D&D General Is Seven Abilities Too Many for a D&D Feel and/or Comfortable Generation?

[Yaarel]

If feel eight abilities work well in D&D:

• Strength (brute/size), Constitution (toughness/fortitude)
• Dexterity (precision), Athletics (mobility/reflex)
• Intelligence (lore/intution), Perception (five senses/detect hidden)
• Charisma (social skills/emphathy), Wisdom (sanity/willpower)



All of these terms and concepts are normal terms and mechanics in D&D. Perception is a must-have, in frequent use, and to elevate it to an ability is more convenient, especially when it functions as saving throw versus invisibility, hiding, illusion, and similar. Similarly Athletics.

By dividing abilities up this way, the D&D game gains a number of benefits. Each ability becomes clearer and disambiguates: what the ability is, how it works, and WHEN to use it, and WHEN NOT to use one of the other abilities. Moreover, the abilities balance better. When Athletics takes the mobile agility from Strength climbing and jumping, and takes the dodging relfex and AC bonus from Dex, Athletics is good, but not overly powerful. Strength is still the go-to for damage dealing and now is the prerequisite for Large size and its larger weapon damage (and carrying when significant). Dexterity remains necessary for precision checks, like stealthy movement, and aiming ballistic weapons. Dexterity is a benefit but no longer crazily imbalanced. In this eight-ability environment, each ability is more limited in what it can do, but only focuses on mechanics that actually get used frequently during gameplay. So even Intelligence, in the sense of ways of knowing things, whether formal education or intuitive discernment and scrutiny, becomes appealing to invest in. Charisma is the go-to for all social interactions, while Wisdom retains its traditional sense of willpower and maintaining sanity, thus tends to be the mental saving throw.

When the abilities are these eight, the game works better.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, my endless mulling over abilities continues (Should Dex be split? Can Str and Con be merged? Where should melee to hit go? Do we need Int? Where do the ones related to magic sensitivity belong? Is size a reasonable number to add? What exactly does Charisma do? Should some things depend on size? And many, many more.)

Anyway, I'm plodding towards a homebrew hack of D&D that I would like to still have a "D&D feel" even if it changes some things pretty substantially. One of my questions for this is about how it feels to keep track of abilities and divvy up the points or roll the dice for generation.

So, the three main questions:

1) Would adding a seventh ability add a lot of complexity to that part of character creation? Is it already a bit fiddly to take a point total and split it among six things?

2) Is there something magic about six for the D&D feel to you? (I mean they tried adding comeliness back in 1e). Or does the number of them not matter?

3) Would it be bad or good if each class really had two stats that were particularly helpful instead of just having one that they really lean on?

And then two more going for if they would break the D&D feel for you, and not necessarily if they would work in terms of mechanics.

4) What is your gut reaction to splitting Dexterity into something like Dexterity (Coordination/Aim) and Agility (Reaction/Acrobatics) ?

5) What is your gut reaction to merging Strength and Constitution so that handled both weight training and cardio type fitness?

Merging STR and CON seems hot but creates even more of a superstat than DEX is. Splitting DEX would likely make it the worst two stats.

Yeah it's an annoying issue!

I don't think 7 is too many and I wouldn't mind another number but it would be a hell of a lot of work because of monsters and NPCs needing to be rebalanced along with PCs. Also point buy with 7, even restricting to 15 max base will lead to it be very easy for SAD classes to get strong stats where they need.

None of this is a hard block, just things to consider.

 

[Aldarc]

The actual number of attributes in D&D or any TTRPG is something of a red herring discussion. What matters more is the relationship and delineation between those attributes. How do these attributes help players interact with the world or game? When does a player use one attribute versus another?

The problem with D&D's attributes, IMHO, does not pertain to the number of attributes, but, rather, with the aforementioned questions: i.e., (a) the overlapping blur that exists with the array of attributes it has (e.g., Wisdom and Charisma as "willpower," etc.) and (b) Constitution is too passive and has little to no impact on how players actively interact with the game world, as it's only bonus HP and Con saves.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Lots of players have got their own house rules. Sometimes is a mixture of two different systems, for example d20 with Storytelling(White Wolf/Onyx Path).

In the past I suggest to add two more, Acuity(Perception/Awareness + Astuteness) and Spirit [ karma/luck/fate/faith-piety/divine grace-blessing) and courage (this is important in horror games)].

D&D 5E - Sacred Cows: Added new abilities scores.

Sometimes I thought about how to create an universal d20 for all genres and the most of 3PPs wanted to used, and easy to adapt other systems. After a idea storm I have chosen to add two new abilities scores: acuity and spirit. - Acuity(Acu) would be perception and astuteness, very important in...

www.enworld.org

Theory of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scars Unseen]

So I would ditch traditional ability scores altogether at this point. They don't really represent anything meaningful, nor do the scores themselves have any utility. Just get rid of them, and work on the assumption that all PCs at a given level and class have roughly the same level of competence that they derive from whatever source they choose. Want a meathead who barrels into and through any problem they encounter? Easy. Want a fighter who studies techniques and strategies and uses them to think their way through a fight? No need for a special build, just say that's how you fight. Whatever combination of skill, talent and raw physical ability you want to claim, it all adds up to the same combined ability as another character of the same level and class. That's why you're the same level. It makes the math easier to balance, and you don't have to worry about not having the optimal ability scores for what you're trying to do.

Then, add in features, through feats, racial abilities, backgrounds or whatever, for things to qualify as exceptional raw ability such as strength, endurance, wit, charm, etc. But, and this is important, do not let any of those tie into the combat equation. Not through attack bonuses, AC bonuses, HP, or anything else. Combat ability is determined by class an level. Exceptional ability is used in situations outside of combat. Breaking down doors, persuading guards, etc.

I think that would go a ways from getting rid of the frankly uninteresting aspect of character creation that ability scores have become. Ability score allocation and ASIs are such a boring way to advance characters, but since they also tend to be the most mathematically relevant way, people choose them in utterly predictable ways most of the time. So why even have them if they are both boring and predictable?

 

[Yaarel]

@LuisCarlos17f

Intelligence
• Word Smart
• Logic Smart
• Nature Smart

Perception
• Picture Smart

Charisma
• People Smart
• Music Smart (music seems a bit of everything, but in the sense of esthetics rapporting with a group feels Charisma)

Wisdom
• Self Smart

Athletics
• Body Smart

 

[DND_Reborn]

So I would ditch traditional ability scores altogether at this point. They don't really represent anything meaningful, nor do the scores themselves have any utility. Just get rid of them, and work on the assumption that all PCs at a given level and class have roughly the same level of competence that they derive from whatever source they choose. Want a meathead who barrels into and through any problem they encounter? Easy. Want a fighter who studies techniques and strategies and uses them to think their way through a fight? No need for a special build, just say that's how you fight. Whatever combination of skill, talent and raw physical ability you want to claim, it all adds up to the same combined ability as another character of the same level and class. That's why you're the same level. It makes the math easier to balance, and you don't have to worry about not having the optimal ability scores for what you're trying to do.

Then, add in features, through feats, racial abilities, backgrounds or whatever, for things to qualify as exceptional raw ability such as strength, endurance, wit, charm, etc. But, and this is important, do not let any of those tie into the combat equation. Not through attack bonuses, AC bonuses, HP, or anything else. Combat ability is determined by class an level. Exceptional ability is used in situations outside of combat. Breaking down doors, persuading guards, etc.

I think that would go a ways from getting rid of the frankly uninteresting aspect of character creation that ability scores have become. Ability score allocation and ASIs are such a boring way to advance characters, but since they also tend to be the most mathematically relevant way, people choose them in utterly predictable ways most of the time. So why even have them if they are both boring and predictable?

I agree at this point getting rid of scores and using a flaw/merit system or feats (as such) would be better, but for many people without the sacred cow of ability scores it ceases to be D&D.

But assuming that hurdle could be overcome (or ignored LOL), I think tying combat abilities to class and level also makes more sense. It bothers me that higher level characters aren't harder to hit--an idea which is compensated by hit point bloat instead (yeah, I get it, I have more hit points so I am "avoiding or minimizing" all those lethal blows that would kill a lesser PC... blah blah blah).

Keeping the current proficiency bonus, you could use the focus idea for classes on a better, good, poor scale; being double proficiency, x1.5 proficiency, and flat proficiency without ability modifiers for any of them.

For example, a Fighter might be:

• better at combat (from + 4 up to +12 attack rolls and maybe +1 to +6 AC)
• good at skills (from +3 to +9 on skill checks)
• poor at magic (only +2 up to +6 on spell attacks and spell save DCs)

A Rogue might be:

• better at skills (from + 4 up to +12 on skill checks)
• good at combat (from +3 to +9 attack rolls and maybe +0 to +4 AC)
• poor at magic (only +2 up to +6 on spell attacks and spell save DCs)

A Wizard might be:

• better at combat (from + 4 up to +12 on spell attacks and spell save DCs)
• good at skills (from +3 to +9 on skill checks)
• poor at magic (only +2 up to +6 attack rolls and maybe +0 to +3 AC)

If that isn't granular enough, make it best, better, good, poor and have a half proficiency as the lowest level of ability. Then you could make AC and Saves its own group as well, and you could add something for damage to the combat group.

Then with the feats (or merits/flaws) allow someone abilities like increases brawn for smashing down doors, photographic memory for recalling information, natural leader to inspire others or boost moral, etc.

 

[payn]

I agree at this point getting rid of scores and using a flaw/merit system or feats (as such) would be better, but for many people without the sacred cow of ability scores it ceases to be D&D.

But assuming that hurdle could be overcome (or ignored LOL), I think tying combat abilities to class and level also makes more sense. It bothers me that higher level characters aren't harder to hit--an idea which is compensated by hit point bloat instead (yeah, I get it, I have more hit points so I am "avoiding or minimizing" all those lethal blows that would kill a lesser PC... blah blah blah).

Talk about sacred cows...

 

[Laurefindel]

So, my endless mulling over abilities continues (Should Dex be split? Can Str and Con be merged? Where should melee to hit go? Do we need Int? Where do the ones related to magic sensitivity belong? Is size a reasonable number to add? What exactly does Charisma do? Should some things depend on size? And many, many more.)

Anyway, I'm plodding towards a homebrew hack of D&D that I would like to still have a "D&D feel" even if it changes some things pretty substantially. One of my questions for this is about how it feels to keep track of abilities and divvy up the points or roll the dice for generation.

So, the three main questions:

1) Would adding a seventh ability add a lot of complexity to that part of character creation? Is it already a bit fiddly to take a point total and split it among six things?

2) Is there something magic about six for the D&D feel to you? (I mean they tried adding comeliness back in 1e). Or does the number of them not matter?

3) Would it be bad or good if each class really had two stats that were particularly helpful instead of just having one that they really lean on?

And then two more going for if they would break the D&D feel for you, and not necessarily if they would work in terms of mechanics.

4) What is your gut reaction to splitting Dexterity into something like Dexterity (Coordination/Aim) and Agility (Reaction/Acrobatics) ?

5) What is your gut reaction to merging Strength and Constitution so that handled both weight training and cardio type fitness?

7 has a lot of numerological significance, but it's a weird number to play with (being a prime number and all). So either you aim for some symmetry (like D&D's 3 physical and 3 mental stats, or World of Darkness' 3 physical, 3 social, and 3 mental stats), or you treat each ability independently (like Legend of the Five Ring's air/water/earth/fire/void or The One Ring's strength/heart/wits). Since D&D is already built on some symmetry, adding a 7th stat is a bit odd (no pun intended).

As other said, class dependency on stats is unequal. Wizards with high Int only lives on just fine. Paladin with only high Cha finds life harder. It's hard for me to imagine how they could lean on (only) two (without a more serious re-work of the classes that is).

Str, Dex, and Con is a bit weird. Many are adverse to merging Str and Con because one shouldn't need to be strong to be healthy but then again, one shouldn't need to be fast to be dexterous or nimble either. So while I'm not against splitting Dex per se, splitting Dex and merging Str+Con is solving one problem to create another.

In that regard, making it a 8-ability system would work better. Wisdom is already bit of a messy amalgam and could easily be split but in the end, would it really be worth it? As it stands, there is a balance between the 3 physical and 3 mental stats. It's most visible in spells and corresponding saving throws. More stats = more ways to stretch yourself thin, or on the contrary, dumping more stats to pump the most important ones to game the system. In the end, I'm quite satisfied with the system as it is.

I'll have to go back into the thread and learn a bit more about your perceived problem to offer more constructive insight.

 

[Cadence]

I'll have to go back into the thread and learn a bit more about your perceived problem to offer more constructive insight.

I didn't give tons of insight in this thread about it (mostly focusing on the feel of the game). This thread has some things on Dex that bothered me:

D&D General - If you had to split up Dexterity...

Dexterity annoys me sometimes. Outside of D&D - Why would the quickest draw be the most accurate shot? Why should the surgeon with great hands be a great acrobat? etc... For example, 2e for Skills and Powers split Dexterity into Aim and Balance. If you had to split Dexterity into two...

www.enworld.org

Going on the mental stat side, I mentioned above I'm leaning towards "Awareness", "Will", and "Charisma". Some thoughts on Int are over in someone else's thread at:

D&D 5E - Removing INT, replacing it with?

So, taken from another thread: I want to remove intelligence as stat. At my table, low or high INT is generally badly played. I think a mix of class/background/race should allow in-game characters to know a lot already. A inhabitant of a world like Faerun or whatever should be able to know a...

www.enworld.org

I'm not a huge fan of the Str/Con merger, but it seems to regularly come up. And if I split one and folks really liked six...