D&D General Four Ability Scores

[Yaarel]

Physical, Mental, Spiritual each break down into two subtraits and each of those breaks down further into a Capacity, a Power, and a Speed -> 18, not 3.

How reach of them related to skills and attribute checks means they aren't really just 3.

Gary Gygax has only three abilities − Physical, Mental, and Spiritual − and each is defined by its two subdivisions.

The tertiary subdivisions (‘attributes’) are just numbers that ‘measure’ the proficiency and speed of the ability. They dont change the meaning of the ability.

For example, when Gary Gygax lists the skills for each ability, the skill lists are three: Physical, Mental, and Spiritual.

Not 6. Not 18. But 3.

His gaming system is an ability threesome.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not a throwback if you never moved forward in the first place.

They've never even been close. But, amusingly, they've moved around. For the longest time, CHA was the notorious dump stat. And DEX, while superb, couldn't obviate STR.
No longer.

So, even if you don't consolidate or split out stats and change the number/names, their relative utility can be, and has been, altered. And the game would be better if their relative utility matched their relative weighting at Chargen and ASI, even if that meant changing the number of stats.

You could say "that'd only be a little better, and it's not worth enraging the fanbase for that small gain" and you'd be right.

It wouldn’t be worth it even if the fan base didn’t care either way.

Because it wouldn’t improve the game.

The bolded part isn’t axiomatic, as you seem to think.

 

[Tony Vargas]

.
The bolded part isn’t axiomatic, as you seem to think.

You're endorsing trap choices and dump stats as a good thing, then.

If that's where you stand, we're not even speaking of the same thing when we say "game."

 

[Aldarc]

Nope. The 6 ability scores aren’t just a throw back, they’re well designed.

That is certainly an opinion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You're endorsing trap choices and dump stats as a good thing, then.

If that's where you stand, we're not even speaking of the same thing when we say "game."

There are no dump stats.

Things like trap options are only a thing in less well made games, games that intentionally include them, and at tables (and forum threads) obsessed with optimization.

A Ranger with a 13 Int and the Keen Mind feat hasn't fallen into a trap, they’ve just chosen to be a little better at Int Skills at the expense of a little combat power, in a game where they can absolutely afford to do so.

Int isn’t important for combat for most characters. That’s absolutely fine. Combat isn’t the whole game, and the game shouldn’t be balanced as if it were. Likewise, the classes and proficiency bonus provide the vast majority of what you need to contribute in any game other than a very heavily optimized one. You could put strait 12s and a 14 in your main stat, and you’ll still be a viable character. The game is balanced such that rolled stats and standard array both work. The game doesn’t break down at all using either option.

The stats, like the skills, need only be balanced enough that people who aren’t that concerned with optimization will consider all stats and skills when making most character types. 5e is there.

Further, the stats should be designed with the following priorities, in the following order:

*Story, including representing expected archetypes.

*Gameplay, primarily in terms of those archetypes actually mostly doing what people who want to play them expect from them.

*Perception of balance over a broad set of groups and plays types.

*Balance, In a more complex sense than just comparing equations.

 

[Don Durito]

The thing about removing dump stats is...

Why do you want to do it?

There's several problems that can result so it's important to make sure it's worth the trouble.

One. Pcs generally need to dump something. It's more important to raise your best score than it is to raise your lowest - hence dump stats. You don't gain much by simply making that necessity more painful. It's not like players have an awful lot of choice about what their best stats are - they're basically dictated by class - everything else is secondary.

You don't get dumb fighters because intelligence doesn't do enough. You get dumb fighters because they have to be strong, fast and tough. Just about every point buy system has the same problem because the pie still needs to be carved up the same way. (And rolling stats can only avoid this if you strictly roll them in order - or someone rolls exceptionally well).

If you make dumping stats so painful that people end up reducing their prime stats to avoid it then you end up with a range of ability scores which are within 1 or 2 points of each other. Given that means 5-10% on a D20 it becomes worth asking what the point of ability scores is in this case? - as they don't particularly serve to differentiate characters. (You could then just go all the way and give everyone the same flat bonus.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are no dump stats.

The term exists because there are, specifically, in D&D. CHA was notoriously one between the time henchmen went out of style and skills (and Sorcerers) became a thing.

Things like trap options are only a thing in less well made games

Like D&D in general

games that intentionally include them

Like 3.x D&D, specifically.

and at tables obsessed with optimization

ditto.

 

[Yaarel]

The thing about removing dump stats is...

Why do you want to do it?

There's several problems that can result so it's important to make sure it's worth the trouble.

One pcs generally need to dump something. It's more important to reaise your best score than it is to raise your lowest - hence dump stats. You don't gain much by simply making that necessity more painful. It's not like players have an awful lot of choice about what their best stats are - they're basically dictated by class - everything else is secondary.

You don't get dumb fighters because intelligence doesn't do enough. You get dumb fighters because they have to be strong, fast and tough. Just about very point buy system has the same problem because the pie still needs to be carved up the same way. (And rolling stats can only avoid this if you strictly roll them in order - or someone rolls exceptionally well).

If you make dumping stats so painful that people end up reducing their prime stats to avoid it then you end up with a range of ability scores which are within 1 or 2 points of each other. Given that means 5-10% on a D20 it becomes worth asking what the point of ability scores isin this case? - as they don't particularly serve to differentiate characters.

Especially when using an ability foursome, there is no dump ability. Every one of the four abilities is a must-have.

Here are some pragmatic ways, how the foursome plays out.

Assuming one is a powergamer, the key ability of the class will have the highest score (Strength-Constitution Fighter, Dexterity-Athletics Rogue, Intelligence-Perception Wizard, Charisma-Wisdom Cleric, etcetera).

After that, each choice is a meaningful decision point, a real decision with costs and benefits.

So, a Fighter has a high Strength-Constitution score. That single choice is taken care of. Now, do I want this Fighter to be a light-armor swashbuckling athlete, or an ingenious tactician from a military academy, or a popular war hero who can rally the troops during difficult times? And many other possibilities become valid choices because they are all good choices. For example, a Fighter can choose heavy armor, thus forego Dexterity-Athletics, and focus on either mental ability. The foursome opens new possibilities of meaningful choices.

So far, the foursome works well.

The typical nonplayer human uses one of two average arrays.
• +0 (10),+0 (10),+0 (10),+0 (10)
• +1 (12), +0 (10), +0 (10), −1 (8)

However, the player characters and various superhuman races use one of two exceptional arrays:
• +2, +2, +2, +2
• +3, +2, +1, +0

The standard is:
• +3, +2, +1, +0

Player races have ability minimums, rather than ability improvements. For example, the Elves of the material plane.
• High Elf: +2 Dexterity-Athletics, +1 Intelligence-Perception
• Wood Elf: +2 Dexterity-Athletics, +1 Strength-Constitution
• Drow: +2 Dexterity-Athletics, +1 Charisma-Wisdom

In other words, in order to play a High Elf, the player using the array must put at least a +2 (score 14!) in Dexterity-Athletics, and at least a +1 (score 12) in Intelligence-Perception.

But there is still a floating +3 from the array, and that tends to make any class a viable choice. So there are High Elf Bards with a +3 Charisma-Wisdom, but they are less frequent.

And of course, the Human can be anything.

So, even without the existence of any dump abilities, there are many good choices.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The term exists because there are, specifically, in D&D. CHA was notoriously one between the time henchmen went out of style and skills (and Sorcerers) became a thing.

Like D&D in general Like 3.x D&D, specifically. ditto.

The thread is about 5e. If you assume that I am only talking about 5e unless I specify otherwise, you’ll almost always be right.

I don’t care if other editions had dump stats and ivory tower design. 5e doesn’t, so this concern is unnecessary and the proposed solution would be to the detriment of the game.

2-3 stats can work for a general game. 4 can work for a game with specific enough tone that “Cool” and “Weird” can be a stat.

In a game like dnd, 5-7 stats is probably the sweet spot, and 6 works really, really, well.

Having 3 physical stats allows for differentiation between types of physicality without getting bogged down in excessively branching delineation to the point people get confused with casual system use.

Having 3 mental stats does the same, but differentiates different broad types of inner/social behavioral methodology.

People can grok the 6 stats without having ever played any sort of RPG. I taught an 8 year old I’d never met before how to play 5e yesterday, at a game at my public library. He understood the 6 stats well enough to just dig into making an elf rogue and playing the game.

IME, people who don’t spend a lot of time analyzing game design just get it, and that is more important than whether it makes sense to folks like you and I. By far. I’d go so far as to say that it only actually matters if they get it.

I happen to also think the 5e take on the stats works even under examination, though. You just have to not try to force the stats to be hyper-literal. That’s it.

A Dex 20/Str 10/Con 12 character with Acrobatics Expertise has well defined musculature/is pretty strong in IRL usage of the term strong, solid metabolism, and good stamina under normal circumstances. How do I know this? Because they are extremely good at activities that require a person to be in that condition.

So, why not just make Strength and Dex a single stat, or put all “purely physical” prowess into one stat? Because the game benefits from delineating between characters who focus on agility and related traits, vs characters who focus on physical power and related traits. People expect, even those who’ve never played an RPG, to have the quick nimble guy and the powerful bruiser type, to be different mechanically.

You could go Body/Wits/Will or Heart and move that differentiation entirely to other parts of the game, but the proposed breakdown ends up awkward for trying to hold the same place as DnD’s stats.

 

[Yaarel]

The D&D sixsome is more like the QWERTY keyboard.

The QWERTY is bad design. It was literally designed to be bad, to prevent people from typing too quickly. But even decades later, after the original mechanical issues no longer exist, the culture still uses the bad design.

Why does a culture insist on using a bad design?

Part of the reason is, it is bad, but serviceable enough to be adequate. The combination of bad but doable makes people invest enormous personal energy to try to make it work. This investment creates commitment. After everything in the industry is built and standardized around this bad design, there is strong resistance to improving it.

And that is why D&D 5e still has a sixsome.