Notations in italics signify considerations that aren't really mechanical in nature, but aesthetic.
The current setup (X+Y, 1-5 Scale)
- Attributes and skills are rolled in pairs, with either two separate attributes being rolled together, or an attribute being rolled with a skill. In either case, the two functions independently contribute to the pool for the challenge.
- Everything is rated on a scale from 1-5, with 6s being reserved for player characters who chose a Tier 5 priority at character creation. Anything higher is animal/monster scale.
More flexible overall.
- Skills can be meaningfully and mechanically contorted in different ways based on the attribute being used. For instance, adding Social+Blacksmithing to represent contacts made as part of your experience in that trade.
- Combinations of skills/attributes can be used to resolve situations we might not even think of.
Doesn't require change.
Has dots. (Henri loves dots)
Cons
Less granularity (and thus mechanical weight between characters). 1-5 base scale creates a whole mess of problems.
- The difference between a novice and a master is small enough that an errant die or two can make the former beat the latter. Equally, a master with a low attribute is quickly matched or exceeded by a high-attribute novice.
- SAs are also on a 1-5 scale, so any time an SA fires for a skill check, their SAs Low-skill+SA will generally beat high skill.
- All of the above inherently devalues "skill based" characters, to a degree. Particularly when compared to Attributes (which are universally more valuable) or Proficiencies (where the difference between a low-prof and high-prof character can't be as easily overcome by SAs).
- Less room to improve over time. Because characters can easily start with 4s and 5s in the skills of their choice, the thief-like character can max out his skill set at character creation. This is great for the "play the character you want" concept, but it means while his swordsman friend can continue becoming better at swordsmanship, the thief has to become broader and branch into other skills instead of becoming better at the thing they wanted to do in the first place.
- An additional layer of mental calculation for the GM to constantly spot-call what any given situation requires.
- An additional layer of mental calculation for the player in assembling their pool.
- Creates the odd situation where we effectively have to have a derived attribute for anything attributes are supposed to do. Most hilariously, Strength has really only the one prominent application and it doesn't actually do that because it requires stamina for the pool.
- Skills and Attributes are both rated on a 1-10 scale and rolled separately.
- Skills will get their starting value based on the attribute to which they are tied (at 1/2 or 1/3 the value, we haven't settled on this yet.)
- Rearrange and condense the attributes down so each attribute has more significance. The current idea is to bring them down to Agility, Brawn, Cunning, Perception, Social, and Will. Three derived attributes would sit along side of them: Reflex (the average of Agility and Cunning), Trauma (the average of Brawn and Willpower) and Body (1/3 of Brawn, serving both as the damage mod and as an indicator of the physical mass of the character).
1. Small animals.
2. Children, the disabled.
3. Sedentary office workers
4. Average, active people. Farmers, laborers
5-6. Professional athletes.
7-8 Professional Strongman types. The height of what normal people can actually achieve.
9-10. Genetic freaks. Tier 5 material. Andrey the Giant. Hafthor Bjornson.
Pros:
More granularity between characters
- Bigger mechanical difference between less skilled and more skilled characters
- SAs are less capable of replacing skill/attributes
- More room for characters to grow and having ridiculously high attributes becomes a much larger investment.
- Scales are weighted towards the low-end, so we mathematically wind up with smaller average pools and thus we get slightly more use out of lower obs than we did before.
- Simpler to call as the GM - I'm never debating whether the lockpicking is a product of Cunning or Agility at the table, and it doesn't invite a player to disagree with that assessment.
- Removes one step of calculation for the players - they aren't looking up A then B then adding them together.
- Makes the individual attributes stronger and more valuable as character resources as they aren't reliant on some other attribute to function.
- Skills can't simply be replaced by going all-in on attributes, as they could before. You actually need to invest in them.
Skills and Attributes are now effectively on the same scale as proficiencies, meaning we no longer have to halve proficiency to use it as a skill and (more excitingly), Skills could be used as proficiencies (allowing us to make melee-like split combat mechanics for debates or large-scale warfare -ships, land battles, etc).
Technically makes this sheet easier to make in Roll20, but that's hardly a universal benefit
Cons
- Less flexible overall. The stat does what the stat does, rather than mixing-and-matching as appropriate.
- Requires the calculation of derived attributes -- though, if we're being honest, we're already doing that by requiring them to be rolled in pairs, just without division being involved.
- Skills will have to be permanently tied to a governing attribute and some calculation made to determining their starting value. This combined with Body and the derived attributes could create dead levels.
- Change always annoys a fan base no matter how you do it. Some people will be excited and some people will hate it no matter what you do.
- Henri likes dots better than numbers