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

[Fanaelialae]

The player describes how the character looks for the trap, the precautions he takes, etc.
The DM describes what he finds.
If the player thinks a crack or wire or something is a trap, he describes how he disarms or bypasses it.
At that point the DM might call for a DEX check....

Then the NPC is on the fence.

I figured cut to the chase.

I was actually referring to finding the trip wire in the first place.

I see what you're saying though. The player describes what they're doing in exacting detail and the DM decides what happens as a result. I enjoy that kind of play as an occasional "zoom in" on the action, like the players putting their heads together to suss out the workings of an ancient Titan device, but I certainly wouldn't want it for every 5 feet of corridor. I realize some groups used SOP, wherein they only needed to describe what they were doing in unusual circumstances but... not for me. I think that even if a character is keeping an eye out for trip lines (and/or whatever) they might still trip up. Sometimes I just want to be able to roll some dice and move on, rather than being bogged down in an endless back and forth (hence why I felt 3.x was a vast improvement). Obviously though, if you and your group don't mind, more power to you.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, it should have applications outside of casting.

But ultimately, I think just considering these 3 stats without also fixing issues with the physical stats is a mistake. Part of the problem with some of the D&D classes is it's too cheap to dump stats because they are so unevenly used.

I like your basic idea, but I think that trying to preserve the six main stats is a bit of a fool's errand here.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that three mental stats are effectively doing a variety of things stretched between them:
Intelligence: knowledge/wits
Wisdom: willpower, knowledge/wits, perception
Charisma: willpower, social

You could reduce the stats to about four:

• Strength/Brawn/Physique/Might: physical power/resistance
• Dexterity/Finesse/Agility: physical finesse
• Intelligence/Wisdom/Wits: mental finesse
• Willpower/Resolve/Presence: mental power/resistance

If you wanted, you could also include a 5th stat - Perception - that represents the hybrid interaction between physical sensory perception and mentally processing that sensory data.

Constitution doesn't really do anything apart from bonus HP and Con saves, so combining it with Strength does not strike me as much of an issue. I don't really see much reason why classes can't be the sole (or primary) source of HP.

I don't necessarily think that this solves anything for Tony Vargas though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was really talking about the entirely non-spell third pillar, which is already lighter than it should be.

No undertaking in D&D is entirely non-spell, regardless of which pillar it may be sorted into.

I don't want 5e to be a strictly combat/spell game, even though it shades that way already. My general thrust is to enhance the social interaction mechanics, rather than further hampering them.

I suspect that mechanical enhancements only magnify the issue when it does come up. The better the game models the mental qualities of the character, the more dissociated the player will become - the sort prone to the issues being addressed, I'm tempted to use Arquillians as shorthand (yeah, i just saw MiB, not as good as the original).

 

[jayoungr]

I encountered those sorts of complaints in a few threads in a row and realized "Yeah, that is not an unfamiliar sort if grousing..."

It's my impression that the people who hang out here and grouse on threads are usually DMs, not players.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's my impression that the people who hang out here and grouse on threads are usually DMs, not players.

Not how said grousing was couched. Player-side perspectives certainly come up, here, in spite of our general demographics.

And, when I thought about it, I realized, yeah, players /do/ often express some frustrations at the table that could indeed have the modeling of mental attributes at the root of them.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

LOL

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

So no quick thinking and prediction

WIS: Your connection to the divine & spiritual.

So no discipline, perception and awareness of the world around you and inside you and other beings (includes insight).

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

So no communication skills and empathy, but yes emotional energy and maybe eagerness

 

[Tony Vargas]

So no quick thinking and prediction.
So no discipline, perception and awareness of the world around you and inside you and other beings (includes insight).

Not absent, just provided entirely by the player (mediated with the world through the DM).

So no communication skills and empathy,

Also provided by the player, even if nerd stereotypes would suggest both to be in short supply.

but yes emotional energy and maybe eagerness

Didn't catch that: another reason to just drop the names, too.

 

[Seramus]

It’s a Double Standard.
Someone wants to lift a rock? We make them roll Athletics and the rock is lifted. We almost never ask the player what lifting technique they are using, or only allow them to lift some of the rocks if they describe the wrong method. But if someone wants to solve a puzzle, we often feel cheated or disappointed if it can be solved without player engagement.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It’s a Double Standard.
Someone wants to lift a rock? We make them roll Athletics and the rock is lifted. We almost never ask the player what lifting technique they are using, or only allow them to lift some of the rocks if they describe the wrong method. But if someone wants to solve a puzzle, we often feel cheated or disappointed if it can be solved without player engagement.

We try to avoid that. While our DM wants us to solve the puzzle, he's a pretty smart guy and frankly sometimes he comes up with the stuff that we might not be able to do but our characters (in some ways smarter sometimes) can so we roll a check and if we succeed, we get good hints to help figure it out. Other times, a good Investigation check or Insight roll and the DM will just tell us something our characters think of, maybe connecting the dots in a way we don't think of.

 

[Nevvur]

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 don't think it is a really bad idea. I agree with the premise, that DnD could handle mental ability scores better, and this seems like a viable solution.

Once a upon a time I laid out the framework for a set of house rules similar to what you describe. Never got around to implementing it, though. My feeling then was that hammering out the kinks would be too disruptive for what our group was trying to accomplish with our game play, so I put it aside. My feeling now is that no amount of discussing it is going to produce information as useful as that generated by play reports. Not trying to shut down discussion, ever, just hoping to encourage someone -- ideally you, since you proposed it -- to take it for a spin.