D&D General Alternate "Ability Scores"

[Oofta]

Back to the OP, I don't have a problem with the ability scores and I think they're such a core part of the system that it will never change.

Are they perfect? No. But they are "good enough", even if that isn't a very high bar.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think they're too big a part of how dnd players define their characters to actually get rid of without losing much of the audience's interest.

You are correct. However, it requires you to have an idea of what sort of person that another person you're imagining being is. And in D&D ability scores are a part of determining that. I am really don advocating any one specific rigid interpretation here, merely that the ability scores actually say something about the character.

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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Eww. So you want to completely disconnect the fictional reality from mechanical results? I literally cannot understand why anyone would want to do that, and a game designed with such a paradigm would be something I wouldn't want to touch with a ten feet pole.

 

[TwoSix]

Eww. So you want to completely disconnect the fictional reality from mechanical results? I literally cannot understand why anyone would want to do that, and a game designed with such a paradigm would be something I wouldn't want to touch with a ten feet pole.

Generally, if someone says something that I interpret as absurd, I step back and say "How am I misunderstanding their position?" rather than "Ewww, how you can you like something completely absurd?"

 

[Guest 6801328]

Generally, if someone says something that I interpret as absurd, I step back and say "How am I misunderstanding their position?" rather than "Ewww, how you can you like something completely absurd?"

That's absurd. I would never do that.

 

[cbwjm]

I was thinking that you could probably use the Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saving throws of 3e, maybe rename them but they would essentially be the same. Maybe Body, Reflexes, and Mind. Body would be strength and constitution, reflexes would be dexterity, Mind would be intelligence, wisdom, and I guess charisma.

 

[Oofta]

Generally, if someone says something that I interpret as absurd, I step back and say "How am I misunderstanding their position?" rather than "Ewww, how you can you like something completely absurd?"

Yeah, I would never call something absurd. Crazy, foolish, goofy, illogical, irrational, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, preposterous, silly, stupid, unreasonable, wacky or loony sure. That's what the thesaurus is for after all. But absurd? Don't be daffy.

 

[Charlaquin]

Eww. So you want to completely disconnect the fictional reality from mechanical results? I literally cannot understand why anyone would want to do that, and a game designed with such a paradigm would be something I wouldn't want to touch with a ten feet pole.

It would be a logical move to make if the purpose of ability scores is only to help the player define their role (the fictional they will be imagining themselves as in the fictional scenario). Clearly, if it is important to you that there be a direct connection between these scores and the character’s mechanical capabilities, there must be a desire for those scores to serve some additional purpose beyond just defining the player’s role. Which, to be clear, is fine, I’m just pointing out that such a connection is not required for roleplaying. Therefore, the argument that getting rid of ability scores would remove the roleplaying from D&D doesn’t really hold water.

 

[Lanefan]

It seems the question comes down to how much one wants - or is willing to allow - one's roleplaying and personalization/characterization of a character to be informed by that character's non-physical stats: Int, Wis and Cha.

A corollary to this is players (very foolishly, IMO) marrying themselves to character concepts before actually rolling up the characters. You're going in having already decided to play a genius and then the dice give you Int 7. Bzzzzzt! Next concept, please.

Stats first, then build the character's personality and characterization around those.

Those tables where the players are happy to ignore the non-physical stats and just roleplay the character as themselves might as well chuck those three stats. My response to that would be that those tables, while not playing wrong in general, are specifically playing D&D wrong; in that all editions of D&D expect a PC's non-physical stats to somewhat inform how that PC is characterized.

 

[Krachek]

In the Monster Manual an ape has an intelligence of six. Non-human great apes have intelligence roughly equivalent to a four year old human, suggesting that a PC with int six would be about equally smart... Then again, perhaps fantasy apes are just smarter than real apes...

And with 6 intelligence, on a single intelligence check contest, you still have a faire chance against a character with 18 intelligence. Fantasy ape are really smart.