Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Since FK Admins have revisted the Paladin Charisma requirement in light of the current character generation format and more limited amount of stat points available to characters maybe its time to adjust a few other stat requirements in the game that were implemented when stat points were far more generous thus opening up avenues of roleplay and character development to a wider audience of players. Since the average human ability score is 10 these newer proposed requirements still are a rather large increase over the average person.

Specifically the Teach command Scholar/Teacher Feats
Teach command without any feats currently requires 12 in each of Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom - This could remain as is.

Scholar rank 1 currently requires 14 intelligence and 13 wisdom - this could be lowered to 13 and 13 respectively.

Scholar rank 2 currently requires 15 intelligence and 14 wisdom - this could lowered to 14 and 13 respectively

Teacher rank 1 currently requires 14 charisma - this could be lowered to 13

Teacher rank 2 currently requires 15 charisma - this could be lowered to 14

(the proposed changes could also easily be lowered 1 point for each rank and the basic teach command, that would be something that would best be discussed among the staff of FK and how much they want to open the Teach command as a roleplay and character development avenue)

And the one quest in particular that the charisma requirement is unduly high is for the Gilded Lance Academy Advanced Courses in Westgate. Currently this requires a 15 charisma which is extremely high and well above an average human charisma of 10. A 13 charisma or even a 12 is more than sufficient for an officer/leader of fighting men. (None of my officers or ranking NCOs when I was in the Army could ever have been considered to be charismatic on the order of a king or noble which is what 15 charisma represents) As it stands now, especially for races like dwarves with a negative charisma modifier to start, this 15 charisma requirement puts it well out of reach as an avenue of character development. 1/4 of available stat points for a dwarf as it is now.

I fully agree with the reduction in the teacher/scholar feats. The Gilded Lance is a player-built area, so it's really up to Lathlain's discretion on it. But a CHA of 15 is a bit contradictory since:

An 'officer' or other combat leader would also be expected to be some sort of "teacher/leader." Based on the requirements of the teacher feats, one could assume that said a character should also require 13+ Int/Wis. Obviously, that is not the actual requirement, but I'm trying to be realistic in the logic chain. So if you want a fighter with 13 INT/WIS and 15 CHA, he's going to be a terrible fighter because he doesn't have enough stats for STR/DEX/CON, the actual fighter stats. It's not a great example, but it illustrates my point.

Note, I am not bashing on Lath'Lain at all for his wonderful area. I'm just saying the way everything else works in the game makes it difficult to access a lot of content in FK.

I am firmly against the drastic amount of stat requirements that a lot of areas in FK still require. We should be expanding roleplay opportunities, not limiting. It's nearly impossible for a fighter, ranger, or paladin to go the scholar/teacher route because they would suck at their class just to meet the stat requirements. And being in school for 19 years of my life has shown that while teachers may be great people, they're not necessarily super intelligent, wise, or even charismatic. But they're still good at what they do.

Edit: Also, characters are also already giving up a lot just in the loss of feats to be a teacher/scholar. It matches crafting professions (which don't have crazy stat requirements) in regards to using feats as a profession. I think that in itself should help reduce the requirements for these feats.

Personally I have always felt very strongly about this issue. Gating quests, vendors, and trainers with stat blocks is not encouraging for several reasons:

A) They are undetectable and to my knowledge, unadvertised. It's commonly known to experienced players, but I can recall a few short months ago explaining to Ash what stat reqs. were and why (ostensibly), they were in place.

B) There is no way to work around them. If you are new, old, creative, dull, whatever, if you mis-planned your stats around stat reqs. or the lack there-of and one existed or was forgotten, you are thoroughly and irrevocably boned.

C) They often do not match up where they belong; the most talked-about example is a carefully constructed zone and one of the only ones that DOES match. However, every single known flying mount vendor in the game has a Charisma requirement--in one way or another--of 15. Multiple gear vendors and quest providers that are already gated by high level, difficult quests also have requirements of both 15 CHA and/or 15 WIS--their quests pertain solely to killing things and gathering their parts.

D)The idea, the very heart and spirit of DnD is working creatively around limitations to achieve goals--I would much rather see different options for "dumb" or "ugly" characters than see them excluded because they were unaware of (or unwilling to reroll to accommodate) the meta-game. This is a real issue. The players I know best butt heads, craft toons, attempt to understand, theorycraft around this system--my own "main," the only character I care to roleplay on is a blatant and admitted re-iteration of a character to conform to the way the stat system works. This seems wholly unnecessary and no amount of IC interaction can be done to rectify it. It totally undermines the massive strengths, even if strength score isn't one of them, to focus on the notevenweakcomparedtonormalfolk weaknesses your character does have.

I understand, however, that there is a major argument for stat blocks. The argument--which clearly presented reads as an OOC attempt to manage power creep and game abuse--does not give players the benefit of the doubt. It helps build an "us vs. them" mentality, where players feel they are striving to work around a system that does not like them as much as they like it. Times have changed--this game is not a haven for 14 year old kids bent on destroying as much as they can. Those 14 year old kids have grown up, and they've learned that being a decent human being, being fair and not cheating, but working with the system, is the only way to keep this game that they love and build on to, be it through something as simple as a roleplayed hello or as grand as written stories, alive.

I believe that the only viable solution--viable meaning fun, comprehensive, and challenging--is to take more time in coding quests to have alternative routes for failed stat/skill rolls, not hard stat requirements. It makes much more sense that if I cannot jump across a chasm that I will get a plank. It makes much more sense that if I cannot convince someone to allow me to do something, I will do it anyway and impress them with my efficiency. It's more fun, it caters to everyone, and it adds depth and diversity to the game. This falls directly on our builders, or lack there-of, which I will admit (again) that I am part of the problem with. x_x;

Edit: Wrote this on my phone and got home, clarifying some points.
Edit II: Got too passionate and forgot to offer my vision of a solution. I hate to whinge and not offer something productive at the end, so added it.

I disagree in general. I feel that stat requirements can be a good thing because it prevents everyone from doing everything and therefore adds some diversity. While I understand -from a player perspective- how this can be frustrating, I also understand -from a staff perspective- why this can be useful.

I don't have a real dog in the fight with the levels of certain requirements, but I like requirements in theory.

Harroghty wrote:I disagree in general. I feel that stat requirements can be a good thing because it prevents everyone from doing everything and therefore adds some diversity. While I understand -from a player perspective- how this can be frustrating, I also understand -from a staff perspective- why this can be useful.

I don't have a real dog in the fight with the levels of certain requirements, but I like requirements in theory.

In theory, they sound great, but that isn't how it feels in the game. To me, these stat requirements have been the staff's long crusade about making charisma and wisdom "required" dump stats for anything unique to the game. From players I've spoken to, getting that "ideal" stat allotment is part of the fun in creating a character, but a lot of that freedom is lost because of these stat requirements that are behind-the-scenes and purely arbitrary.

Instead of stat requirements, why not have glory requirements or skill requirements? Keep any stat requirements to a minimum (like 10-12, since that is, by definition, above average). This will give players an option: floor these dump stats (dropping CHA/WIS to 8, for example) but losing access to unique paths or being more rounded with more paths available. That seems FAR more realistic than the current model.

In the end, I think the best solution is to make things skill-dependent, not stat-dependent, and find clever ways to implement some non-combat skills into the mix. That way players can work towards what they want to do, instead of being arbitrarily closed off forever.

Some form of stat requirements is fine, I'm not looking to have them removed all together I'm asking that they be made more relevant to what todays character generation system allows. Broadly speaking (not the requirements addressed specifically in my original post) having stat requirements of 15+ in a stat, or worse, two stats that have no relative reason for being a requirement for a particular quest other than to limit access is another. Many of the stat requirements were put in when stat points and character generation/progression was quite different than today. Quite a few of these stat requirement were implemented when the character generation began with all 6 stats at 13 and possibly when primary stat was a 15, thats just not the case anymore. Another point for thought is if you do have stat requirements then it might even be considered that some races do not necessarily need to have the same stat requirement. Dwarves and charisma requirements that could be 2 points lower than a human is a prime example. Halflings and a strength requirement, Elves and a constitution requirement.

The characters I have left that were made when a lot of the stat requirements were implemented have the following stat points at level 50 (where the max now is 89 stat points for all their races), its a rather significant difference:

103 stat points
100 stat points
100 stat points
96 stat points
99 stat points
97 stat points

Timaeus: I think you make a solid point that's worth discussing at the staff level. There have been some changes to the overall possible totals for PC stats the consequences of which are worth addressing.

Athon: We could go down the rabbit hole and discuss perceptions of stat requirements, but the bottom line is that builders are not forced to use them. There is no cabal of charisma lovers at the staff level. Some builders use stat requirements and that's their creative freedom to do so.

Every race with a -2 to a particular stat also has a balancing +2 to another stat. By the numbers a dwarven fighter is no more disadvantaged by charisma requirements than a human fighter as the +2 constitution that dwarves get over humans can be put into charisma and the whole affair balanced out.

I would say that stat requirements are generally not a stick but a carrot: they're not there to beat people over the head with cool stuff, they're available to give people with unusual stat builds a little bonus. That said, if certain powerful/iconic feats are only available from areas with hefty stat requirements than I feel that's grounds for discussing whether or not they should be available elsewhere as well, perhaps with a more difficult quest required.

What do other muds in the top ten (or top five) do to address issues like this? I just wonder. Is there anything we can do with the information and suggestions featured above to take away any advantages they might have over us in this category or should we stay the course and go our own way?

Though my personal opinion is that I don't mind the current system, I think creating stat builds based on rp and less on pvp is what was intended for these areas. I find that its less about feeling incredibly weak or isolated on a continual basis and more about feeling incredibly weak in pvp. If you want to build someone that is a good pvp'r before they are a good rp'r then I'd take the severe restrictions and just enjoy the pvp of your strong uber build.

It has zero to do with pvp, absolutely nothing. Its also not about removing the system completely. Its about making the system more compatible with the redesigned character development and not based on a character development system that is long gone never ever to return. It would still require investments in stat builds that are not conventional and not min-maxing builds. Its lowering the specific stat requirements for a few specific things to open those RP avenues to more people without forcing people who want to make those choices into subpar mediocrity in pve for their choice to focus on a roleplaying aspect that potentially can impact the RP of many players over the course of that characters time on the mud. Besides the stat outlays these people are also asked to spend 4 feat points as well, lowering their coded potential even further than those who do not wish to pursue this roleplay avenue. This is not about going through every single quest and removing every stat requirement left either.

Re: Timaeus- Hyperbolic nonsense.

5 points spent into charisma leaves enough for 20 str, 12 dex, 20 constitution, and there are even 2 points spare. If that isn't enough to be competitive in PvE you're doing it wrong.

Even going ahead and also getting 15 int and 14 wisdom leaves you with enough stat points to have, say, 17 str, 12 dex, 16 con. Sure you won't be able to compete as well as the aforementioned 20 str/con guy but you should be able to get +1 strength gauntlets easily enough and end up dealing damage in the area of 2d6+18 with a greatsword and the proper items/feats. Not too shabby for PvE. Constitution-wise, I was able to make out alright with a 14 con fighter (Cirei) so I'd imagine 16 isn't all that bad.

Re: teaching further, though, nobody would fault you, I think, for instructing another PC and then showing them a mob to train from. I suspect that the teaching code is primarily intended to spread spells rather than giving fighters the ability to teach fourth attack or what have you.

Your argument is just as hyperbolic, Enig. You're over-simplifying the builds and only focusing on fighters. What about one of the MANY Fighter builds with Dex? What about Ranger and Paladins? Both arguably need high STR/CON, moderate DEX, with Rangers requiring at least 14 WIS and Paladins requiring at least 15 CHA. Luckily for those classes, SOME of the requirements fall in line, but it makes the others all the more treacherous.

The only thing that's happening here is an appeal to tradition. The scope of build diversity is being limited by nothing more than the fact of "that's the way it's been." There is middle-ground here.

But the days of 15 CHA required for flying mounts or a fighter's guild should be long gone (these are a little more than "a little bonus.") If you want to limit very select areas that aren't hampering any character's full development, be my guest - more power to the builder. But when it comes to basic things, we need to moderate these requirements.

Edit: At the end of the day, this isn't even about Min/Maxing a character. I have been involved in maybe 5 PKs my entire FK career. PvP is not my thing. It's about creative freedom but we've long been 'forced' into dumping stats into CHA, for reasons that have never been made readily clear to the player base. We can't 'twink' our characters because it's impossible to get base 20+ in any stat.

No character needs a flying mount or access to special trainers within the guild that they can freely join without having 15 charisma. /w regards to fighter builds, you're limited by the quantity of stat points you have available. If you want dex you have to sacrifice something else. This is the nature of making a decision.

Rangers and paladins both gain access to stat-boosting spells to compensate.

Take Rangerly McRanger, the awesomest ranger teacher around. He has the following stats:

19 ---- str
14(18) dex
12(16) con
15 ---- int
14 ---- wis
15 ---- cha

Or, Paulson the Paladin (of Lands of Lore fame):

14(18) str
12 ---- dex
18 ---- con
15 ---- int
14 ---- wis
16 ---- cha

Tougher if you want to also go all out on dex, you'll have to borrow from con or something, but, again, that's the nature of choice. You can't have all the stats.

Really, 4 or 5 points in charisma are affordable by any class and you would still have a pretty viable character, and I personally think that for those characters that put their stat points in charisma, they would be trusted by NPCs much easier than those with average charisma. That is the reason why often in D&D paladins & bards are the "face" of the party.

If we had "social skills" eventually everyone would do the same quests af if they had 15-16 charisma now... unless skillpoints were finite in which case I think that "true skills" as concentration or trades would go before these skills.

Or...you could get rid of the stat system all together and go straight tabletop and roll your stats at the beginning. And lessen the number of points you get as you level. Then that would give some very cool quest reward incentives further down the road. Do a crazy difficult quest for a Mage looking to find special components and his reward is he will give you a tome that will give you a single stat point to spend. I personally do not mind the system as it is, but if you are talking of a overhaul, you might as well go all out and make it a little more tabletop compliant.