D&D General Four Ability Scores

[Tony Vargas]

The stats don’t have to be equal in usefulness, and ambiguity is a benefit.

"...and up is down and sideways is straight ahead!"

In a game that isn't intended to be radically imbalanced from the ground up it'd make some sense for equally-weighted build resources to be equal in usefulness, in play, in some overall sense.

In D&D, you pay the same points for, distribute an array to, or roll the same dice to generate, each stat, so they're "equally weighted" as build resources.

Now, if you paid 1 pt for STR, 2 for CON, and 3 for DEX, it'd be a different story....

 

[3catcircus]

I'm surprised no one has brought up the eighteen (18!) attributes that the full version of Mythus used...

As has been mentioned, attributes are a feature of the type of rpg that is being played, but there are some attributes that fantasy RPGs should consider stealing from more modern ones.

Consider the (sadly out of print) Twilight:2013 uses Awareness (AWA), Coordination (CDN), Fitness (FIT), Muscle (MUS), Cognition (COG), Education (EDU), Personality (PER), Resolve, (RES), Coolness Under Fire (CUF)and Observe-Orient-Decide-Act (OODA).

Some of them are similar to D&D's 6:
MUS=STR
FIT=CON
CDN=DEX
COG=INT and WIS
PER=CHA but not really

I like the idea of Awareness being an attribute rather than a skill (Perception). I like the idea of Resolve being Willpower while lumping intelligence and wisdom into a single encompassing attribute while adding an additional one in the form of receiving formal learning.

The intriguing ones are CUF which acts like a combination of morale and reaction. to the initiating of hostilities, and OODA which is essentially a form of initiative that focuses on the fact that how quickly a character can act in a combat situation is as much a factor of how quickly you can think and mentally react to a situation as much as it is a function of your body's physical reflex speed.

D&D really doesn't model mental agility impacting how quickly you react in combat at all and it should. The smart character that can get inside his opponent's head and predict how he'll act can react with counter attacks. The character who is naturally more aware can react before his opponent even realizes what is going on. The character that doesn't freeze, sit there wetting himself in fear, or run screaming from battle isn't modeled at all.

 

[Salthorae]

I'm on the "it ain't broke" bandwagon (... or is it a train?).

Str & Con are very different things even IRL. I can run a half-marathon today. I can't even do two pull-ups.

Also - pulling yourself up is a Dexterity maneuver to you? Not for me it isn't, it's all about my muscles.

shrug I think the 6 attributes, while not all useful all the time are a good distillation and meaningful enough in their own areas.

Is Dex too good in 5e? Sure, but oh well. I still like the 6 stat concept.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"...and up is down and sideways is straight ahead!"

In a game that isn't intended to be radically imbalanced from the ground up it'd make some sense for equally-weighted build resources to be equal in usefulness, in play, in some overall sense.

In D&D, you pay the same points for, distribute an array to, or roll the same dice to generate, each stat, so they're "equally weighted" as build resources.

Now, if you paid 1 pt for STR, 2 for CON, and 3 for DEX, it'd be a different story....

Nowhere in any edition is it true, though. Not even in 4e.

The game needs to be balanced enough that it isn’t super easy to break, and the imbalances don’t poke their head out and call you names in the middle of play.

4e and 5e both do that.

Int not being as strong overall as Dex doesn’t matter. It doesn’t stop people making high Int characters. IME, in most games people still take knowledge skills in 5e, because it makes sense for the character, even though nearly every other skill is objectively more useful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nowhere in any edition is it true, though. Not even in 4e.

"In D&D, you pay the same points for, distribute an array to, or roll the same dice to generate, each stat, so they're "equally weighted" as build resources." Isn't true? Because I thought I covered the bases. D&D has used a /lot/ of stat-generation methods, and none of them that I recall weight stats differently...
In 4e, since you call it out specifically, you could random roll - the same dice for each stat - you could use point buy - which was weighted differently the /higher/ you went, but the same for each stat - or you could use an array - which you just arranged among the stats, again, no different weighting. Right?
What am I missing?

IME, in most games people still take knowledge skills in 5e, because it makes sense for the character, even though nearly every other skill is objectively more useful.

OK, topic drift: what has reduced the usefulness of knowledge skills so much in 5e?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"In D&D, you pay the same points for, distribute an array to, or roll the same dice to generate, each stat, so they're "equally weighted" as build resources." Isn't true? Because I thought I covered the bases. D&D has used a /lot/ of stat-generation methods, and none of them that I recall weight stats differently...
In 4e, since you call it out specifically, you could random roll - the same dice for each stat - you could use point buy - which was weighted differently the /higher/ you went, but the same for each stat - or you could use an array - which you just arranged among the stats, again, no different weighting. Right?
What am I missing?

OK, topic drift: what has reduced the usefulness of knowledge skills so much in 5e?

Topic drift first: In 4e the knowledge skills had hard coded uses outside of remembering things. Arcana was basically the magic version of Thievery.

On topic, what I was responding to was the idea that the ability scores, and other character options like skills, need to be roughly equal in utility. That has never happened.

Even in 4e, history wasn’t a super useful skill. Nowhere near the utility of Stealth, Perception, or even the situational ones like Survival and Athletics. Religion and Nature at least gave monster knowledge of particular types.

Also it’s been a minute, but didn’t rituals use skills?

But you pay the same cost for History as you for for the most useful skills in the game.

And that’s fine.

Edit: “In a game that isn't intended to be radically imbalanced from the ground up it'd make some sense for equally-weighted build resources to be equal in usefulness, in play, in some overall sense”

That’s what I was responding to.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Topic drift first: In 4e the knowledge skills had hard coded uses outside of remembering things. Arcana was basically the magic version of Thievery.

Has that changed radically in 5e? If you wanted to know something about a Devil or Religious cult or Undead monster, wouldn't you still check Religion?
….y'know, I should just check that... hrm… not s'much, 'cording to the basic rules. ;(

You may have a point.

Of course, the 5e DM is always free to make any skill as useful or useless as he likes.

On topic, what I was responding to was the idea that the ability scores, and other character options like skills, need to be roughly equal in utility. That has never happened.

Just because something - especially a balance-related something, /especially/ in D&D - has never happened doesn't mean it isn't something a balanced game should include.

“In a game that isn't intended to be radically imbalanced from the ground up it'd make some sense for equally-weighted build resources to be equal in usefulness, in play, in some overall sense”
That’s what I was responding to.

Nod. And if you think D&D isn't such a game, well, you'll likely be able to make a strong case.

Yaarel's 4-stat idea may be in a D&D forum, but we all know it's a non-starter in the context of D&D, which prioritizes many things ahead of balance.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Has that changed radically in 5e? If you wanted to know something about a Devil or Religious cult or Undead monster, wouldn't you still check Religion?
….y'know, I should just check that... hrm… not s'much, 'cording to the basic rules. ;(

You may have a point.

Of course, the 5e DM is always free to make any skill as useful or useless as he likes.

Just because something - especially a balance-related something, /especially/ in D&D - has never happened doesn't mean it isn't something a balanced game should include.

Nod. And if you think D&D isn't such a game, well, you'll likely be able to make a strong case.

Yaarel's 4-stat idea may be in a D&D forum, but we all know it's a non-starter in the context of D&D, which prioritizes many things ahead of balance.

As it should. Not every aspect of a game needs to be balanced according to mathematical or other “objective” measures.

It doesn’t hurt the game that some stats are stronger than others. It would hurt the game to twist things into knots trying to perfectly “balance” them.

It’s not just that the 4 stat idea isn’t gonna happen in dnd, I also believe it is a bad idea.

 

[FrogReaver]

As it should. Not every aspect of a game needs to be balanced according to mathematical or other “objective” measures.

Depends on your definition of balance. If you mean absolutely perfect balance in every campaign, in every session then I don't think that's achievable.

If you mean balance as in "good enough" balance then I think that's needed and that can be determined by mostly objective measure.

It doesn’t hurt the game that some stats are stronger than others. It would hurt the game to twist things into knots trying to perfectly “balance” them.

Well, too much imbalance does hurt the game. Of course - stats can't actually be balanced anyways in isolation. It's the whole package that needs balanced. The class and stat combinations are what needs balanced. You can have the weakest stat and have classes that key off that stat be a little stronger than classes that key off other stats. That's balanced.

It’s not just that the 4 stat idea isn’t gonna happen in dnd, I also believe it is a bad idea.

I think it's a bad idea too. But balance is very important - because too much imbalance is very important.

 

[Horwath]

I'm on the "it ain't broke" bandwagon (... or is it a train?).

Str & Con are very different things even IRL. I can run a half-marathon today. I can't even do two pull-ups.

Also - pulling yourself up is a Dexterity maneuver to you? Not for me it isn't, it's all about my muscles.

shrug I think the 6 attributes, while not all useful all the time are a good distillation and meaningful enough in their own areas.

Is Dex too good in 5e? Sure, but oh well. I still like the 6 stat concept.

Well, it can be described as advantage to certain type of saves

I.E. Endurance; you have advantage on str saves that are used for extended actions.