Horwath
Legend
That is really close to mine:
Strength, Dexterity, Willpower, Cunning.
D&D 5E With Only 4 Ability Scores, How Would You Handle Spellcasting Abilities (+)
Strength, Dexterity, Willpower, Cunning.
Yaarel
He Mage
I am a big fan for the Four Abilities. I prefer to call them "Aptitudes", as these are groups of things that a character will tend to be good at even without training.
From a bottom-up approach, looking at what players actually do during a typical gaming session, thus what the aptitudes NEED to be, there are actually Eight Aptitudes. But they pair well into Four.
Strength (Brute Force + Health)
Dexterity (Precision + Mobility)
Charisma (Sociability + Willpower)
Intelligence (Knowledge + Perception)
Notice, these Four Aptitudes equal the saving throws "Fortitude, Reflex, Will," plus "Perception". Perception is a saving throw versus hiddenness and other challenges involving the physical senses. But it expands to include tests of comprehension, such as versus illusion.
The Aptitudes are in the order of the most obvious to others, Strength (size and toughness), to least, Intelligence (which requires listening to things said and getting to know the person).
Str
This definition of "Strength" is generally the same thing as Size, but there can be exceptions. Brute Force includes kicking doors open and other demonstrations of physical strength. Moreover, Brute grants a bonus to a "Weightlifting" skill that determines Carrying, Lifting, Push and Pull.
Dex
Precision includes anything that requires a steady hand, including missile weapons, or any cautious sensitive motion, including Stealth.
Mobility is all forms of agility − including running, jumping, falling, climbing, balancing, tumbling, etcetera. It is also where the "dodging" AC bonus comes from. One might not be strong enough to carry heavy loads, but is strong enough to move oneself well.
Cha
Sociability is social skills, including persuasion and charm, and intimidation and frighten, plus empathy and reading people.
Willpower is self-awareness, mental health, morale, and perseverance.
Int
Knowledge is knowing something by any means, including intuition, as well as memory, analysis, logic, education, research, etcetera. Knowledge doesnt include emotional intelligence or reading people.
Perception is the physical senses − see, hear, touch, smell, and taste − the ability to detect faint stimuli, and paying attentions to ones surroundings generally. Perception cannot identify something unfamiliar, which would be a Knowledge check. But it can supply a sensory detail of patterns that are seen or heard, etcetera.
There are eight aspects pairing into Four Aptitudes.
With regard to the mage classes:
Bard: Charisma (Sociability for artistic appeal, and Willpower for self expression)
Cleric: Charisma (!) (Sociability for leadership and rapport with a spiritual community)
Druid: Intelligence (!) (Knowledge to comprehend nature and intuit processes, and Perception for animal senses)
Wizard: Intelligence (Knowledge to comprehend and intuit)
Warlock and Sorcerer are all over the place. Their Aptitudes depend on deciding on a salient concept. Sorcerer can be Strength in the sense of ones own body is magical device, but the Warlock can too in the sense of an otherworldly witchlike toughness.
Last edited:
John R Davis
Hero
In my soon to be released fantasy heartbreaker I have Prowess, Agility, Cunning and Wit. ( Wanted each to have a unique letter, though I do like Finesse)
Horwath
Legend
Cunning and Wit are pretty similar, but not completely.
That is why I prefer Cunning and Willpower
le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
Hey @Yaarel this is quite good a system
my only complaint is that you ( probably ) won't marry two stats ( or even 2 attributes ) to produce sub-abilities ( or skills ) ( like Str x Dex ===> Acrobatics , Str x Con ===> Fighting ( or the like ) )
Yaarel
He Mage
The d20 system is less useful for combining several stats. 5e bounded accuracy discourages adding several numbers together.Hey @Yaarel this is quite good a system
my only complaint is that you ( probably ) won't marry two stats ( or even 2 attributes ) to produce sub-abilities ( or skills ) ( like Str x Dex ===> Acrobatics , Str x Con ===> Fighting ( or the like ) )
On the other hand, it is easy to use any Aptitude for a same skill: such as Stealth + Dexterity to move silently, but Stealth + Intelligence to try detect someone sneaking thru the shadows.
MuhVerisimilitude
Adventurer
We should get rid of all ability scores. Drop your pitchforks!
A character should be defined by their class. Each class should have optional abilities you can pick that define things they are good at. The system should assume a baseline competence and then permit the players to boost themselves beyond the baseline as appropriate. There should also be something that it is assumed every instance of a class is good at. There is no Wizard that isn't good at spellcasting, there is no Fighter who cannot swing a weapon and take hits.
Example 1: The strong fighter simply picks abilities that reflect having strength. You might grab a Heavy Lifter ability that lets you lift beyond what a common person can do.
Example 2: The player who wants to play something that feels more like a tactical fighter picks less strength based stuff and more warlordy abilities.
Example 3: Some guy might want to play a stupid wizard. They simply skip taking any lore related abilities so they obviously don't know much, but they are competent at spellcasting (because spellcasting is a default thing that wizards are good at regardless of whatever other choices they made)
Example 4: A socially inept and clumsy bard is certainly possible. Just avoid picking things that enable that kind of play. The bard is defined by his ability to use bardic magic and play bardic instruments and sing, not by social competence.
This means that you are now liberated from ability scores entirely. You don't need to consider things like how certain ability scores synergise with others, or how some ability scores are only useful for certain classes etc. etc.
A character should be defined by their class. Each class should have optional abilities you can pick that define things they are good at. The system should assume a baseline competence and then permit the players to boost themselves beyond the baseline as appropriate. There should also be something that it is assumed every instance of a class is good at. There is no Wizard that isn't good at spellcasting, there is no Fighter who cannot swing a weapon and take hits.
Example 1: The strong fighter simply picks abilities that reflect having strength. You might grab a Heavy Lifter ability that lets you lift beyond what a common person can do.
Example 2: The player who wants to play something that feels more like a tactical fighter picks less strength based stuff and more warlordy abilities.
Example 3: Some guy might want to play a stupid wizard. They simply skip taking any lore related abilities so they obviously don't know much, but they are competent at spellcasting (because spellcasting is a default thing that wizards are good at regardless of whatever other choices they made)
Example 4: A socially inept and clumsy bard is certainly possible. Just avoid picking things that enable that kind of play. The bard is defined by his ability to use bardic magic and play bardic instruments and sing, not by social competence.
This means that you are now liberated from ability scores entirely. You don't need to consider things like how certain ability scores synergise with others, or how some ability scores are only useful for certain classes etc. etc.
Horwath
Legend
Only proficiency bonus:
when you have proficiency you have:
+4 +1/4th your level(round down)
for skills:
Expertise: +4 added to proficiency bonus.
Mastery: +3 added to proficiency and expertise bonus.
then when you pick your skills, and maybe Expertise and Mastery you determine what your aptitude is.
If you have proficiency+Expertise in Arcana, Nature, History and Religion with maybe one or two mastery added to those skills, clearly you are smart, bookish Loremaster.
if you have the same in Athletic, Perception, Survival, Stealth and Nature you are clearly some kind of Ranger, possibly Druid.
when you have proficiency you have:
+4 +1/4th your level(round down)
for skills:
Expertise: +4 added to proficiency bonus.
Mastery: +3 added to proficiency and expertise bonus.
then when you pick your skills, and maybe Expertise and Mastery you determine what your aptitude is.
If you have proficiency+Expertise in Arcana, Nature, History and Religion with maybe one or two mastery added to those skills, clearly you are smart, bookish Loremaster.
if you have the same in Athletic, Perception, Survival, Stealth and Nature you are clearly some kind of Ranger, possibly Druid.
John R Davis
Hero
Ah. I'm Using the old English version of cunning:
cunning (adj.) early 14c., conning, "learned, skillful, possessing knowledge,"
I'd flip this.
Picking features that make you better at fighting with heavy weapons grants you a bonus to strength ability checks.
Ability checks are used when you don't have a feature that governs a situation. They are not used when using a feature. So you don't make an int check to see if you can counterspell if you have a counterspell feature.
What this does mean is that if you have features that focus in a specific area, your ability checks related to that area will have good bonuses.
This provides for verisimilitude - a character who uses a huge two handed weapon and smashes foes around will be able to lift stuff better than a book-reading artificer. Unless, of course, the book-reading artificer takes the "lift stuff better" feature, in which case the artificer wins.
This does mean that bards, by learning charisma-based magic, end up having a charisma bonus. Rogues, by learning sneak-based features, have a dexterity bonus. Your attribute bonuses "fill in the gaps".
Now, we could use 5e's "your attributes are defences", but I think a two-tiered defence model might make sense. In a two-tiered defence model, you have your defence (which may be a function of level) - your AC or the equivalent for magic.
And as a second tier, you could have saving throws. Saving throws are resources you expend, where you roll an attribute check in order to mitigate a defence failure. Possibly they are per-day or per-encounter type resources.
Like, imagine if each of your attributes had a 1/encounter saving throw attached to them. And each saving throw can be used in a variety of situations - you can use a dexterity saving throw to dodge a blow, a constitution saving throw to soak a blow, a charisma saving throw to trick a foe into missing, etc. Here, your bonus determines how reliable a saving throw is, with the idea that if you max out one stat you have an "overkill" bonus; but because you can only use a given saving throw 1/encounter, you are better off with multiple decent saving throws, and not just one insanely high one.
The point of all of this is to use mechanics to inform the story.
