When did "dump stats" become "tanked stats"???
I'm going to echo others - what's the point? What are you trying to achieve?
Body builders don't actually have a lot of strength either. (I mean, more than me, but still.) And rock climbers are really strong -- there's a reason climbing in D&D is a Strength check. So I think what you're actually saying here is that there's more to strength than sheer muscle mass.Have you ever seen a rock climber? Someone who has to have a lot of stamina/constitution? They tend to be on the scrawny side, not beefcake. Body builders frequently are terrible at rock climbing because they have no endurance.
Body builders don't actually have a lot of strength either. (I mean, more than me, but still.) And rock climbers are really strong -- there's a reason climbing in D&D is a Strength check. So I think what you're actually saying here is that there's more to strength than sheer muscle mass.
Really, if you want to go down that rabbit hole, there's no end to it. A marathon runner may have a glass jaw too, and a great rope-a-dope boxer may not be able to run a marathon. We can lump or split the ability scores as much as we want. And if someone feels like they want to reduce the number of scores, Strength + Constitution is hardly the craziest merger they could make. (Though I'd do Wis + Cha first, personally.)If I was going to tweak stats, I'd probably go the other way (at least for certain abilities) and break them down even more like you could with 2nd ed player's options (I think). I don't remember the details and I don't have my old books handy but it was along the lines of breaking down strength into explosive (short term) strength vs long term endurance strength. Charisma was broken down into beauty and persuasiveness, etc.
It's difficult to model the complexity of human physiology into simple numbers, I think D&D does a decent job. Someone who can bench press a small car may or may not be able to run a marathon, or may have a glass jaw if they get into a fight.
I don't like constitution because no one is willing to have it be low. I keep seeing 12s and 14s, then one 16. It's never someone's highest stat, and never someone's lowest stat.
Try and look at it this way:
5th edition is fine as it is, and overall a lot of people seem to like it. And because they like it, we get a lot of homebrew stuff. This not only includes new monsters, new classes, new feats... but also variants on the rules themselves. And I think that's great. It may not be for everybody, but it certainly is interesting to look at alternate takes on the rules.
People used to do this with 3rd edition all the time (and they still do), and often it added to the game. It gave us more options as players and DM's to explore. If you don't like it, ignore it. But if the concept sounds interesting to you, then it might be fun to further explore the ideas that the OP put forward.
The core rules are not holy. They can be changed, if you want to.
It seems to me that you are not answering the question that was asked.
As I see it, the question that was asked was basically "what specific goals are you trying to achieve by doing this?"
As I see it, the question you have just answered was "why bother doing this at all?"
Making a change should have some specific goal in mind so as to guide one's thinking when designing and implementing the change, and when evaluating the success of the change.
As I read it, the latter was the question being asked. That's how it came across to me anyway.
No, I don't think that's true. Sometimes you can simply think about changing a system for the sake of discussion or brainstorming, without any clear goal in mind.
All you have to do is ask one simple question: "Do we need 6 ability scores? Why not less?"
And I would probably add to that a question of my own: "Do we need a save for each ability score? Is having 6 saves better than having three saves?"
And to the latter, my answer would obviously be: "No". In fact, some of the saves feel really forced. I get what they were going for, by trying to not have these separate three scores like in 3.x. But having a Charisma save is weird. And what is the difference between the int and wisdom save? Why not simply have one willpower save like before?
The only ones that makes sense to me are the strength save, and the dexterity save... and the constitution save is basically just the Fortitude save wearing a fake beard and a hat.
Can you? Yes, absolutely. And that's a fine place to start from because it questions the status quo and postulates a direction for change. Once you transition from that thought to "let's experiment with a change in mechanics" you should probably have some kind of goal in mind to help you focus and evaluate the outcome. Or, at the very least, let me rephrase that as "it would generally be quite helpful to have a goal in mind when making a mechanical change."
That was what I liked most about your OP. It was an interesting design choice that I did not see coming. At first I was thinking you were messed up putting all those skill under Cunning, then I noticed that you were granting bonus skill profs and thought "well, now he's going overboard," but then grokked your goal. It's an excellent idea.don't want that. I left intelligence(cunning) in game to give options to make skill monkeys.
You can learn languages and tools through downtime training, while skills are limited to races, classes, and feats. But there's nothing that implies one skill equals two tools. In fact, the Skilled feat has you pick skills or tools on an even basis.One note, though: 5e rates languages and tools equally, skills as stronger.