D&D General Alternate "Ability Scores"

[doctorbadwolf]

Which is why my proposal is not to get rid of ability scores, but to relegate them to being purely descriptive, replacing their mechanical function of providing modifiers to certain rolls and derived traits to class, proficiencies, and level.

I don’t like the idea of character defining choices being purely cosmetic, like that, but I’d be fine with them having a less “you’re only good at things under this score” system.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Alternate ability scores seems like putting fresh paint on the issue. Whether called Intelligence, Intellect, Cunning, Smarts, or IQ, you’re going to have the same issues.

(Incidentally, I went to school with some genius kids and let’s just say nobody’s behavior was consistent).

See, no this is misunderstanding the problem and it's weird because it's like you didn't even read the first post in the thread. Nobody is suggesting merely renaming the stats to literal synonyms for same thing, as you're suggesting. Obviously yes that would be pointless. The OP was suggesting ditching the stats entirely and replacing them with a series of broad skills which replace those stats, but don't replicate them.

Agree re: genius kids though jesus. My IQ is pretty high but some of these guys were sky high and... um... not sure how to put this, but they weren't always exactly geniuses except when it came to stuff like doing math in their heads, understanding extremely complex theoretical concepts, memorizing 100+ digits of pi in an afternoon, learning languages disturbingly quickly, playing a dozen instruments proficiently and so on. But when it came to a lot of straightforward stuff a lot of them had pretty bad issues, like being terrible with conflict or personal interactions, or, in one memorable case, being unable to open a sandwich packet. Also just having some ideas about RPGs that just really didn't hold up to any kind of examination (including orc genocide).

I think D&D six ability scores have been abused by RE-inventors and designers who have made them seem that way.

What on earth does this even mean? It sounds like one of those things people say to sound cool and just absolutely haven't thought through.

 

[Raith5]

I am not of fan of ditching stats for skills. I think stats tell something about the PC (and the skills they would want to use). The thing for me is that the 6 stats of D&D no longer do a good job of identifying interesting things about PCs. They are also a bit of an ill fitting straightjacket with some things that dont make sense. For eg, I think the idea that wisdom informs perception is somewhat crazy.

I dont think that physical and mental stats are divided in an interesting way. Id be happy with combining STR and CON into a stat called Brawn and combing INT and WIS into a stat called Intellect or mind.

I like to see at stat that relates to coolness and determination, maybe called Resolve. I think resolve would be important to martial PCs as well divine types.

I also think that perception should be a separate stat that informs skills like awareness and investigation. I would say that perception is as important for rogue types as dexterity, for eg.

 

[NaturalZero]

Before 4e or Numerera came out, I had been thinking about homebrewing a 3.5 system where Fort, Will, and Reflex were the only ability scores and everything keyed off of that. After seeing how it turned out in Numenera, I'm not sold on it, 100%. I'd still miss Con and Str being different, etc.

I'd be completely satisfied if they dropped the 3-18 ability scores and just used ability bonuses as the score. Having 2 numbers describe the exact same concept but having one of numbers be the only one you use for almost all of the mechanics makes it clear that the 3-18 scores are just a clunky leftover.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hadn't heard of Ron Edwards or the GNS theory until this thread, but at least the wikipedia entry, brief as it is, also includes the criticism of the hypothesis so that readers are informed of its pitfalls.

You’ve probably heard of it indirectly. If you’ve heard the terms “gamist,” “narrativist” or “simulationist,” GNS theory is where those terms come from (and in fact that’s what GNS stands for).

 

[cbwjm]

You’ve probably heard of it indirectly. If you’ve heard the terms “gamist,” “narrative or “simulationist,” GNS theory is where those terms come from (and in fact that’s what GNS stands for).

Oh right, I have definitely heard those terms but had no idea that someone had developed a whole theory of roleplaying with them as the basis.

 

[Minigiant]

In original D&D, ability scores had very little mechanical effect. Their biggest impact was probably in giving bonus XP if the prime requisite for your class was high enough. But with 3d6 straight down, most stats were 9-12 and did nothing. You could drop them and not lose much.

I think this is a part many forgot.

For the most part, in the old days, ability scores just determined what class you could play and how well at it. Physially and mentally, most PC were the same as anyone of their race. It was class first, race second, culture 3rd, ability scores dead last (unless you rolled really high).

Now D&D is at a crossroads and cannot choose which is most important.

• Ability Scores
• Racial features
• Class features
• Culture features

 

[Bawylie]

Oh right, I have definitely heard those terms but had no idea that someone had developed a whole theory of roleplaying with them as the basis.

They didn’t. They sure tried to. But it was an awful mess in its own right, full of internal contradictions and conflations. Not really adopted outside its own little corner, either. You’d think a theory on rpgs (particularly one aimed at being a grand / unifying theory) might be applicable to like an rpg video game, or even a conversation offline. But it wasn’t. Nobody with money on the table (or with anything interesting to say) bothered with this thing. It ended up being a forum-waffle generator and nothing more.

 

[Hriston]

Spinning out of the "Immersion" thread:

I think D&D's six ability scores have outlived their usefulness. I think we need a different way to quantify competence in specific areas that don't "force" certain role-playing requirements on players (especially in the case of the "mental" ability scores).

The easiest thing to do would be to eliminate them entirely and then pare down the skill list to reflect what people actually do while adventuring. You could probably get away with maybe 6 or 8 broad skills (Athletics, Awareness, Interaction, Knowledge, Survival/Woodcraft/something, Thievery) plus two saves (Physical and Mental) and a level bonus (the true measure of competence in D&D). Use feats to provide specialties ("Trapsmith: advantage when using Thievery to disarm Traps"; "Strong: +2 on Athletics rolls to lift and for grappling). Oh, and get ride of the worst element of 5E design: the tool proficiency.

No more "You 6 int barbarian wouldn't think of that plan!"

The only systemic pressure exerted by ability scores on roleplaying is that players are incentivized to make decisions that rely on their character’s strengths and shy away from plans that rely on their weaknesses. I don’t see this as a negative.

As for the behavior you describe at the end of your post, there are certain people with whom one probably shouldn’t play.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Conversely, a 14 is as far from average as a 6 is. Does a 14 mean that you are as much more intelligent than a commoner, than a commoner is compared to an ape? Because that would be super-genius level.

@Elfcrusher et al. (in case no one pointed it out...)

From 1E MM1, MM2, Field Folio, and Deities & Demigods (might even be in other books...):

Unfortunately, this doesn't directly translate to the normal distribution of the 3d6 bell-curve so you can't simply compare it to the standard curve for I.Q.

Anyway, notice (most importantly IMO) is states "In monsters" first thing. You can use the same table for PCs, but with their higher average (10.5 with 3d6, higher with other methods) it isn't quite the same IMO.

Now, I know 5E doesn't make the following assumption, but I like it and treat it as such when it comes to ability scores in 5E.

Each +1 modifier does translate directly into a one standard deviation increase in ability or increase in relative ability.

Ex. INT 14 (with +2) would be the equal of I.Q. 130 (2 SD above the mean), which is pretty smart and frankly research has shown with this I.Q. you can learn/understand/handle just about any task.

EDIT: with this concept, the actual bonus should also be cumulative, i.e. +1 => +1, +2 => +3, +3 => +6, +4 => +10, and +5 => +15. This way in a contested check for someone with -2 vs. +5 the modifiers would be -3 vs. +15, so the +5 would be nearly guaranteed to win.

----------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, to the OP:

You could remove ability scores in 5E and just allow PCs to select one thing to be great at, one good at, and the rest average or whatever.

For example, a fighter would be great at combat, good at saves, and average with skills, magic, or whatever else.
A rogue would be great at skills, good at combat, and average will saves, magic, etc.

That is just a quick-and-dirty idea, but I think you get it.

What a PC is great at uses double proficiency bonus, good uses 1.5, and average just gets proficiency bonus.

Something like that. shrug