D&D General Ability Score Potpourri (Split Dex? Whither Willpower?)

[Cadence]

And so, starting with D&D and assuming we're always going to have 5 to 12 ability scores (please keep nuking them altogether elsewhere):

For physical stats:

Is Dexterity the broadest ability? If any were to be split, is this the one? Say into Agility (speed, initative, AC) and Dexterity (hand-eye, to-hit)sense?Does strength giving a bonus to hit only make sense because armor in D&D doesn't give damage reduction?

If there was armor DR, would Dexterity be the only stat that should be used to give bonuses to hit, while a minimum strength would be needed for some weapons?

For mental stats:

Are the main mental things that INT, WIS, and CHR cover - recall (knowledge skills and spell memorizing), perception of the physical world, sensitivity to the metaphysical, force of personality, and willpower?

Is Ki a Wisdom type will power? Is sorcery a Charisma type will power? Is Rage a Constitution(?) type will power? Do all three of those and Intelligence have a use against some mental attacks?

In versions where some stat lets you learn more spells, should that always be based on Int? Should the effectiveness and number you can cast be class dependent though?

If there was recall, sensitivity, willpower, and charisma, are some of those hardly used (like willpower)?

Is more stats too much trouble:

Assuming magical Christmas land where folks wouldn't react negatively just because it was change, is seven or eight abilities just a step to far for balancing things out? Doesn't WoD work just fine with 9? Did anyone play with the expaneded skills & powers stats back in 2e? Was it worth the bother?

Anything for the good of the order? (Besides nuking them altogether?)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One thing in the current rule framework I have seriously considered is merging strength and constitution. Con is super boring stat, you never really do anything with it, it just gives you hit points and one save. Strength and con are also thematically linked, strong people tend to be tough too. And I'm not even sure it would be super imbalanced, at least if we compare it to what dexterity can do.

 

[Cadence]

Strength and con are also thematically linked, strong people tend to be tough too. And I'm not even sure it would be super imbalanced, at least if we compare it to what dexterity can do.

Does it make those two even more head and shoulders above all the rest though for anything involving combat?

 

[Xeviat]

So, we want 3 and 3. We have power, finesse, and toughness. Things could be moved around the three to make them more important.

I'm going to ignore offensive power for a moment. That's important, because str doesn't matter offensively to a sorcerer. If we want to make the stats all matter more, they have to matter to everyone. Classes are going to have preferred high stats and that's ok, as long as they have better incentives to have the other stats high.

So Str grants carrying capacity, improves speed with heavy armor, str saves (common, but not usually tied to spells, mostly resisting grabs and pushed and prones), and is tied to Athletics.

Dex grants AC (that is limited by medium and heavy armor), Dex saves, and Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and stealth, and is likely to be used with some tools.

Con grants HP, Con saves, and some really rare con checks or counters measured in Con rounds.

I think one thing that can be done is clear deliniation between what is an acrobatics check and what is am athletics check. Backflips sound like acrobatics, but you still need to be strong.

When I go with a heavily armored character, I feel it when I have a low Dex. High Dex characters often get away with having a low Str, so making them feel it is important. I end up using lots of Str saves, and athletics checks come up a lot in my games. I also don't allow acrobatics for things that I feel are athletics.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Does it make those two even more head and shoulders above all the rest though for anything involving combat?

Yes, probably. Then again I don't see that necessarily as a problem. Most of the game happens outside the combat.

 

[Xeviat]

Does it make those two even more head and shoulders above all the rest though for anything involving combat?

Yes, warriors are strong.

Pathfinder 2 offers a suggestion. Merge Str and Con, split Dex into Agility and Dexterity. If Str was HP and Strength stuff (which fits to me, archetypical tough characters are usually strong too), I think you'd see more people willing to take a lower score because they don't feel like it applies.

The issue then becomes Agility could be easily ignored by heavy armor characters. But at least they'd feel the Agility saves being low.

Making sure Dex is important could be tough too.

It's tough all around.

 

[Cadence]

Yes, probably. Then again I don't see that necessarily as a problem. Most of the game happens outside the combat.

It feels like that's missing a "should".

 

[Cadence]

Yes, warriors are strong.

Pathfinder 2 offers a suggestion. Merge Str and Con, split Dex into Agility and Dexterity. If Str was HP and Strength stuff (which fits to me, archetypical tough characters are usually strong too), I think you'd see more people willing to take a lower score because they don't feel like it applies.

The issue then becomes Agility could be easily ignored by heavy armor characters. But at least they'd feel the Agility saves being low.

Making sure Dex is important could be tough too.

It's tough all around.

Is Str still the one that does to-hit and damage bonus? Or does Dex do that too for some weapons? Or is that level and class determined?

 

[Rabulias]

Constitution and Strength overlap in many ways, but there are many creatures that are small (low Strength) but hardy (high Constitution), like rats.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing in the current rule framework I have seriously considered is merging strength and constitution. Con is super boring stat, you never really do anything with it, it just gives you hit points and one save. Strength and con are also thematically linked, strong people tend to be tough too. And I'm not even sure it would be super imbalanced, at least if we compare it to what dexterity can do.

Con is boring because a lot of the design teams for D&D did not place active use of it in the game. Many just shifted it to a saving throw then tagged everything physically disables to it.

Most chase scenes should be opposed Con checks with the faster one having a bonus.
The exertion of long combat is waved of.
And for a game that uses taverns often, opposing Con check drinking and eating contests don't happen enough.
Glass cannon warriors (high Str low Con) and tough tanks (low Str high Con) enemies aren't used enough.