D&D 5E The evolution of Charisma and Wisdom

[Ryujin]

The problem I have with wisdom and perception under the same stat is that they are too far apart for one title. A blind monk that can't taste or smell can have 18 Wisdom (willpower, intuition), would you say he has an 18 perception. Plus it causes havoc with stereotype thieves, low willpower, great perception. They need to split bad, and in my campaigns they always will. I'm just surprised WotC hasn't figured their way out of this mess - the red flag should have been playtest 1 - a thief with 8 wisdom. I'm fine with that, now give him 16 Perception, don't change the skill system to fix a broken Attribute.

I really see no disconnect here. No more so than with the lazy 7 foot tall, muscle-bound fighter. The wise Monk can't see, but he can hear and smell remarkably well. I would hate to fight him in the dark. The Thief has poor impulse control (a character flaw), but is obstinate and resists mental spells remarkably well. Don't confuse personality or physical limitation with potential.

 

[GSHamster]

And I disagree with that, total darkness or blindness should reduce Perception. If it is permanent then so is the penalty. A thief with a missing hand is great with tasks that require one hand, otherwise severe loss to dex for climb as an example.

So we disagree - nothing wrong with that. This is kinda what makes D&D so great. We have our own games under one umbrella. (edition wars be damned)

I'm suggesting that scenarios where Perception is greatly different than Wisdom are uncommon, and generally require physical disabilities, which are outside the norm for adventurers. So splitting one stat into two is overkill. It's far easier to apply a penalty when applicable in specific situations.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Assuming the six ability scores are scared cows (and I think they should be), then "force of personality" is always what Charisma has been. Gygax and company were aware of what the word means, which I'm sure is why they made such an odd choice. If they had meant "looks" or simply "personality" they would have picked that.

What happened was that some of the broad strokes of the original D&D got interpreted different ways, and then gradually mutated out of those original assumptions. Not least of all, the simulation influence kept trying to pin down things that weren't exactly meant to be pinned down--the same way that Str as the stat includes quite a few things that many would, if they didn't think about it very long, put under Dex.

The one odd cat in all of this has always been "perception," but there is a reason for that too. It is a hard concept to deal with cleanly in games, as readily seen by how many different ways it has been done. I think in D&D that perception properly pinned down is neither ability score nor skill nor feat nor racial ability nor some magical boost. Rather, it's a one of a few truly derived abilities--like "speed" or 3E base attack or Next weapon attack bonus. Ideally, it would get influenced by Int, Wis, level (to a very minor degree, in the Next bounded accuracy mode), and maybe two or three feats or racial abilities. Then skills, other feats, and other racial abilities would run off of this derived "Perception" score and/or interact with it according to the situation.

I usually dislike intensely any derived abilities in games. However, a few carefully chosen, well-thought out derived abilities, that have sharply constrained but varied bases, and then feed into the rest of the game in a clear way--can be a very powerful technique compared to tweaking ability score definitions or getting fuzzy on what "skill" means.

 

[am181d]

Should have mentioned this the first time, but as a point of order:

Both Comeliness *and* Perception were stats originally presented in Dragon Magazine during 1e. Comeliness made it all the way to Unearthed Arcana, but Perception never made it out of the pages of Dragon #133.

So this is definitely something that D&D players have been wrestling with for a long time...

 

[Szatany]

So you don't agree with my initial examples? There are clearly more than six ways of describing one's innate characteristics, and Wis/Cha certainly have a lot of confusion surrounding them (will save to resist?), but I think that most of the numbers on a D&D character sheet are composites of disparate concepts. It's the sacrifice we make in the name of playability.

IMHO those compromises are, more often then not, unnecessary. Would a D&D game with 8 ability scores be less playable that a game with six? I highly doubt that. I'd say it's a sacrifice we make in the name of not liking changes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

IMHO those compromises are, more often then not, unnecessary. Would a D&D game with 8 ability scores be less playable that a game with six? I highly doubt that. I'd say it's a sacrifice we make in the name of not liking changes.

To increase from six to 8 is a 33% increase. Given that ability scores are woven into everything else in the game, that's a significant change in how it plays. It also creates legitimate problems in conversion.

However, if we were starting from scratch, I'm inclined to agree that we'd come up with something different than D&D's six ability scores. So it is a legacy issue to some extent.

However, I don't think it's necessarily a choice between six and eight. Are you saying that you don't think any of the other ability scores could/should be split?

 

[Szatany]

To increase from six to 8 is a 33% increase. Given that ability scores are woven into everything else in the game, that's a significant change in how it plays. It also creates legitimate problems in conversion.

All of what you're saying is true. But that doesn't mean the game becomes more complex or less playable.

However, if we were starting from scratch, I'm inclined to agree that we'd come up with something different than D&D's six ability scores. So it is a legacy issue to some extent.

Totally. I grew up mostly with warhammer fantasy roleplay 1st edition and kryształy czasu (polish rpg, very complex game by todays standards), and abilities in those game were much different to D&D, but also fun and playable.

However, I don't think it's necessarily a choice between six and eight. Are you saying that you don't think any of the other ability scores could/should be split?

Eight was just an example. There could be more, depending what do you want to put under ability scores. For example, Magic and Luck could be abilities, and in many games they are. I even played an RPG that had Education ability (Traveller).

 

[Ahnehnois]

All of what you're saying is true. But that doesn't mean the game becomes more complex or less playable.

Totally. I grew up mostly with warhammer fantasy roleplay 1st edition and kryształy czasu (polish rpg, very complex game by todays standards), and abilities in those game were much different to D&D, but also fun and playable.


Eight was just an example. There could be more, depending what do you want to put under ability scores. For example, Magic and Luck could be abilities, and in many games they are. I even played an RPG that had Education ability (Traveller).

Reasonable enough then. I think that if one is willing to take the big step of reconsidering the six ability scores, all of them should be considered.

 

[Ryujin]

Reasonable enough then. I think that if one is willing to take the big step of reconsidering the six ability scores, all of them should be considered.

But where do you stop? Space Opera, for example, broke the character down into Physique (physical size), Strength (pure physical power), Constitution (physical toughness), Agility (balance and extended balance), Dexterity (fine motor skill), Empathy (ability to read and relate to another's emotions), Intelligence (mental agility and acuity), Psionics (what it says), Intuition (ability to come to a valid conclusion, devoid of real evidence), Bravery (again, what it says), Leadership (ability to have others do as you want), GTA (general technical ability), MechA (mechanical aptitude), and ElecA (electrical aptitude). There's a rationale for all of them and for the many stats that were derived from them. I can tell you that the complexity definitely impacted playability though.

While the sacred cows of the 6 attributes shouldn't necessarily be considered sacrosanct, I also don't see a pressing need to break them out into more. Playability is key and the more complexity that is added, the less playable the game becomes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

While the sacred cows of the 6 attributes shouldn't necessarily be considered sacrosanct, I also don't see a pressing need to break them out into more. Playability is key and the more complexity that is added, the less playable the game becomes.

That, and every item you add to such a list, which is supposed to affect the entire game (or else why even bother?), has consequences. Assuming we are going to have "ability scores" at all, then having only 1 is definitely too few, and there rapidly comes a point somewhere after 6-10 where it is definitely too many. The range in between is something to discuss.

But then the second question is nailing down what in the game "ability score" is meant to handle. Whether very abstract or very specific, that decision should be somewhat consistent. So to pick some ability scores is to reject others.

In games that I've found to work well in this regard, it works out that you usually end up with around 3-7 items in each such list--or if you have more, they are naturally categorized into subsets with about that many items in each subset. So I'm not inherently against having 8 ability scores in D&D, though I am against simply adding another couple willy-nilly. Such a change requires careful consideration of what ability scores do--and don't do. I think after such an exercise we keep the traditional six, because such careful consideration of a list of 7 or 8 will not keep the original six close enough to their original form.

Or in other words, I'm not impressed with the kneejerk simulationist instinct that thinks adding "perception" and "comeliness" to the standard six is both useful and not disruptive. Done well, it might be useful and highly disruptive. Done poorly, it might be not at all disruptive, but practically useless.