D&D General Doing away with INT/WIS/CHA

[DND_Reborn]

You know, this is interesting. I think the reason why we don't see as much complaints about STR/DEX/CON is because those physically represent the player in the game. We have to know how strong, quick, and hardy that body is, right?

But the mental stats (INT/WIS/CHA) are harder because I have often seen players running character smarter than themselves, or wiser, or whatever. It doesn't matter if the character is stronger than the player (happens A LOT!) because the player doesn't swing a sword or climb a cliff in the game, the character does. But the player has to act out their character as smart, nice, perceptive and so on.

I think that is why people have a more difficult time with the mental stats. Your idea takes them away and puts it all on the player. Sort of nice, but kind of not also... Many players would have a hard time convincing a mob not to lynch another character or solving a complex riddle without a hint or two provided by a good INT roll.

At any rate, all of this is worth thinking of while I enjoy a couple days off from work.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Stealth should probably be treated as a kind of combat, rather than a kind of skill.

Similarly, grappling (wrestling, grabbing, pulling, pushing, lifting, punching, kicking, etcetera) should be natural weapons treated as weapon combat, not as skill.

Sure, something like the Stealth system in Neoclassical Geek Revival? That is an interesting system, but one of the key differences is that NGR stats are fairly different from 5e. Perception is a stat, and it modifies Stealth. That actually works significantly better than Dexterity in that system, conceptually, since I can see how Perception would both make it easier to stealth and easier to counter Stealth. That said, something like that would be a bigger change than the OP's proposal.

 

[DND_Reborn]

{snip}, and just change what the stats /mean/, leaving the names intact.

So:

INT: Your ability to decipher, devise, record, analyze, and generally make use of the arcane formulae and knowledged used in spellcasting.

WIS: Your connection to the divine & spiritual.

CHA: Your psychic force of personality, used to power & resist certain sorts of magic.

But INT edged too close to being justifiable for knowledge skills, and I liked the idea of breaking out a stat just for saves.

Umm... all of those things are already part of the stats (at least for some characters) so you aren't really changing things IMO. Are you more trying to redefine them by removing certain elements?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I before skill systems made their way into the game, the "roll d20 (or 3d6, depending who you were playing with) and roll under your stat" was a way to resolve such stuff.

Sure, or just talking through it, or whatever th DM came up with or ad libbed, because, like I said, the game didn't cover it for quite a while.

Do they?

Yeah, upon reflection, they do. I encountered those sorts of complaints in a few threads in a row and realized "Yeah, that is not an unfamiliar sort if grousing..." I just hadnt ever thought to bundle them all up like this, and offer one, simple, cut-the-baby-in-half solution.

It's an interesting idea, but I see some issues with it.

How do you resolve finding a trap without Investigation/Perception?

The player describes how the character looks for the trap, the precautions he takes, etc.
The DM describes what he finds.
If the player thinks a crack or wire or something is a trap, he describes how he disarms or bypasses it.
At that point the DM might call for a DEX check....

...pretty old-school, really.

If the player makes a reasonably persuasive argument or tells a decent lie, but the DM is on the fence

Then the NPC is on the fence.

If you're tired of people not playing their mental stats, you could narrow what they represent. .

I figured cut to the chase.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. Are you more trying to redefine them by removing certain elements?

Yes.
I didn't think it went far enough.
INT, in particular might still have arguably had applications outside casting.

 

[billd91]

Yes.
I didn't think it went far enough.
INT, in particular might still have arguably had applications outside casting.

Yes, it should have applications outside of casting.

But ultimately, I think just considering these 3 stats without also fixing issues with the physical stats is a mistake. Part of the problem with some of the D&D classes is it's too cheap to dump stats because they are so unevenly used. I think the 6 stats should boil down to 3 offensive stats, 3 defensive stats and matched in pairs. 4e skirted the idea a little by allowing a player to choose which stat affected their defense, but ultimately botched it because with the higher stat picked for defense, all the player had to do was pick a class that used those same stats for offense and they had 3 ready-made dump stats. Unfortunately, not all classes or class options were geared well for it, meaning some could only manage 2 dump stats, putting them at a disadvantage against ones that really could do the full 3. Comparing the artful dodger vs the brutal scoundrel kind of highlighted that for me.

Rather than allowing choice as in 4e - define the stats in offensive/defensive pairs. Strength/Constitution make a good pairing. Strength is actively using a body's power, Constitution rates passive power to endure. Charisma and Wisdom make a good pairing as well - Charisma being the exercise of personality, Wisdom being the passive power to resist. Charisma would affect all non-Int-based offensive casting, Wis provide for saves.

It's only Dex and Intelligence that are tricky. But Intelligence could represent Acuity and reflect either physical or mental (or both). It would take over the offensive features of Dexterity (ranged/finess bonus) and leaving Dex to keep defense reflexes (Saves, Initiative). And it could take over the spell casting offense of casters whose spells rely on the Acuity of the mind.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, it should have applications outside of casting.

Thus dropping the names, as well. To avoid any confusion with qualities that will be provided by the player.

with the higher stat picked for defense, all the player had to do was pick a class that used those same stats for offense

The reverse of the usual process, but, yeah.

<offense/defense stat pairs>...
It's only Dex and Intelligence that are tricky.

Planning vs reacting. While the former could offer defense in the form of preparedness, it makes sense for offense, and reflexes make perfect sense for a defense.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think this has legs for a certain kind of 5E campaign, but a real 3 pillar campaign that was looking to work the social interaction pillar might find this an even less useful resource than what comes in the tin. I'd rather prop up the third pillar than abandon it all together. You need some mechanics there, and while I applaud the abolition of INT/WIS, CHA isn't im quite the same boat IMO. I get that there's an issue with the stats, but there's an equally large issue with the skill system, and repurposing the stats to be combat specific won't fix it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think this has legs for a certain kind of 5E campaign, but a real 3 pillar campaign

There's spells with effects in the other two pillars.

that was looking to work the social interaction pillar might find this an even less useful resource than what comes in the tin.

Less useful, but also less problematic.
Interaction is handled by interacting with the DM. The character doesn't come into it, unless the player decides it uses some concrete ability.

need some mechanics in the Social pillar, and while I applaud the abolition of INT/WIS, CHA isn't im quite the same boat IMO.

Resistance save v DC based on casters Power is a mechanic.

Though, I guess the Advantage granted by the Charmed condition is moot.

 

[Fenris-77]

I was really talking about the entirely non-spell third pillar, which is already lighter than it should be. I don't want 5e to be a strictly combat/spell game, even though it shades that way already. My general thrust is to enhance the social interaction mechanics, rather than further hampering them. That's also not as much of a criticism as it sounds like.