinions?
(I ask because I'm considering whether to include something similar in something I'm designing thats sort-of GURPS-like. May post up something if enthusiasm holds up long enough to finish the chargen rules).

What is the intention of awarding more "stuff" to begin with?

Quote from: ggroy;691365What is the intention of awarding more "stuff" to begin with?

I like stuff
I don't find differentiating characters on just stat scores to be that interesting; I like feats and skills and whatever. Not interested in systems where fighter A and fighter B are clones, except that B has a wisdom 2 higher and is roleplayed as having a moustache.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;6913635E D&D of course caused a big kerfuffle with now doing this (lots of ppls saying that no one would take Feats ever), but it seems to be something that GURPS has done for many long ages, as has White Wolf (freebie points), Palladium (physical skills giving stat boosts), and probably others.

I think whether or not there is an effective cap on how much 'stuff' you can buy makes a huge difference. In 5th Edition choosing the Feat is effectively locking you out of the Ability gain, while in most (all?) point buy systems it does not.

"Always fighting orcs" style advancement in the stats is kinda boring too.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;691369I like stuff
I don't find differentiating characters on just stat scores to be that interesting; I like feats and skills and whatever. Not interested in systems where fighter A and fighter B are clones, except that B has a wisdom 2 higher and is roleplayed as having a moustache.

Then pick feats.

anyone who says stat bumps are objectively better than feats in 5e is either an idiot or hasn't actually read the rules. Both can be better depending on what you're wanting to do

Quote from: jadrax;691372I think whether or not there is an effective cap on how much 'stuff' you can buy makes a huge difference. In 5th Edition choosing the Feat is effectively locking you out of the Ability gain, while in most (all?) point buy systems it does not.

Not sure I quite understand. You mean the points are so granular/budget so limited that its one or the other?
Many point systems a character could spend all the points on stats if they wanted. Usually with slowly diminishing returns, however.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;691378Not sure I quite understand. You mean the points are so granular/budget so limited that its one or the other?

The latter.

QuoteMany point systems a character could spend all the points on stats if they wanted. Usually with slowly diminishing returns, however.

Yes you could, but you don't have to. More importantly it is not a choice you ever really have to make. You are always putting of buying something right now rather than excluding your character from ever having it.

I think Steve Jackson's The Fantasy Trip: In The Labyrinth did an excellent job of this.

I'm a firm believer in having separate "pools" of points to increase stats vs. purchase skills and feats. This is based mainly of my (brief) experience with GURPS. As a n00b, I had absolutely no idea how to to allocate my points between stats, skills, and advantages; during character creation, I literally couldn't tell if I was min-maxing or creating a dud. So, yeah. IMHO, having stats/skills/feats all bought with the same pool drastically reduces system transparency and shuts out new players. Then there's the whole issue of balancing stats vs. skills vs. feats, &c &c...

Out of curiosity, is your system level-based, or can players spend points to improve their character whenever they earn them?

Quote from: Phillip;691384I think Steve Jackson's The Fantasy Trip: In The Labyrinth did an excellent job of this.

I'm not familiar with In The Labyrinth specifically, however, it seems TFT has been 'retro-cloned' as 'Legends of the Ancient World'.

It has this, if that's similar?

QuoteAdvancement
A character raises his ST/DX/IQ by spending XPs equal to the next level. He raises a skill one point by spending 10XP or 20XP for a spell. A mage spends 10XP for a spell, or 20XP for a skill level. A character may increase an attribute or skill during play, but can only learn new skills and spells between adventures.

Quote from: Synchronicity;691387I'm a firm believer in having separate "pools" of points to increase stats vs. purchase skills and feats. This is based mainly of my (brief) experience with GURPS. As a n00b, I had absolutely no idea how to to allocate my points between stats, skills, and advantages; during character creation, I literally couldn't tell if I was min-maxing or creating a dud. So, yeah. IMHO, having stats/skills/feats all bought with the same pool drastically reduces system transparency and shuts out new players. Then there's the whole issue of balancing stats vs. skills vs. feats, &c &c...

Out of curiosity, is your system level-based, or can players spend points to improve their character whenever they earn them?

Early stage yet but presently its level-based with a separate pool of 'attribute points', and advantages gained each level.
I am not (yet) sure how much characters should be able to gain stat points with level. Probably limited since the attributes handle a majority of 'class based' functions (there are currently 4 stats - STR, DEX, INT, POW - STR determines HP and weapons useable, Int gives skill points, and Power determining if a character can use spells - therefore giving out major stat boosts would have a tendency to turn everyone into warrior-wizards).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;691390It has this, if that's similar?

Talents in TFT are not rated as "points" (pips on dice in LotAW, IIRC). They are rather "got it or not," either granting some qualitative advantage or reducing the number of dice rolled when checking for success (tough tasks using 4 or more in TFT). Some have prerequisites besides minimum IQ (lower-IQ Talents and/or minimum ST or DX scores).

Also, Talents and Spells are "bought" by devoting IQ to them (the attribute in turn being paid for with experience points on a sliding scale depending on sum of ST, DX and IQ). Talents have standard cost (usually 1 or 2 IQ) for Heroes, while most cost double for Wizards. Spells cost Wizards 1 IQ each, Heroes 3 IQ each.

Quote from: Phillip;691394Talents in TFT are not rated as "points" (pips on dice in LotAW, IIRC). They are rather "got it or not," either granting some qualitative advantage or reducing the number of dice rolled when checking for success (tough tasks using 4 or more in TFT). Some have prerequisites besides minimum IQ (lower-IQ Talents and/or minimum ST or DX scores).

Also, Talents and Spells are "bought" by devoting IQ to them (the attribute in turn being paid for with experience points on a sliding scale depending on sum of ST, DX and IQ). Talents have standard cost (usually 1 or 2 IQ) for Heroes, while most cost double for Wizards. Spells cost Wizards 1 IQ each, Heroes 3 IQ each.

Thanks. Interesting.