dexterity => Agility + Coordination? Comments?

[Umbran]

In the end, I think the question of "realism" isn't the question we should be asking.

When considering a rules-system, the question is often more suitably, "Does this system allow my friends and I to tell the story we want to tell with an acceptably low impediment to suspention of disbelief?"

Let's look at the repercussions of this splitting of Dex into Dexterity and Agility...

Well, we have a new stat. Now, we must go over each skill and feat that depended on Dex and revise them. We need new spells and magic items for buffing the new stat (hm, there are usually only so many magic item slots on a person, does this cause us issues?). We need to realize that adding a stat means that (all else being equal) the average stat will drop (you're now splitting your 1 point every four levels into 7 stats, rather than 6), which can become a problem when we start considering how these stats feed into feat trees. We need to all the Dex-heavy Prestige Classes...

That's a lot of work, for a small upgrade in versimilitude. I'm not at all convinced that it actually improves the story. Unless having one stat is really getting on your nerves, I doubt it's worth the hassle. I think most folks would prefer to not have such a change.

Now, think of this: Wolfen Priest, you may be in favor of such a change - you may really like the additional realism. But would the rest of your gaming group prefer it? You'd be happy, but that happiness may be partially paid for by a number of minor annoyances to other people. Is that worth it?

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Now, think of this: Wolfen Priest, you may be in favor of such a change - you may really like the additional realism. But would the rest of your gaming group prefer it? You'd be happy, but that happiness may be partially paid for by a number of minor annoyances to other people. Is that worth it?

Well, as the group I game with almost always puts their best stat into DEX, I'm sure they would say no. Come to think of it, I did bring it up to a gamer I play with who plays a gnome rogue, and he really didn't show any enthusiasm for the idea. I certainly don't blame him either, because if I was playing a rogue, I'm quite sure I could have a field day assigning stats as I please, having so many points to spare after getting my all-important high DEX.

Vaxalon: our games do involve some social interaction, but I think roleplaying those situations without too much emphasis on stats (except maybe charisma) can get a little tiresome. Normally, we rely on character concept (i.e., "what would my character do in this situation?). Other than that, most of the spells and activities in the game that involve rules at all revolve around physical danger of some kind, mostly combat and traps. If not for those elements like combat and traps (i.e., attacking another individual, even with a spell like charm monster), we really wouldn't even need any rules to play D&D.

Originally posted by Thorvald Kviksverd
This crossed my mind the other day when glancing at the sample character sheet for the LotR RPG.

Dexterity, or whatever it's called in a given system, tends to be so important that I think it would probably be a good idea to dilute it a bit by splitting it up somehow.

I agree. That's another reason (IMO) to consider changing this rule. Currently, DEX just does too much for one stat, I think.

 

[radferth]

How many abilities?

If you are talking about house rules or designing a new system, one can have as many or as few abilities as one wants. I remember back in my youth playing The Fantasy Trip (and FRPG by Steve Jackson that was a much simpler forerunner of Gurps). You had 3 abilites: strength, dexterity, and intelligence. Certainly not realistic, but it got the job done. If I were going to go for extremely detailed or customizable abilities scores, I split dexterity into at least 3 abilities: agility, coordination, and reflexes. I could even see a place for a fourth stat of manual dexterity.

Now when it comes to D&D, I think that 6 stats is pretty good, and any splitting up would not be worth the effort (ymmv). The 3rd ed. system actually has a built-in mechanism for dealing with characters who are good in only one aspect of one the abilities: the feat system. Want to play a character who has fast reflexes, but it not particulary agile; buy the lightning reflexes and/or improved initiative feat. Want to play a character who is not resistant to poison or disease but can run a marathon, buy endurence and/or running.

If there is some particular ability dicotomy (or tricotomy) that is sticking in you craw, I have a couple ways to address it:

1) Make up a new feat that grants a bonus is the appropriate situation.

2) Allow characters to choose one aspect of any given ability at which they excel. They then get an addition +1 to all rolls that that aspect of the abilty affects, but -1 to all unrelated rolls with that ability. (e.g. a character with 14 dex is defined as agile. He now gets a +3 to all dex rolls related to agility, but only +1 to dex rolls not related to agility).

This last one is a house rule that I would not care to use (too much work, among other reasons). But it allows customized abilites without making major changes to the system.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Thanks for the discussion everyone. Just for the record, I decided months ago not to bother with this, because as mentioned it's too much work for too little gain, especially in terms of disrupting the so-called 'balance' already in place.

Admittedly (and obviously) it would hurt rogues the most, but I've simply known too many people who are good atheletes in regards to coordination, but terrible in terms of agility/acrobatics, or vice versa, that I'm quite convinced they have nearly nothing to do with each other.

I guess it's probably best to simply accept a flawed system, as I have already resigned to do.

 

[takyris]

Wolfen -- if it makes you feel better, think of Strength as both physical muscle power and coordination in using that muscle. That helped make Strength into the "coordination" ability and Dexterity into the "agility" ability -- explaining the "athletic but not coordinated" person as well as the "why you use Strength to modify melee attacks, when Dex should matter more" problem.

-Tacky

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Wolfen -- if it makes you feel better, think of Strength as both physical muscle power and coordination in using that muscle. That helped make Strength into the "coordination" ability and Dexterity into the "agility" ability -- explaining the "athletic but not coordinated" person as well as the "why you use Strength to modify melee attacks, when Dex should matter more" problem.

-Tacky

Excellent point. I agree completely.

But do you ever wonder why the skill Hide is modified by dexterity? I don't understand that at all.