D&D General Alternate "Ability Scores"

[turnip_farmer]

“Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition.”

That covers what I would call 'common sense'.

 

[Dausuul]

While I think ability scores are a wretched mechanic, I also think they are the sacredest of cows. Specifically:

• The names (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) are never going to change.
• The numeric scale centered on 10.5 is never going to change.
• The method of calculating bonuses (subtract 10, divide by 2, round down) is probably never going to change.

The first two items date back to the earliest days of D&D, and they have been absolutely consistent through every edition. (Some sourcebooks added new scores to the list, but none of the new stats ever migrated to the core, and I know of no sourcebook that tried to remove one of the original six.) They are, at this point, set in stone.

The third item is more recent, having been introduced in 3E, but it has now persisted for 20 years and is widely accepted. You could conceivably change it, but it would be an enormous lift.

However, this leaves a fair bit of space to tinker. One of the most important changes IMO would be to reduce the "cascading" nature of ability scores, where a change to an ability score ripples out across a zillion other numbers. This leads to a variety of problems. It makes the game harder for new players to learn; it forces players to choose between concept and mechanical effectiveness; it complicates balance and class design.

I have already noticed WotC leaning more on proficiency bonus and less on stat mods--that's a good trend and I hope they broaden it.

 

[Oofta]

I do agree with this. Obviously having different ability scores will affect the way players portray their characters. I just don’t think it’s something that needs policing - the way ability checks work alone will encourage players to favor actions that, if a check is required to resolve them, they will have a better chance of succeeding at.

Oh yeah, that I agree with. I would never say "you don't know that" based on someone's intelligence. In some cases I may ask for a specific check if I think it's not automatic but that's it.

 

[Reynard]

So I was a bit confused by your first post; since it just seemed a slight reshuffling of ability scores.

To clarify my understanding; you don't want to change the mechanic of using a short list of scores as modifiers for a universal resolution system; you just want to change the names so people think about them differently and you never have to have a 'your character wouldn't be intelligent enough to think of that!' argument again?

Yes, that is correct, with the added caveat that there would be some reshuffling in addition to recategorizing (I prefer that term to simply renaming) simply because some of the grouping makes very little sense.

You don't need to know how graceful a character is. You need to know how well the character performs at the in game task of walking a tight rope. You don't need to know how smart a character is. You need to know how well the character performs at the in game task of deciphering the ancient script.

 

[Charlaquin]

That covers what I would call 'common sense'.

That would seem to me to be a strange definition of common sense. I think most people use “common sense” to mean good judgment in practical matters. 5e wisdom, on the other hand, seems to reflect spatial and interpersonal awareness.

 

[Reynard]

That would seem to me to be a strange definition of common sense. I think most people use “common sense” to mean good judgment in practical matters. 5e wisdom, on the other hand, seems to reflect spatial and interpersonal awareness.

And willpower. Except when Charisma is willpower.

It's a mess.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, that is correct, with the added caveat that there would be some reshuffling in addition to recategorizing (I prefer that term to simply renaming) simply because some of the grouping makes very little sense.

You don't need to know how graceful a character is. You need to know how well the character performs at the in game task of walking a tight rope. You don't need to know how smart a character is. You need to know how well the character performs at the in game task of deciphering the ancient script.

I disagree. Someone who is strong but doesn't know how to lift correctly isn't going to be able to powerlift as much weight as someone who is trained even if the trained person isn't quite a strong. There's a difference between being graceful and knowing how to pick someone's pocket, even if picking someone pockets requires that you be dextrous.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree. Someone who is strong but doesn't know how to lift correctly isn't going to be able to powerlift as much weight as someone who is trained even if the trained person isn't quite a strong. There's a difference between being graceful and knowing how to pick someone's pocket, even if picking someone pockets requires that you be dextrous.

I think you are actually agreeing with me: you don't need to know how strong a person is, you need to know how much they can dead lift, or how much weight they can take while marching 25 miles in a day (two measures of "strength" that are not actually that closely related).

 

[Oofta]

I think you are actually agreeing with me: you don't need to know how strong a person is, you need to know how much they can dead lift, or how much weight they can take while marching 25 miles in a day (two measures of "strength" that are not actually that closely related).

Yes and no. In D&D terms someone with an 8 strength may have training in athletics will be able to powerlift (on average) more than someone with a 10 strength. Someone with a 20 strength is going to be able to outlift either one. They'll have terrible form but at a certain point muscle matters.

That, and there are times when I like having proficiency and ability separate because of the flexibility of the system. For example dead lift is athletics strength, forced march would be athletics constitution.

 

[Charlaquin]

And willpower. Except when Charisma is willpower.

It's a mess.

It makes sense to me for saves against Enchantment and Illusion to fall under Wisdom, but yeah, I think a lot of saves ended up falling under Wisdom for no other reason than that they would have been Will saves in 3.Xe. Also, no idea why they decided that saves against forced teleportation should be Charisma, except that there’s no obvious ability for that to fall under and there were so few other effects that Charisma was used to save against.