D&D General DMing Theory #2: Strong and Fast

[Charlaquin]

Not because of it no. Inertia is a powerful thing though and the 6 stats are big sacred cows imho.

Yes. That was my answer to the question of why they’re named what they are.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes. That was my answer to the question of why they’re named what they are.

People like it thst way. Its the only reason you need.

I've been hearing about how bad D&D is since the mid 90s. I started 1993.

 

[Charlaquin]

People like it thst way. It’s the only reason you need.

It’s also the only reason I gave.

 

[tombowings]

Personally, I'm not married to ability scores at all. I could do without them. I'd also prefer a different set:

Strength (melee damage)
Dexterity (all attack rolls)
Agility (Armor Class)
Constitution (Hit Points)
Willpower (spellcasting DC for all casters)
Perception (ranged damage rolls)
Education (extra languages and skills [from a select list])
Charisma (not sure...still thinking...maybe something to do with Heroic inspiration?)

I've split up the super ability (Dexterity) into Dexterity and Agility. Personally, I'd rather have the player supply the character's Intelligence and Wisdom, so I replaced them with Willpower and Education. Perception (especially passive perception) always felt more like a saving throw than a skill. Now it is. That leaves Strength, Constitution, and Charisma.

 

[AlViking]

Have you not been following the conversation? It went:

A: Teaching my daughter the game made me realize how restrictive the classes and ability scores of D&D actually are.

B: That’s why I decouple the ability scores from the character’s personal traits.

C: It’s cool that that works for you, but if you do that, why are the scores named that way?

B: Because that’s what they were named when the game was first created and people have an emotional attachment to those specific names.

Why would you change the names? Because you find them to be inflexible. That’s literally what we’ve been discussing.

I disagree that only reason we have the ability scores and names that we do is because they're sacred cows only kept around because of the grognards. Could we rename them? Have a different set of abilities? Of course. Why? What difference would it make?

Calling someone impulsive and nimble that loves and has a close connection to nature? That's a great start for a character concept, how do we interpret that into what it would actually mean. Impulsive doesn't need to be mapped to anything, it's a personality trait not a description of mental capacity. It could be linked to a low wisdom if you want, but I would say it just means the character has a chaotic alignment if I even bother. Nimble is just a different term for dexterous and we have an ability for that.

Loves and has a close connection to nature is often going to be a druid - especially the "talk to the animals" aspects - but it doesn't need to be. An oath of the ancients paladin also has a close tie to nature as do rangers or it just becomes inspiration for a background.

There's no way ability scores could cover every possible permutation of descriptors because the list is practically endless. You could go the way of a more narrative game where physical and mental abilities don't really have any impact, you just have whatever descriptors and aspects make sense but that's a very different game. You could have more of a point based system with a lot of flexibility like GURPS but even they have a set of abilities IIRC and at a certain point the rules are more of a system to build a game than rules to actually play a game. Interesting idea but I think there's a reason it never really took off.

So what's your proposal? If we get rid of the standard scores how would it work? Why would it be any better? It's easy to be dismissive and tear down ideas but if you don't have real ideas on doing it better I don't see the point. Change solely for the sake of change rarely improves anything.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Personally, I'm not married to ability scores at all. I could do without them. I'd also prefer a different set:

Strength (melee damage)
Dexterity (all attack rolls)
Agility (Armor Class)
Constitution (Hit Points)
Willpower (spellcasting DC for all casters)
Perception (ranged damage rolls)
Education (extra languages and skills [from a select list])
Charisma (not sure...still thinking...maybe something to do with Heroic inspiration?)

I've split up the super ability (Dexterity) into Dexterity and Agility. Personally, I'd rather have the player supply the character's Intelligence and Wisdom, so I replaced them with Willpower and Education. Perception (especially passive perception) always felt more like a saving throw than a skill. Now it is. That leaves Strength, Constitution, and Charisma.

This is pretty much the opposite of what I'd do if I was redoing ability scores. I'd tie hit chance, damage, and spell DC to your class/level and equipment with maybe a small bonus or required minimum on ability scores, and definitely would not tie PC wisdom and intelligence entirely to player's discretion.

What is this setup intended to do better? To me this seems to make building a character a bit more complicated, since you have to juggle more stats to be good at 'hit them and do damage with the thing I do', and makes a strong 'you can be good at combat or good at noncombat' split (education and charisma don't affect combat) without adding many options, but I may be missing something.

 

[Coroc]

well he didn't ask for loads of hp also, did he?

so like others suggested put his best 2 scores instr and dex the third in com the fourth in cha or wis and int as dump stat.

recommend, that although he can wear heavy armor, he would profit more from light armor, and tell him to buy a bow. or throwing weapons.

 

[tombowings]

This is pretty much the opposite of what I'd do if I was redoing ability scores. I'd tie hit chance, damage, and spell DC to your class/level and equipment with maybe a small bonus or required minimum on ability scores, and definitely would not tie PC wisdom and intelligence entirely to player's discretion.

What is this setup intended to do better? To me this seems to make building a character a bit more complicated, since you have to juggle more stats to be good at 'hit them and do damage with the thing I do', and makes a strong 'you can be good at combat or good at noncombat' split (education and charisma don't affect combat) without adding many options, but I may be missing something.

Sounds like we would have different goals and priorities. No problem. Conformity is boring.

 

[AlViking]

Personally, I'm not married to ability scores at all. I could do without them. I'd also prefer a different set:

Strength (melee damage)
Dexterity (all attack rolls)
Agility (Armor Class)
Constitution (Hit Points)
Willpower (spellcasting DC for all casters)
Perception (ranged damage rolls)
Education (extra languages and skills [from a select list])
Charisma (not sure...still thinking...maybe something to do with Heroic inspiration?)

I've split up the super ability (Dexterity) into Dexterity and Agility. Personally, I'd rather have the player supply the character's Intelligence and Wisdom, so I replaced them with Willpower and Education. Perception (especially passive perception) always felt more like a saving throw than a skill. Now it is. That leaves Strength, Constitution, and Charisma.

I was going to write a longer response but we've already discussed why I disagree that strength alone is a bad thing for attack and damage. While I agree that dexterity is too important but I think there are better ways to deal with it and so on.

We can all come up with options - I don't think this one would be accepted as any better. Coming up with a list of ability scores for a game like D&D and deciding what they mean sounds easy when you can just say "These ability scores are just sacred cows" and a lot harder when the rubber hits the road. Of course if we completely rewrote the game from the ground up we could come up with an alternative (personally I wouldn't want this one) but at that point it's just a different game. There are plenty of other systems out there if you don't like D&D's options.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree that only reason we have the ability scores and names that we do is because they're sacred cows only kept around because of the grognards. Could we rename them? Have a different set of abilities? Of course. Why? What difference would it make?

Calling someone impulsive and nimble that loves and has a close connection to nature? That's a great start for a character concept, how do we interpret that into what it would actually mean. Impulsive doesn't need to be mapped to anything, it's a personality trait not a description of mental capacity. It could be linked to a low wisdom if you want, but I would say it just means the character has a chaotic alignment if I even bother. Nimble is just a different term for dexterous and we have an ability for that.

Loves and has a close connection to nature is often going to be a druid - especially the "talk to the animals" aspects - but it doesn't need to be. An oath of the ancients paladin also has a close tie to nature as do rangers or it just becomes inspiration for a background.

There's no way ability scores could cover every possible permutation of descriptors because the list is practically endless. You could go the way of a more narrative game where physical and mental abilities don't really have any impact, you just have whatever descriptors and aspects make sense but that's a very different game. You could have more of a point based system with a lot of flexibility like GURPS but even they have a set of abilities IIRC and at a certain point the rules are more of a system to build a game than rules to actually play a game. Interesting idea but I think there's a reason it never really took off.

So what's your proposal? If we get rid of the standard scores how would it work? Why would it be any better? It's easy to be dismissive and tear down ideas but if you don't have real ideas on doing it better I don't see the point. Change solely for the sake of change rarely improves anything.

You seem to think I’m suggesting something I’m not. My “proposal” is to do whatever floats your boat. What I personally do at my table is allow players to roleplay their characters however they want regardless of their ability scores; the way the scores affect their odds of success at tasks is enough, the game doesn’t need me policing roleplaying based on them too. Someone asked me why the ability scores are called what they are if they don’t affect anything other than the math, and “because that’s what they’ve always been called” is objectively the correct answer to that question. I am not saying they shouldn’t be called that, I am not proposing we change their names, I am not criticizing anyone who likes that they’re named that. I was asked a simple question and I gave a factual answer to it. That’s all.