Making ability scores more about the character concept.

[5ekyu]

I find, the more stats, then the more impossible it is to balance the stats with each other.

My minimalist four stats balance well and correspond well to narrative tropes.

The key to the nine is its three by three - basically three stats each with a subset that has specific use. Makes balance easier than say having four macros each containing crossing uses.

Part of the 5e problem is with things like one stat covering defense, stealth, initiative, ranged attack and ranged damage etc.

So much gets lumped into a stat cluster that its hard to balance the clusters.

But when your "attack stat" may be strength normally, wits for reaction and con when hurt a lot or exhausted... Stats get balanced by function.

 

[Yaarel]

@5ekyu

I have to say, my foursome in particular, works especially well. And because they correlate with narrative tropes, each of the four happens alot, and dumping any of the four is painful for any character.

If find, four is a solid compromise between the benefits of splitting and the benefits of lumping.



That said, I am curious about your 3-per-3 approach. You say there are three main stats and three subsets within each. How does your system work? Do you in some way get one bonus for the stat, and then an additional bonus for the substat?



That pretty much happens my system. Each of the four stats, called aptitudes, has its own bonus, and represents global aptitude for kinds of things that the hero tends to be good at. But then skills flesh out the details of specializations within each aptitude with an additional proficiency bonus.

 

[Sadras]

I am in favor of 9 stats... Three each for brawn, brains and social - a power, a tough and a finesse.

Then make sure each gets its due... Give social feinting, give wits a place in reaction,etc so that as close to possible each gap can be exploited.

You seem to be adopting the Vampire system

 

[Yaarel]

@5ekyu

Heh, when I think of your system as ‘nine’, it seems alien. But when I think of your system as ‘three’ it is actually similar to mine.

You have the three: Brawn, Brains and Social.

This is quite similar to mine.

Social ≈ Empathy
Brains ≈ Perceptiveness
Brawn ≈ Athletics + Toughness



Interestingly, I have looked at the Cypher system (by Monte Cook and Bruce Cordell), but havent played it. It has:

Might ≈ D&D Strength + Constitution + Size
Speed ≈ D&D Dexterity
Intellect ≈ D&D Intelligence + Wisdom + Charisma

These three Cypher stats probably balance well enough. My main objection is D&D Dexterity is narratively awkward, and needs rethinking. But in any case, the physical stats split between something like agility versus endurance.

All of the mental stats lump into a single stat, and feels too simplified for my taste.



By contrast, your system (and apparently the Vampire system) lumps all of the physical stats into a single ‘Brawn’. But the mental stats split between Brains and Social. So for my tastes, the mental duo feels right, but the physical mono feels too simple.



I feel the optimal partition is two physical and two mental. Hence.

Physical
• Athletics ≈ Speed
• Toughness ≈ Might

Mental
• Perceptiveness ≈ Brains
• Empathy ≈ Social




Note, my four stats corresponds exactly to the traditional D&D saves.

• Athletics ≈ Relfex
• Toughness ≈ Fortitude
• Perceptiveness ≈ Perception
• Empathy ≈ Will

So this same foursome is a deep archetypal divide that inherently shows up within D&D too.

 

[Wiseblood]

Rather than give bonuses from ability scores an ability score grants feats related to itself. If you wanted numerical bonuses they could be tied to some feats. These feats would not look quite like the feats we have today.

Your selection would shape how the character plays. Instead of A' la carte you could opt for a suite of feats much like the adventurers pack vs the priests pack in the equipment lists.

With this method it would be possible to have some crossover feats. It also might be possible to trade feats out from one ability to get ones from another ability. Possibly at a 2 to 1 ratio.

As an example Dave's Barbarian is smart with a 14 but rather than using that big brain to its potential learning languages and liturature he uses it for gaining a smarter way to use his strength.

 

[Wightbred]

I agree with the problem and I love the thinking, but I don’t think I’d do this myself.

My solution is to split physical (Str, Dex, Con) and mental attributes (Int, wis, Cha) up and have separate starting arrays for each and to offer mental attribute bonuses with some feats. Beacause I’m running Adventures in Middle-earth this seems thematic (characters like like Aragorn are not dumb fighters) and also helps balance mental attributes with the large number of martial classes. So far it seems to be working really well.

 

[Wiseblood]

@5ekyu

Heh, when I think of your system as ‘nine’, it seems alien. But when I think of your system as ‘three’ it is actually similar to mine.

You have the three: Brawn, Brains and Social.

This is quite similar to mine.

Social ≈ Empathy
Brains ≈ Perceptiveness
Brawn ≈ Athletics + Toughness



Interestingly, I have looked at the Cypher system (by Monte Cook and Bruce Cordell), but havent played it. It has:

Might ≈ D&D Strength + Constitution + Size
Speed ≈ D&D Dexterity
Intellect ≈ D&D Intelligence + Wisdom + Charisma

These three Cypher stats probably balance well enough. My main objection is D&D Dexterity is narratively awkward, and needs rethinking. But in any case, the physical stats split between something like agility versus endurance.

All of the mental stats lump into a single stat, and feels too simplified for my taste.



By contrast, your system (and apparently the Vampire system) lumps all of the physical stats into a single ‘Brawn’. But the mental stats split between Brains and Social. So for my tastes, the mental duo feels right, but the physical mono feels too simple.



I feel the optimal partition is two physical and two mental. Hence.

Physical
• Athletics ≈ Speed
• Toughness ≈ Might

Mental
• Perceptiveness ≈ Brains
• Empathy ≈ Social




Note, my four stats corresponds exactly to the traditional D&D saves.

• Athletics ≈ Relfex
• Toughness ≈ Fortitude
• Perceptiveness ≈ Perception
• Empathy ≈ Will

So this same foursome is a deep archetypal divide that inherently shows up within D&D too.

When I tried my hand at making a game I came up with four stats. The four I came up with were less direct in their application. There was no strength score or charisma score. The players could imagine these in any way they desired.

They governed lineage, magic, skill, and disadvantage.

I haven't given up on it but..... I haven't worked on it in a bit either.

 

[TheSword]

You can’t strip the core six ability scores from the game, there is too much balance resting on it. By taking the ability scores relevence to key game concepts like to hit and AC you are half doing this. This moves a dangerous step closer to homogenizing the whole idea of character.

The first step was already taken by giving Dex to attack and damage, monk’s Wis to AC, and now Barbarians Con to AC. In each of these cases there is a really strong argument that these enable key archetypal builds for those classes that otherwise would be very difficult or underwhelming. However that doesn’t open the door to throw the whole system out of the window.

My advice would be to look at things on a case by case basis. If you think a character build deserves similar concessions the. Home brew a modification to a class or archetype. For instance in a couple of campaigns I agreed with a player to modify a casting stat to Charisma so he could play a Circe-esq witch. Obviously you have to take the other players into account when you indulge these kinds of shenanigans.

As has been said nothing prevents you playing an intelligent fighter or a charismatic rogue. My elf rogue in the middle-earth had Charisma 14. The downside is that her Con was 10. That’s the decision you make when you build a character. You shouldn’t expect to be good at everything.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. Don’t trust anyone who says you can.

 

[Wiseblood]

You can’t strip the core six ability scores from the game, there is too much balance resting on it. By taking the ability scores relevence to key game concepts like to hit and AC you are half doing this. This moves a dangerous step closer to homogenizing the whole idea of character.

Isn't that what the OP was complaining about? Homogenized ability scores among characters already exists. There is no slippery slope.

I also disagree that there is too much balance resting on the existence of ability score bonuses for their removal. Balance among what? Martial classes? In the case of archetypal builds we have combined multiple genres. Eastern Martial Atrs Mysticism and Western Pulp Fiction Barbarians with Quazi-Historical Armored Foot Soldiers and jumped through hoops to make them competative with one another.

 

[TwoSix]

Barbarian capstone needs updating, but I havn't seen any level 20, so meh.

Conceivably, you could put +4 as the floor of effectiveness, but still allow +5 or higher to work if someone has the score to do it. So a Barb 20 could still benefit from his 24 Str and Con. A 20 is still better, but you have to decide if a +1 to attack and damage is worth all the resources you might have to spend to get there.