D&D 5E Eight Abilities (Str-Con, Dex-Ath, Int-Per, Cha-Wis)

[Willie the Duck]

Honestly, the idea that there need to be attributes (or attributes that matter to massively multiple portions of the game) should probably be the first thing that should be examined for a theoretical new game. In my own latest 'osr game in perpetual development' attributes exist, but only inform the skill system and a few other things (high Str gives a small encumbrance boost, Int extra starting languages, etc.), while the primary game functions of how good you fight or save or the like are governed by class, level, and some attribute-independent build resources (I guess feats or backgrounds or the like).

 

[jgsugden]

I think we're looking at the wrong problem here. The real problem here is the belief that you have to have meaningful balance between the stats to have fun. You absolutely do not.

In my experience, we give way too much min/max attention to attribute scores. They're there to describe the characters and facilitate mechanics that support the story we tell about them. If you don't think every PC you run has to be Superman, but can instead be Star Lord or Daredevil, you'll have more fun.

I've had a great time playing a character with a 14 as their highest attribute in a party with characters that "rolled" multiple 18s, and as a DM I've had a lot of low stat PCs played in my games that were highly enjoyable for their players.

First of all, you can balance around the uneven stats. A high quality magic weapon that suits the PC with low stats, or Gauntlets of Ogre Power, or a variety of other tools can magically level a playing field if you think it needs to be leveled.

Second, you don't need it leveled. The 'pipsqueak' hero is a cliche. Harry Potter wasn't the smartest, strongest, fastest (except on a broom which was only a minor benefit), charismatic or wisest of his peers - but he was thrust into the center of the story. What would his attributes have been? Anything higher than a 14? Heck, he might not have had any stat higher than a 12! That series is the most beloved story of the modern era - and the protagonist explicitly is only special because (spoilers) dead people loved him once.

Finally, we WAY overestimate how often a little difference in ability score has any impact on the game at all mechanically. Here is a simulation to run. Three low level ranger archers that are identical except for one having an 18 dexterity, another a 16, an the third a 14. They all share the same die rolls when at a "shoot a magical bear" target range (AC 11, HP 34). Using their Hunter's Mark, the first one attacks at +6 for (d8+d6+4). The second at +5 for (d8+d6+3), the last +4 for (d8+d6+2). If they all use the same die rolls, see how often there is a difference when the bear dies - not how much damage it takes - but when it dies. There is some, but not as much as you'd think based upon the huge deal we make about these differences in stats. Now, consider that a one round of difference in when the bear dies in a real combat also only matters if the bear lands an attack during that extra round(s) it survives against the lower ability score attacker....

The system works as is. I've played around with it a lot over the decades and I've always come back to the same conclusions - nothing is perfect, but the RAW are a pretty good balance of utility and simplicity.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think we're looking at the wrong problem here. The real problem here is the belief that you have to have meaningful balance between the stats to have fun. You absolutely do not.

In my experience, we give way too much min/max attention to attribute scores. They're there to describe the characters and facilitate mechanics that support the story we tell about them. If you don't think every PC you run has to be Superman, but can instead be Star Lord or Daredevil, you'll have more fun.

I've had a great time playing a character with a 14 as their highest attribute in a party with characters that "rolled" multiple 18s, and as a DM I've had a lot of low stat PCs played in my games that were highly enjoyable for their players.

First of all, you can balance around the uneven stats. A high quality magic weapon that suits the PC with low stats, or Gauntlets of Ogre Power, or a variety of other tools can magically level a playing field if you think it needs to be leveled.

Second, you don't need it leveled. The 'pipsqueak' hero is a cliche. Harry Potter wasn't the smartest, strongest, fastest (except on a broom which was only a minor benefit), charismatic or wisest of his peers - but he was thrust into the center of the story. What would his attributes have been? Anything higher than a 14? Heck, he might not have had any stat higher than a 12! That series is the most beloved story of the modern era - and the protagonist explicitly is only special because (spoilers) dead people loved him once.

Finally, we WAY overestimate how often a little difference in ability score has any impact on the game at all mechanically. Here is a simulation to run. Three low level ranger archers that are identical except for one having an 18 dexterity, another a 16, an the third a 14. They all share the same die rolls when at a "shoot a magical bear" target range (AC 11, HP 34). Using their Hunter's Mark, the first one attacks at +6 for (d8+d6+4). The second at +5 for (d8+d6+3), the last +4 for (d8+d6+2). If they all use the same die rolls, see how often there is a difference when the bear dies - not how much damage it takes - but when it dies. There is some, but not as much as you'd think based upon the huge deal we make about these differences in stats. Now, consider that a one round of difference in when the bear dies in a real combat also only matters if the bear lands an attack during that extra round(s) it survives against the lower ability score attacker....

The system works as is. I've played around with it a lot over the decades and I've always come back to the same conclusions - nothing is perfect, but the RAW are a pretty good balance of utility and simplicity.

true but this does not infer the attempts at building better or balancing are pointless or impossible, it may be difficult and never perfect but better is always better as that is tautological by nature.

 

[NotAYakk]

In almost any RPG, you really should have a Size attribute.

Being bigger or smaller matters to a lot of fiction. In a fantasy game, creatures vary from pixies to dragons in size.

Once you have that, Athletics becomes very nicely orthogonal to it. Athletics is how "toned" you are given how big you are. While this doesn't quite catch fast twitch/slow twitch differences, it matches fiction pretty well.

So a conan-type barbarian can be a large size large athletics, while a nimble rogue who jumps from rooftop to rooftop is small size large athletics.

I think attributes should reflect "what kind of character in a story".

There is probably room for a 3rd physical stat to be the "quick/precise/balanced dude". But it overlaps a lot with athletics.

That kind of "fiction first" I think is important. You'll notice this removes constitution. It is true that fast/slow twitch muscles are a thing, and VO2 can be different than your max press; but in a fictional character, isn't that a bit too much detail?

For mental stats, I'd be tempted to again try to be fiction first. What kind of smart characters are there?

The Bookish character.
The experienced wise old dude. But usually they are bookish as well; bookish isn't always wise, but wise is almost always bookish.
The "street smart" character. This is sort of experienced minus bookish.
The perceptive character, capping out at Sherlock.
The silver tongued character. Can manipulate and understand other people.

Anything else?

 

[steeldragons]

Just a random thought to play with, develop, or throw away...

What about combining or averaging the "extra"/new abilities?

Take Strength and Dexterity -take the average of the score or the average of the bonuses or combine the bonuses outright or however you think makes the most sense = your Athletics score/bonus.

Intelligence and Wisdom combine [however] to = your Perception score/bonus.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The proposed rules are very similar to Mutants & Masterminds. In that system the values aren't perfectly balanced, but it's easy to calculate a stat's worth. Note that in M&M Strength does not apply to attack rolls.

Strength gave the ability to lift things and damage. (The ability to lift things isn't nearly as useful in D&D, IME.) Also applies to "Athletics" (this is Climb and Jump, but not Acrobatics).
Stamina is the same as Constitution.
Agility is basically "Dex bonus to AC", Reflex saves, Initiative and skill bonuses.
Dexterity was ranged attack bonus and a few skills. Underpowered in that system.
Intelligence was skills only... but there's a lot of skills. It doesn't really map to D&D, since save DCs aren't based on ability scores in M&M.
Awareness is the same thing as Wisdom.
Presence is Charisma, and underpowered for the same reason Intelligence is.
I left out one stat as it simply wouldn't make sense in a D&D context.

Some stat combos don't make sense to me. Warhammer Fantasy RPG (2nd Edition) has Intelligence and sensory ability mapped onto one (Intelligence), which makes no sense to me. If someone is intelligent and absent-minded, does that mean they have low intelligence? Or does intelligence always come paired with hyperawareness?

I wouldn't suggest this for D&D though. There have been five editions and stats only underwent one significant change (in 3e), such a massive difference that D&D practically become a totally different game at that point.

 

[Aldarc]

Essentially, all abilities that we choose for a TTRPG are arbitrary. Yes, we can say, "We need some sort of physical attribute, and some sort of mental attribute, and maybe we need to differentiate brute strength and finesse" - or maybe not!

In the end, though, everyone has great and amazing proposals to reform the six ability scores (I am not being sarcastic here, your proposal looks good, as have many others I have seen).

Here's the issue; it's not enough that your proposal be better than the current system; it has to be so clearly better than the current system and all other possible systems to overcome the fact that we now have almost fifty years of using the same six ability scores.

Which means that the real issue, since this is all arbitrary, is that because people can all propose "better than" systems that will be all different, none of them will achieve a consensus to overrule the strong broad consensus that the standard flawed system has.

The devil you know, and all that.

A bit of a caveat here, but I would add "with respect to changing attributes in D&D." Some other games the D&D six attributes because it's what they are most familiar with, particularly in the OSR sphere. Other systems obviously don't care about D&D's six attributes and will change theirs accordingly. But trying to change the attributes of D&D? That time has come and gone, whether sadly or not. I certainly have issues with D&D's attributes. It is less how arbitrary they are, but more with how a lot of weird gunk has accumulated in the stats over the years, and there is a lot of weird overlap between them and a few other issues (e.g., active vs. passive). I probably would have also changed how certain classes are associated with certain ones, but tradition and what not.

 

[Steampunkette]

Clearly we need to move entirely away from the confusing D&D stats like Charisma, Wisdom, and Intelligence. I propose the following:

Adroit
Brains
Brawn
Charm
Doughty
Moxie

I think this will clear things up significantly.

 

[MGibster]

A bit of a caveat here, but I would add "with respect to changing attributes in D&D." Some other games the D&D six attributes because it's what they are most familiar with, particularly in the OSR sphere. Other systems obviously don't care about D&D's six attributes and will change theirs accordingly. But trying to change the attributes of D&D? That time has come and gone, whether sadly or not. I certainly have issues with D&D's attributes.

Let's bring back comeliness! I think Snarf already said it best: We've got 50 years of using these attributes. Why is it worth our while to change?

Adroit
Brains
Brawn
Charm
Doughty
Moxie

Oh, come on. We're talking about a fantasy RPG not a 1920s gangster game!
Edit: And I'm joking...any stat line called Moxie gets my approval.

 

[Umbran]

I am a fan of reducing the six abilities to four abilities.
...
Thus the six expand to eight abilities, forming four pairs.
...
I see the appeal of having eight separate abilities.

I am a fan of fewer, so I'll make more?

I don't think that, given the perceived problems of the OP, we actually solve them this way. Which is not to say that you can't like this scheme - just that it doesn't clearly address the stated issues.