D&D General Doing away with INT/WIS/CHA

[Tony Vargas]

So, topics that have come up tangentially in other threads have given me a really bad idea.
D&D has never done a great job modeling a PC who's smarter (or dumber), more prudent, or more likeable than it's player. In particular, because, while it did /eventually/ come up with mechanics to address some of that, players often object to them.

There is no such objection to STR/DEX/CON, nor to wielding magical power, however.

So, why not just work with that, instead of fighting it?

This is a simple variant for 5e:


Replace INT, WIS, & CHA with:

RES: Resistance. This is your innate resistance to magic and other bad things happening to you little mind. Whenever the game calls for you to make an INT, WIS, or CHA save, you use your RES, instead.

FTH: Faith. This your connection to the divine and spiritual. When spellcasting or other supernatural class abilities call for WIS and/or CHA, use FTH, instead. (Yeah, Paladins should be happy with that.)

POW: Power. This is your innate magical power, When spellcasting or other supernatural class abilities call for INT or CHA, use your POW, instead.


Now, yes, that does have some minor impacts. Being a Wiz/Sorc or Wiz/War suddenly is more efficient. Paladins are less MAD. The handful of non-caster sub-classes have /two/ prime dump stats.


Next, skill & tool proficiencies.

If a tool, skill proficiency, or mundane class ability/feature/whatever keys of INT, WIS, or CHA, it's just gone. It doesn't exist. All such actions are resolved by the player. If there's a puzzle to be solved, the player must solve the puzzle. If you want to start a fire, you describe you how you do it, and, if you and the DM were in the same boyscout troupe, you probably succeed. If you think trolls don't regenerate from Fire but are healed by Lightning, that's what your character thinks.

I know, there's a WTF element to that, on the Knowledge side. Here's a rationalization and a DM rubric. 1) Rationalization: Adventurers talk, if you listen to a lot of what they say, you can glean just about anything in the MM or PH or whatever. Players who memorize rule books or are familiar with the sources of inspiration used be the DM just happen to have such characters. 2) rubric: Common Knowledge. The DM can always explain something the PCs know as 'common knowledge,' usually right in the descriptions: "You see three goblins." "What's a goblin?" "It's Common Knowledge that goblins are small evil fey humanoids who kidnap babies." "Oh, like Labyrinth?" "Yes, exactly."

Still too much? OK, here's a more extreme explanation. It was a common fantasy trope, for a while, for the main character to be pulled from the real world, either physically or mentally, into the fantasy world. IDKW, so it'd be easier to identify with them, or so they could contrast the fantasy world with the real? Anyway, assume that. You're not making decisions for a character quite different from you, you're inhabiting it, using it's physical & magical abilities, but there's no other mind in there with you.


That 'bout covers it.

 

[Nevvur]

Go for it. Tell us how it goes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it’s a fantastic idea. Unfortunately, the traditional six ability scores are one of those sacred cows that people cry “not D&D” if you slaughter. So, personally I just settle for accepting that Int, Wis, and Cha just don’t represent the things that their names mean.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Go for it. Tell us how it goes.

I wouldn't have prefaced the whole thing with "a really bad idea," if I had any intention of inflicting it upon my own players.

I mean, I don't particularly want to run Quag Keep overandoveragain, and I don't think that all that many players really want to play exactly themselves, piloting a fantasy body through the Realms like a Arquillian in a robotic human-suit.

I think it’s a fantastic idea. Unfortunately, the traditional six ability scores are one of those sacred cows that people cry “not D&D” if you slaughter. So, personally I just settle for accepting that Int, Wis, and Cha just don’t represent the things that their names mean.

Yeah, it occurred to me to nix all INT/WIS/CHA skills &c, and just change what the stats /mean/, leaving the names intact.

So:

INT: Your ability to decipher, devise, record, analyze, and generally make use of the arcane formulae and knowledged used in spellcasting.

WIS: Your connection to the divine & spiritual.

CHA: Your psychic force of personality, used to power & resist certain sorts of magic.



But INT edged too close to being justifiable for knowledge skills, and I liked the idea of breaking out a stat just for saves.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's an interesting idea, but I see some issues with it.

How do you resolve finding a trap without Investigation/Perception?

If the player makes a reasonably persuasive argument or tells a decent lie, but the DM is on the fence as to whether it should succeed, how do you resolve it without Persuasion/Deception?

I realize that before these things were proficiencies, DMs would simply make a call as to what happened or how to resolve it. I remember those days, and how when 3.x came out with a more standardized system for resolution, I felt it was far superior.

I still don't always require a roll. If the player says they look at the underside of the drawer, they find anything hidden there. If they make a convincing argument or tell an excellent lie, I often don't require a roll. But it's nice to have those skills for those times when I'm on the fence.

If you're tired of people not playing their mental stats, you could narrow what they represent. For example:

Education
Perception
Rhetoric

Those can still fulfill their former roles in the skill system while allowing greater interpretation of their meaning. A person can be intelligent without being very educated. A person can be perceptive without being wise. And a person can be gifted with rhetoric without all that entails one being charismatic.

Obviously, it loses some of the advantages of your proposed replacements. But it retains the skills, which to me are sometimes invaluable.

 

[Yaarel]

How do you resolve finding a trap without Investigation/Perception?

At the tool proficiency to the d20 check. If one knows how to make a trap, then one knows how to recognize a trap that someone else made. The kind of trap depends on the kind of tools that one has proficiency with to make traps (snares, pits, stonework installation, magical trap, etc).



Same goes with every kind of ‘Perception’.

If one knows how to hide in shadows, then one is better able to recognize someone else doing it. Add the Stealth skill proficiency to detect someone who is hiding.

If one has proficiency with Alchemist tools, then one is more likely to recognize a particular chemical by its smell.

And so on.

 

[Fanaelialae]

At the tool proficiency to the d20 check. If one knows how to make a trap, then one knows how to recognize a trap that someone else made. The kind of trap depends on the kind of tools that one has proficiency with to make traps (snares, pits, stonework installation, magical trap, etc).



Same goes with every kind of ‘Perception’.

If one knows how to hide in shadows, then one is better able to recognize someone else doing it. Add the Stealth skill proficiency to detect someone who is hiding.

If one has proficiency with Alchemist tools, then one is more likely to recognize a particular chemical by its smell.

And so on.

That's certainly a viable option. However, it turns Stealth into a godly skill. The ability to both hide and spot ambushes is incredibly potent.

Additionally, since (if I understand correctly) Stealth still adds both Dexterity modifier, but counter-Stealth only adds proficiency, it is a big buff to stealth overall. On the other hand, adding Dexterity to counter-Stealth would be rather nonsensical.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Get rid of all stats and roll everything into skills. Have primary +3 skills, secondary +1 skill and +0 skills. Have a couple 'blind spot' skills at -1.

Use ASI's to boost Primary skills up 1 to a max of +5
Use ASI's to boost a secondaries to a max of +3
Use ASI's to move a couple skills up one shift on the ladder.

Make spell saves use narrative appropriate skills to resist. Do it on the fly or codify it to your heart's content.

EDIT: which means making up a few new skills

 

[Yaarel]

That's certainly a viable option. However, it turns Stealth into a godly skill. The ability to both hide and spot ambushes is incredibly potent.

Additionally, since (if I understand correctly) Stealth still adds both Dexterity modifier, but counter-Stealth only adds proficiency, it is a big buff to stealth overall. On the other hand, adding Dexterity to counter-Stealth would be rather nonsensical.

Stealth should probably be treated as a kind of combat, rather than a kind of skill.

Similarly, grappling (wrestling, grabbing, pulling, pushing, lifting, punching, kicking, etcetera) should be natural weapons treated as weapon combat, not as skill.

 

[Umbran]

D&D has never done a great job modeling a PC who's smarter (or dumber), more prudent, or more likeable than it's player. In particular, because, while it did /eventually/ come up with mechanics to address some of that...

I dunno. I think "make a Charisma/Wisdom/Intelligence check" has been there from the beginning. What they came up with was ways to look at these things in greater detail, and allow those thing to advance along with the characters. But before skill systems made their way into the game, the "roll d20 (or 3d6, depending who you were playing with) and roll under your stat" was a way to resolve such stuff.

...players often object to them.

Do they?

I mean, really, do they? What evidence do we have of players, broadly, having an issue with them? Did a lot of people in the playtests respond with "these mental and social skills are a huge bore. Do away with them!" or something?

It isn't like D&D is the only game to use such things. You'd figure that if these things really cheesed off players enough for it to be a design consideration... there'd be more designs that eschewed these elements, wouldn't there?

'Cause, if they don't, this is a fix looking for a problem.