D&D 5E Why Are Ability Scores Necessary?

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, if this is repetitive, but I want to ask as far as the character you mention, what stopped you from going with those other classes if thematically they made more sense? Was it simply the restriction on ability score requirements to MC? If so, I would just toss them out the window and you could play the character you wanted.

Anyway, on to the rest of the post:

I'm not sure just what you are looking for, but it gave me an idea: keep ability scores and modifiers, but make it so they don't apply to checks or rolls unless the player uses them. But, there use is limited per short rest or something? So, your rogue has a DEX 16 and could apply is +3 to AC for a round, but not all the time. Your fighter makes an attack, and could throw extra force behind it, gaining his STR mod to the attack roll or damage roll?

Is that anything like what you are thinking of???

The issue with the specific example was that high intelligence was too important to the concept to tank in order to have a decent wisdom or charisma, and Im not gonna “reflavor” a character as being good at what they aren’t good at. We don’t even use the MC stat restrictions.

The easiest solution for that specific part of the larger issue is probably to let a character use a single stat for Spellcasting, let them choose their casting stat, and have it apply to everything spell related. Probably do the same for strength and Dex to attack.

Had there been a good artificer when he was made, and we were using the above, he might have been a Battlesmith/Ranger or Battlesmith/Paladin, rather than a rogue/wizard. I’m pretty happy with the character, now, but he could have fit the concept even better with such a houserule, or soemthing else that solves the same issue.

But more generally, the 6 ability scores end up constraining things a lot. Few strength Rogues because Rogues have no reason other than flavor to use strength and lose efficacy by making strength their main stat. That sucks. Barbarians can’t effectively use dex-main, and thus rarely are any good with a bow, which is weird.

Making the scores into a resource pool could work, though you still need a basic math fix if you do that. Probably doable, just grouping weapons, skills, Spellcasting, HP, etc, into 3 groups and you pick which group is your +3, +2, or +1.

It’s easy in my game, because I built it from the ground up to not have any static modifiers of any kind. (There are static numbers, like health and defense, but even health might be replaced with a damage threshold and a condition/wouand track, and you never add a static number to a roll) D&D is primarily based on adding static numbers to dice rolls, so more care is required.

 

[FrogReaver]

The issue with the specific example was that high intelligence was too important to the concept to tank in order to have a decent wisdom or charisma, and Im not gonna “reflavor” a character as being good at what they aren’t good at. We don’t even use the MC stat restrictions.

The easiest solution for that specific part of the larger issue is probably to let a character use a single stat for Spellcasting, let them choose their casting stat, and have it apply to everything spell related. Probably do the same for strength and Dex to attack.

Had there been a good artificer when he was made, and we were using the above, he might have been a Battlesmith/Ranger or Battlesmith/Paladin, rather than a rogue/wizard. I’m pretty happy with the character, now, but he could have fit the concept even better with such a houserule, or soemthing else that solves the same issue.

But more generally, the 6 ability scores end up constraining things a lot. Few strength Rogues because Rogues have no reason other than flavor to use strength and lose efficacy by making strength their main stat. That sucks. Barbarians can’t effectively use dex-main, and thus rarely are any good with a bow, which is weird.

Making the scores into a resource pool could work, though you still need a basic math fix if you do that. Probably doable, just grouping weapons, skills, Spellcasting, HP, etc, into 3 groups and you pick which group is your +3, +2, or +1.

It’s easy in my game, because I built it from the ground up to not have any static modifiers of any kind. (There are static numbers, like health and defense, but even health might be replaced with a damage threshold and a condition/wouand track, and you never add a static number to a roll) D&D is primarily based on adding static numbers to dice rolls, so more care is required.

IMO. There is often a notion to blame a system for not supporting a specific character concept through multiclassing rules as if multiclassing rules could ever cover every in-between case perfectly well. I think multiclassing rules are needed but I think most of the "combinations" we want to play would actually be better as a homebrew class. I think we have to realize that multiclassing while it can work for many characters just fine - there are many that it will not work well for and we need to look outside multiclassing rules to get those characters.

 

[Haldrik]

The easiest solution for that specific part of the larger issue is probably to let a character use a single stat for Spellcasting, let them choose their casting stat, and have it apply to everything spell related. Probably do the same for strength and Dex to attack.

Making the scores into a resource pool could work, though you still need a basic math fix if you do that. Probably doable, just grouping weapons, skills, Spellcasting, HP, etc, into 3 groups and you pick which group is your +3, +2, or +1.

I know you are moving in a different direction, this post is more for my own exploration.

• Size ≈ "HP" (Rogues at least get great hitpoints if going brute)
• Athletics ≈ "weapons" (Barbarians can use bows, Rogues benefit from athletically wielding weapons like Fighters)
• Perception ≈ "skills"
• Charm ≈ "spellcasting"

This consolidation into four abilities seems to correlate somewhat to the desirable granularity.

Despite the fact that the Wizard was first, in D&D today, Charisma is the spellcasting stat. Cleric should be Charisma anyway being a social spiritual leader. Especially, consolidating Charisma-Willpower, this ability can handle every spellcasting class. Wizard using Intelligence as the casting stat is actually a weird anomaly to the general rule. Albeit I find it an interesting exception corrolating with the flavor of bookishness. But Intelligence is somewhat odd like having a Sorcerer that uses Size as a spellcasting stat (in the sense that their magic also transforms them physically, making their Size an indicator of their magic potency). Charisma is the generic spellcasting stat.

 

[Xaelvaen]

I've been thinking about this for a long time. I've played a lot of characters who could be members of a given class, if not for the need for a high score in some ability or other. A rogue who story wise is hyper-intelligent, impulsive, and doesn't really understand other people easily, who is MC wizard because his story needs him to have spent most of his adult life ignoring a knack for magic, only to realize he needs it within the last few years (so arcane trickster would have felt wrong), and his high Int means that wizard is the only caster that mechanically works.
There is an incongruity with him that will always bother me. Given his enviroment, his strong faith, the animistic nature of that faith, etc, any of ranger, paladin, druid, or even cleric, would have made more sense. A bard that doesn't rely entirely on charisma, one of his lowish stats, would also work, but I MCd Wizard because it got me ritual casting and spells to counter enemy casters, and it didn't require me to build him with high stats that don't make sense for him.

On the other hand, in my in development game, Quest For Chevar, your ability scores are just a personal resource pool. You spend from Will to salvage crap rolls or activate spells, but you don't add any of the scores to a skill check. Skills are purely about training. You roll your action die and rank dice, and that's it.

So, I've been wondering, could DnD be made to work in a similar manner? Has anyone tried anything like that? Perhaps reducing the number of stats would alleviate these sorts of issues, so your Mind stat covers all the spellcasters, or something?


*Please note, I don't want advice on the character I referenced. He's level 9 at this point, and any different build would be a story retcon. It worked out, I just wish that the version of him that I first imagined, where he approached natural magic using his intellect and learned the secrets of countering necromancy from the spirits of his mountain home, had worked out.

Since Ability Scores in 5E are hard-capped at 20 (with very few exceptions) as a part of 'Bound Accuracy' and some such, eliminating them is pretty easy. We did take a poke at it in our 'House Rules Playground' last year I think? Maybe two years back. A player could choose a single descriptor for their character, such as "Smart" or "Cunning" that was Superior (+5 bonus) and add that number to the rolls associated to that descriptor. They got a secondary descriptor at a +3, and another one at a +1. If the skill or roll in question fell into the descriptor, it got the bonus, otherwise it got no bonus.

Fast, simple, effective. Like everything else in 5e, needed intelligent players, roleplayers and rulings, not rules. Was amusing and did indeed get rid of mechanics that got in the way of character design.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I know you are moving in a different direction, this post is more for my own exploration.

• Size ≈ "HP" (Rogues at least get great hitpoints if going brute)
• Athletics ≈ "weapons" (Barbarians can use bows, Rogues benefit from athletically wielding weapons like Fighters)
• Perception ≈ "skills"
• Charm ≈ "spellcasting"

This consolidation into four abilities seems to correlate somewhat to the desirable granularity.

Despite the fact that the Wizard was first, in D&D today, Charisma is the spellcasting stat. Cleric should be Charisma anyway being a social spiritual leader. Especially, consolidating Charisma-Willpower, this ability can handle every spellcasting class. Wizard using Intelligence as the casting stat is actually a weird anomaly to the general rule. Albeit I find it an interesting exception corrolating with the flavor of bookishness. But Intelligence is somewhat odd like having a Sorcerer that uses Size as a spellcasting stat (in the sense that their magic also transforms them physically, making their Size an indicator of their magic potency). Charisma is the generic spellcasting stat.

I don’t like size as the name for health, because I don’t think it would make sense if carried to its logical conclusion (ie dwarfs being less hearty than Goliaths, etc), but you could simply call that one Health or soemthing.

Charm is switch to Will or Wits, to better model the things it covers.

Otherwise, it’s an interesting idea. I like it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Since Ability Scores in 5E are hard-capped at 20 (with very few exceptions) as a part of 'Bound Accuracy' and some such, eliminating them is pretty easy. We did take a poke at it in our 'House Rules Playground' last year I think? Maybe two years back. A player could choose a single descriptor for their character, such as "Smart" or "Cunning" that was Superior (+5 bonus) and add that number to the rolls associated to that descriptor. They got a secondary descriptor at a +3, and another one at a +1. If the skill or roll in question fell into the descriptor, it got the bonus, otherwise it got no bonus.

Fast, simple, effective. Like everything else in 5e, needed intelligent players, roleplayers and rulings, not rules. Was amusing and did indeed get rid of mechanics that got in the way of character design.

I really like that, too. If someone chooses “Fast”, you can immediately know if that applies to nearly any action, or not.

by keeping it to a very small number of descriptions, you avoid what I dislike about systems like Fate. IME, those systems end up spending more time than in D&D talking about the mechanics before resolving an action, which is the opposite of what I want.

 

[Haldrik]

I don’t like size as the name for health, because I don’t think it would make sense if carried to its logical conclusion (ie dwarfs being less hearty than Goliaths, etc), but you could simply call that one Health or soemthing.

Charm is switch to Will or Wits, to better model the things it covers.

Otherwise, it’s an interesting idea. I like it.

In my eyes D&D Dwarf is "big", being broad rather than tall, they weigh alot, and in my setting are living stone.

"Toughness" is probably a more useful name, anyway, so it can correlate with big and tough and hitting hard, but also emphasizes health and stamina.


I see "wits" as more so, "perceptiveness" (whether formally or informally educated or just generally smart, bright, observant, or cunning).

Will is appropriate, but I like this stat handling every "social encounter", so it includes "empathy" as well. Maybe "socialness"?

• Tough
• Athletic
• Perceptive
• Social

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my eyes D&D Dwarf is "big", being broad rather than tall, they weigh alot, and in my setting are living stone.

"Toughness" is probably a more useful name, anyway, so it can correlate with big and tough and hitting hard, but also emphasizes health and stamina.

That all makes sense. Feel free to replace rock gnomes, or any other hearty smaller race.

My main goal is for there to be one of two game states;

Every spell is cast with the same stat, and all physical attack that isn't a spell attack uses the same stat,

or

Every character chooses a spellcasting stat when they make their character at level 1, and they cast with that stat regardless of the source of the spell. Likewise, they choose a stat with which they make physical non-spell attacks, and it cannot be the same stat. They use the attack stat regardless of weapon.

In the second choice, you might have a sorcerer casting with constitution (and that would be cool as hell and give them an added niche of being the best at concentration checks amongst the full casters), a paladin might cast with wisdom, a warlock with int, or a reflavored caster of any class who is a spell-dancer might cast with dexterity. It's entirely up to the player.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my eyes D&D Dwarf is "big", being broad rather than tall, they weigh alot, and in my setting are living stone.

"Toughness" is probably a more useful name, anyway, so it can correlate with big and tough and hitting hard, but also emphasizes health and stamina.


I see "wits" as more so, "perceptiveness" (whether formally or informally educated or just generally smart, bright, observant, or cunning).

Will is appropriate, but I like the this stat handling every "social encounter", so it includes "empathy" as well. Maybe "socialness"?

• Tough
• Athletic
• Perceptive
• Social

I got on a tanget in my other reply lol sorry. Okay, so to your idea, you've got a resistence based physical stat, an action based physical stat, a passive/sensory mental stat, and an active/extroverted mental stat. I like that. I don't know where mental resistance would live, here, though. Of course, I also don't like it being governed by wisdom, bc that makes no sense.

The old WEG star wars game had Perception as an Ability Score, and I liked that, especially with stuff like it being the stat for disguise and forgery.

 

[Haldrik]

I got on a tanget in my other reply lol sorry. Okay, so to your idea, you've got a resistence based physical stat, an action based physical stat, a passive/sensory mental stat, and an active/extroverted mental stat. I like that. I don't know where mental resistance would live, here, though. Of course, I also don't like it being governed by wisdom, bc that makes no sense.

The old WEG star wars game had Perception as an Ability Score, and I liked that, especially with stuff like it being the stat for disguise and forgery.

Mental resistance in the sense of Willpower, or resisting someone elses social influence, would be the Social ability. The Social ability handles the ability to withstand and to see thru someone elses mental manipulation.

On the other hand, the ability to see thru an illusion (or fraud, or deception, or concealment, or stealth, or disguise) would require the Perceptive ability.

Personally, I would use Perceptive to make stealth/deception checks as well as to detect someone else making stealth/deception checks.