Make the game better, get rid of STR and DEX

[BigRedJedi]

While there certainly is an argument for holding onto certain aspects of D&D for the sake of tradition, one of the sillier things that the system continues to cling to is the six, sacred stats. (I would argue they are actually much less sacred in that they have been tweaked and modified in every edition, in some manner, since the game's inception, but I digress...)

It is time to make a change for the better by consolidating from six stats, down to five. Get rid of Strength and Dexterity as separate stats and replace them with a unified stat that represents athletic ability (call it Athleticism, Physique, Prowess, or something voted on by fans; for the purposes of brevity, I will call it "Body" for the rest of this post).

If implemented into 5E, as a reference point, any instance where you use either STR or DEX in the current system would use Body [BOD] instead. From attacks to initiative, carrying capacity to AC, unifying these two stats would eliminate some silly, under-the-hood weirdness and allow for more narrative freedom for players and DMs.

Fewer arguments about needing both physical strength and manual dexterity to effectively wield a weapon, whether melee or ranged. For those that think it is an issue, better opportunity to keep parity between martials and casters (at least until 7th-level and higher spells destroy the game /s). Having STR and DEX as separate stats is counter-intuitive and needless clinging to tradition.

Using BOD, differentiation between musculature and flexibility would still be reflected in the Athletics and Acrobatics skills, as the disciplines covered by both skills represents applying a characters athletic ability in very different ways. No longer would there be the silly max-STR, 8-DEX Paladin who can shatter evildoers with his brightly-glowing face, but is so inflexible that his joints have fused and his arms and legs are simply straight pieces of lumber. No more Elves that can dodge a bullet, but can inexplicably use longbows with Legolas-level precision, though they are too physically weak to carry a waterskin and must drag it along the ground behind them as they wander through a dungeon.

What about the other stats? Each of the other stats still represents a discrete category of natural capability. While physical resilience certainly could be included in a measurement of athletic capability, CON abstractly represents both physical resilience and mental fortitude to persevere in harrowing situations, whether through an iron stomach or iron will, thus, it deserves to be its own stat.

So too is INT a measure of cognitive and reasoning capacity; WIS is representative of both common sense and intuition; and CHA represents the gravitas and/or attractiveness of the character's personality. Each of the other stats has a clearly defined sphere of represented capability, but STR and DEX...? The overlap where physical strength and flexibility overlap seems to make their separation an artificial construct for the sake of tradition and not grounded in any serious consideration of logic or reality (yes, it is a game, but cognitive dissonance still can be reduced to improve the overall experience).

TLDR: Unifying DEX and STR into a single stat makes cognitive and narrative sense, eliminates some of the perceived and actual oddness that stems from representing them as separate measurements, and would be a cleaner base for both character creation and system math in current and future editions.

Thoughts?

[KorvinStarmast]

*Face palm*

Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are on the phone; they'd like to talk to you about the genre that D&D is immersed in. The game's roots are in fiction, and in stories, from an eclectic mix of pulps, heroic fiction, mytholody, dystopian lit, horror lit, and high fantasy. In those stories the roles of the strong character and of the more agile character all have a place. So too the story of the wise character, and the story of the clever character. (I'll stop there).

In short, create another game system. Lots of other people have done so. While you are at it, take a look at what 13th Age did as regards to how stats inform saves and defense scores.

But it goes further than that. Your reductionist approach does not go far enough.
Three stats.

Mental: Will
Physical: Fortitude
Agility and Awareness: Reflex.

Go. (I am sure that you will recognize those from 3.x.)

[Amdy_vill]

While there certainly is an argument for holding onto certain aspects of D&D for the sake of tradition, one of the sillier things that the system continues to cling to is the six, sacred stats. (I would argue they are actually much less sacred in that they have been tweaked and modified in every edition, in some manner, since the game's inception, but I digress...)

It is time to make a change for the better by consolidating from six stats, down to five. Get rid of Strength and Dexterity as separate stats and replace them with a unified stat that represents athletic ability (call it Athleticism, Physique, Prowess, or something voted on by fans; for the purposes of brevity, I will call it "Body" for the rest of this post).

If implemented into 5E, as a reference point, any instance where you use either STR or DEX in the current system would use Body [BOD] instead. From attacks to initiative, carrying capacity to AC, unifying these two stats would eliminate some silly, under-the-hood weirdness and allow for more narrative freedom for players and DMs.

Fewer arguments about needing both physical strength and manual dexterity to effectively wield a weapon, whether melee or ranged. For those that think it is an issue, better opportunity to keep parity between martials and casters (at least until 7th-level and higher spells destroy the game /s). Having STR and DEX as separate stats is counter-intuitive and needless clinging to tradition.

Using BOD, differentiation between musculature and flexibility would still be reflected in the Athletics and Acrobatics skills, as the disciplines covered by both skills represents applying a characters athletic ability in very different ways. No longer would there be the silly max-STR, 8-DEX Paladin who can shatter evildoers with his brightly-glowing face, but is so inflexible that his joints have fused and his arms and legs are simply straight pieces of lumber. No more Elves that can dodge a bullet, but can inexplicably use longbows with Legolas-level precision, though they are too physically weak to carry a waterskin and must drag it along the ground behind them as they wander through a dungeon.

What about the other stats? Each of the other stats still represents a discrete category of natural capability. While physical resilience certainly could be included in a measurement of athletic capability, CON abstractly represents both physical resilience and mental fortitude to persevere in harrowing situations, whether through an iron stomach or iron will, thus, it deserves to be its own stat.

So too is INT a measure of cognitive and reasoning capacity; WIS is representative of both common sense and intuition; and CHA represents the gravitas and/or attractiveness of the character's personality. Each of the other stats has a clearly defined sphere of represented capability, but STR and DEX...? The overlap where physical strength and flexibility overlap seems to make their separation an artificial construct for the sake of tradition and not grounded in any serious consideration of logic or reality (yes, it is a game, but cognitive dissonance still can be reduced to improve the overall experience).

TLDR: Unifying DEX and STR into a single stat makes cognitive and narrative sense, eliminates some of the perceived and actual oddness that stems from representing them as separate measurements, and would be a cleaner base for both character creation and system math in current and future editions.

Thoughts?

I feel this simplification removes the depth required in a game like dnd. think about how this affects classes that are distinguished by dex and Str. rogues go from an ok damage dealer with big burst damage and good skills to being great at everything physical and great at skills on top of their damage dealing. this makes rogue really powerful but ti also massive nerfs Barbarians and fighters making their signature abilities and playstyle just the normal abilities of marital classes. the fighter is saved by their extra attack but barbarians become the worst rogue filling all the same roles except they don't have good out of combat abilities like the rogue.

the problem is the 5es underlying systems overly focus on dex and to a lesser extent con over str, str only being used by some melee characters. a better solution would be looking at the underlying systems for all the stats and then dividing these systems up to each state both evenly as well as each of them having the same weight for each system. so the new str state doesn't get stuffed with systems that are generally not used, instead it has one or two major systems that all players must use then some smaller systems. then rebuild the new stats with those lists. given how many major systems 5e has i would think you would need up with more then 6 stats

[JackPhoenix]

No longer would there be the silly max-STR, 8-DEX Paladin who can shatter evildoers with his brightly-glowing face, but is so inflexible that his joints have fused and his arms and legs are simply straight pieces of lumber.

Not a problem, that's already not the case. Dex 8 simply means they have 5% lower chance to succeed on Dex-based tasks than an average person.


No more Elves that can dodge a bullet, but can inexplicably use longbows with Legolas-level precision, though they are too physically weak to carry a waterskin and must drag it along the ground behind them as they wander through a dungeon.

Neither is this. Encumberance rules are more than generous. Even Str 8 character can carry 120 lb of equipment without issues.

Such riddicculous exaggeration doesn't help your case.


TLDR: Unifying DEX and STR into a single stat makes cognitive and narrative sense, eliminates some of the perceived and actual oddness that stems from representing them as separate measurements, and would be a cleaner base for both character creation and system math in current and future editions.

Thoughts?

Doesn't make any sense. If anything, mental stats could use some look-over (hello, Wisdom, somehow representing such related concepts as willpower, perception and intuition).

[BigRedJedi]

*Face palm*

Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are on the phone; they'd like to talk to you about the genre that D&D is immersed in. The game's roots are in fiction, and in stories, from an eclectic mix of pulps, heroic fiction, mytholody, dystopian lit, horror lit, and high fantasy. In those stories the roles of the strong character and of the more agile character all have a place. So too the story of the wise character, and the story of the clever character. (I'll stop there).

In short, create another game system. Lots of other people have done so. While you are at it, take a look at what 13th Age did as regards to how stats inform saves and defense scores.

But it goes further than that. Your reductionist approach does not go far enough.
Three stats.

Mental: Will
Physical: Fortitude
Agility and Awareness: Reflex.

Go. (I am sure that you will recognize those from 3.x.)

That's closer to how 4E handled saves than 3E, and I would be perfectly fine with simplifying saving throws back to that, it was one of the few things that 4E did right, in my opinion.

(For those not in the know: 4E saving throws were derived from the better of your STR/CON modifiers for Fortitude, the better of DEX/INT for your Reflex, and the better of WIS/CHA for your Will, which makes a great deal of sense in a "reductionist" system.)

As for why I didn't advocate for further "reductions" in what Stats are built into the system, I refer to my OP. Streamlining doesn't mean that I want to dumb the game down (which is the implication of the "reductionist" argument, whether intentional or implied), I want the game to operate better. D&F 5E is, for better or worse, a cinematic fantasy system and not nearly as reflective of those genres that you reference (though they can be somewhat effectively represented in this new system), and I am simply advocating for structural systems that support the framework.

[Notafish]

While STR and DEX are confusingly applied in that DEX is the higher-priority stat for most builds, I think that they work better than the other four stats at conveying roleplaying flavor through dice mechanics. If my elf is high-dex, it's easy to imagine them as lithe and hard-to-hit; if my orc is high strength, it's easy to imagine them as being a hulking, threatening presence. On the other hand, CON refers to both mental and physical fortitude, while CHA and WIS are so nebulously applied that they interfere with player freedom in creating characters - absent-minded clerics and anti-social warlocks are hard to justify without forgoing perception and social rolls. Meanwhile, INT is a problem due to being easily dumpable unless you have Wizard spells.

Really, I think that the biggest problem is that the ability scores take up too much space on the character sheet, leading players to assign the numbers outsized importance when portraying their characters.

[Willie the Duck]

I get why something like this comes up. We have, what, 2-3 active threads in the 5e section alone (plus the general rpg section) complaining about some combination of 8 str archers; not enough love to Str; and that casters can get by with one stat while martials would need to have two good stats to even do something as iconic a the traditional AD&D longbow-and-longsword type character. I get the impulse. That said, I think Korvin is right about genre emulation -- If attributes cannot distinguish Fafhrd from Grey Mouser (or perhaps Drax from Hawkeye, to use more modern examples), then why have them at all (at least as hyper-prominent parts of the game)? That last part might be a better place to address the issue (if one were to want) -- make attributes a less influential contribution to overall game success. Or at least make it such that a Str-based fighter who isn't specifically dumping Dex would ever consider picking up a bow. That's what AD&D did -- sure having an 18 in either Str or Dex decidedly upped one end of the combat game, but having a 10 in the other didn't doom the character from switch-hitting.

[KorvinStarmast]

I want the game to operate better.
Your suggestion won't do that.
It ain't broke; you've got a solution looking for a problem. (Or as Willy said, we are looking at a slow news day :smallsmile: )

That said, one of the things I have stopped doing is allowing Acrobatics to sub in for Athletics checks.
In some cases, like avoiding a grapple, yes.
Once grappled, no. (But that's a DM choice, which some DMs won't make).

FWIW: The alternate ability score for a given check advice in Chapter is one of those dials you can turn to adjust the game a bit. The recommendation on the Str over Cha for an intimidation check isn't a bad idea; at our tables, we sometime swap in INT and DEX for gaming proficiency depending on the game in question (dice? cards?)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Consider this. The Ability Scores are not intended to model reality, they're intended to enable archetypes.

STR is for the Strong Hero. Who fights with a melee weapon, hits hard, lifts things, breaks chains, absorbs blows with heavy armor and shields (or just flat out muscle), etc.
DEX is for the Nimble Hero. Who fights with precision and/or ranged attacks, dodges stuff, sneaks around, etc.
CON is for everyone, but higher CON differentiates the Tough Hero from the Frail Hero. Just from a different baseline.

INT is for the Smart Hero. Who applies intellect to problems. Frequently associated with arcane magic in archetypes.
WIS is for the InTune Hero (yeah, no good name here). Who feels or intuits his way through problems. Often associated with clerical-type magic in archetypes, but that's mainly a circular D&D-ism.
CHA is for the Mouthy Hero. Who talks his way through problems. Associating this with magic is a less common outside of D&D and D&D-derivatives.

And these archetypes are bit-fields--any specific hero might be Strong Hero | Smart Hero or Strong Hero | Tough Hero or ... Often, Nimble Hero goes with Mouthy Hero (think the wise-cracking swashbuckler type), while heroes whose dominant trait is Smart Hero tend to be more on the Frail Hero side than the Tough Hero side[1]. And you can have a Nimble | Tough or Nimble | Frail character just fine.

This makes the physical scores not redundant at all--they enable different archetypes. The mental ones are strong and separate...but don't tie to magic as well as they might. If anything, I think there's room to shift those around (so casters need 2 stats to be effective). But yeah, not a simple change.

[1] Even Bruce Banner/Hulk plays this game--Bruce is smart but not especially tough or strong, while Hulk is STRONG | TOUGH to the extreme, but the smart aspect is reduced in that mode. Raistlin is the prime example of a Smart | Frail Hero.

[Willie the Duck]

INT is for the Smart Hero. Who applies intellect to problems. Frequently associated with arcane magic in archetypes.
WIS is for the InTune Hero (yeah, no good name here). Who feels or intuits his way through problems. Often associated with clerical-type magic in archetypes, but that's mainly a circular D&D-ism.

Int and Wis is definitely started as a D&D-ism (each starting out as almost literally nothing but XP-bonus attribute to magic user and cleric, respsectively), but has kinda evolved into (particularly for puposes of this archetype-enablement model) ham-handed way of making sure a wizard can be an absentminded professor type who is really good at book learning, but not all other mental qualities, and that a cagey character (say Jack the Giant Slayer, Puss In Boots, or similar) can have incredible guile, awareness, will, persistence, or some other mental quality while being uneducated/not-a-natural-wizard-type.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Int and Wis is definitely started as a D&D-ism (each starting out as almost literally nothing but XP-bonus attribute to magic user and cleric, respsectively), but has kinda evolved into (particularly for puposes of this archetype-enablement model) ham-handed way of making sure a wizard can be an absentminded professor type who is really good at book learning, but not all other mental qualities, and that a cagey character (say Jack the Giant Slayer, Puss In Boots, or similar) can have incredible guile, awareness, will, persistence, or some other mental quality while being uneducated/not-a-natural-wizard-type.

Agreed. So many of fantasy archetypes have evolved in the presence of D&D-isms. Whether explicitly accepting them, explicitly rejecting them, or just being influenced by things that were influenced by (sometimes at significant distance) D&D-isms.

And I think the distinction between the Feeling Hero and the Thinking Hero and the Talking Hero is valid. You get the "dude who doesn't understand people or feelings and isn't good at talking, but does understand <topic>" (ie Dr House) at one extreme, the "hippy who just goes with the flow of things" or the "uneducated guy with super insights into the human condition" at an extreme of another, and the archetypal used-car salesman, who can sell ice to polar bears[1] in Antarctica but hasn't a clue and often ends up doing really stupid things at the extreme of another.

[1] ie achieving the impossible via charm and fast talking, as there are no polar bears in Antarctica, and ice is very common. And polar bears can't buy things generally, lacking money...and verbal abilities.

[Unoriginal]

I also want to point out:


D&D is inspired by many fictions, but D&D only emulates D&D, and 5e only emulates 5e.

If you want a system that emulates something else, then you want a different system.

[JNAProductions]

I also have suggested a change for 5E down to five stats. Here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?531769-5-Stats-For-5E).

But I removed Constitution, since that's the boring stat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I also want to point out:


D&D is inspired by many fictions, but D&D only emulates D&D, and 5e only emulates 5e.

If you want a system that emulates something else, then you want a different system.

Agreed. Very much so.

[ZRN]

Tired: Any ability scores.

Wired: Pick three adjectives from a class-specific list and add an extra +4 to related checks, attacks, and saves, on top of any other bonuses. (E.g. rogues could pick "Quick-witted," "Tricky," and "Greedy," and then would get to add +4 to initiative and to persuasion rolls related to getting paid, but NOT to attack rolls that the DM deems insufficiently tricky.) Players can make up their own adjectives with DM approval, and you can get a new adjective in place of an ASI.

Now there are fewer numbers to track and instead of your character being defined by six weirdly defined statistics, they get a few easy-to-interpret character traits!

(Someday I'm going to try to run 5e with minis like it's DungeonWorld, and I will probably be the only person involved to enjoy the effort.)

[KorvinStarmast]

But I removed Constitution, since that's the boring stat. Another non problem allegedly 'fixed' - except it wasn't. :smallcool: (I'll leave the rest to the posts in that thread).

(Someday I'm going to try to run 5e with minis like it's DungeonWorld, and I will probably be the only person involved to enjoy the effort.) Why not just play dungeon world, then? :smallconfused:

[Segev]

But it goes further than that. Your reductionist approach does not go far enough.
Three stats.

Mental: Will
Physical: Fortitude
Agility and Awareness: Reflex.

Go. (I am sure that you will recognize those from 3.x.)

Don't be silly. The three stats should clearly be Body, Mind, and Soul.

[JNAProductions]

Another non problem allegedly 'fixed' - except it wasn't. :smallcool: (I'll leave the rest to the posts in that thread). :

I agree it’s not a problem that needs to be fixed-it’s a change, not a fix.

But rereading the thread, it seemed well-received.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Don't be silly. The three stats should clearly be Body, Mind, and Soul.

Rock, Paper, and Scissors

[Battlebooze]

Really, all characters boil down to two stats.

Internal power. Aka, Int, Con, Wis. This is the stat related to the characters internal ability, it manifests inside them, in their mind body and spirit.

External power. Aka, Str, Dex, Chr. This is the stat a character uses to directly effect the outside world by action, manipulation, and expression.

So we could just use two stats.

Or we could just roll one d6 at the start of every campaign.

1: The campaign is a disaster. The players don't have fun, in fact they end up hating everyone and the GM as well, never play another RPG again.
2: The campaign is bad and breaks up with arguments and confusion. You may roll again next campaign after taking sever months off.
3: The campaign fails because of factors outside anyone's control. No hard feelings, just disappointment. Play again as desired.
4: The campaign plays through to completion, though everyone is left wanting a more satisfactory story next time. Play again as desired.
5: The campaign is great, everyone has fun and thinks highly of the whole endeavor. Play again as desired.
6: The campaign is the best thing to ever happen to the players and games-master. They don't want it to end, but eventually with tears of joy it does. No need to play again, you beat the game.

I think the last option makes everything so much simpler.

[KorvinStarmast]

Don't be silly. The three stats should clearly be Body, Mind, and Soul. Look, the doc says I can only have one cup of coffee a day; I plead caffeine deficit! :smallbiggrin:

But rereading the thread, it seemed well-received. It certainly attracted plenty of discussion :smallsmile:

@PhoneixPhyre:
Rock, Paper, Scissors is RPS.
We are talking RPG.
Rock, Paper, Glaive. :smallbiggrin:
Ranseur, Poleaxe, Guisarme if you are named Gary Gygax.

[Frogreaver]

While there certainly is an argument for holding onto certain aspects of D&D for the sake of tradition, one of the sillier things that the system continues to cling to is the six, sacred stats. (I would argue they are actually much less sacred in that they have been tweaked and modified in every edition, in some manner, since the game's inception, but I digress...)

It is time to make a change for the better by consolidating from six stats, down to five. Get rid of Strength and Dexterity as separate stats and replace them with a unified stat that represents athletic ability (call it Athleticism, Physique, Prowess, or something voted on by fans; for the purposes of brevity, I will call it "Body" for the rest of this post).

If implemented into 5E, as a reference point, any instance where you use either STR or DEX in the current system would use Body [BOD] instead. From attacks to initiative, carrying capacity to AC, unifying these two stats would eliminate some silly, under-the-hood weirdness and allow for more narrative freedom for players and DMs.

Fewer arguments about needing both physical strength and manual dexterity to effectively wield a weapon, whether melee or ranged. For those that think it is an issue, better opportunity to keep parity between martials and casters (at least until 7th-level and higher spells destroy the game /s). Having STR and DEX as separate stats is counter-intuitive and needless clinging to tradition.

Using BOD, differentiation between musculature and flexibility would still be reflected in the Athletics and Acrobatics skills, as the disciplines covered by both skills represents applying a characters athletic ability in very different ways. No longer would there be the silly max-STR, 8-DEX Paladin who can shatter evildoers with his brightly-glowing face, but is so inflexible that his joints have fused and his arms and legs are simply straight pieces of lumber. No more Elves that can dodge a bullet, but can inexplicably use longbows with Legolas-level precision, though they are too physically weak to carry a waterskin and must drag it along the ground behind them as they wander through a dungeon.

What about the other stats? Each of the other stats still represents a discrete category of natural capability. While physical resilience certainly could be included in a measurement of athletic capability, CON abstractly represents both physical resilience and mental fortitude to persevere in harrowing situations, whether through an iron stomach or iron will, thus, it deserves to be its own stat.

So too is INT a measure of cognitive and reasoning capacity; WIS is representative of both common sense and intuition; and CHA represents the gravitas and/or attractiveness of the character's personality. Each of the other stats has a clearly defined sphere of represented capability, but STR and DEX...? The overlap where physical strength and flexibility overlap seems to make their separation an artificial construct for the sake of tradition and not grounded in any serious consideration of logic or reality (yes, it is a game, but cognitive dissonance still can be reduced to improve the overall experience).

TLDR: Unifying DEX and STR into a single stat makes cognitive and narrative sense, eliminates some of the perceived and actual oddness that stems from representing them as separate measurements, and would be a cleaner base for both character creation and system math in current and future editions.

Thoughts?

IMO no set of stats will ever be ‘right’. So why even focus on changing something that’s not inherently worse than the alternative.

Instead consider redefining character creation so that when you choose your class you are guaranteed to get stats good enough to play that class. Consider changing level up ASIs into something actually interesting. +2 str/dex/int just isn’t interesting and could be baked into the class or progression system itself.

It would do worlds for balance and flavor and provide actual interesting choices.

[arnin77]

Really, all characters boil down to two stats.

Internal power. Aka, Int, Con, Wis. This is the stat related to the characters internal ability, it manifests inside them, in their mind body and spirit.

External power. Aka, Str, Dex, Chr. This is the stat a character uses to directly effect the outside world by action, manipulation, and expression.

So we could just use two stats.

Or we could just roll one d6 at the start of every campaign.

1: The campaign is a disaster. The players don't have fun, in fact they end up hating everyone and the GM as well, never play another RPG again.
2: The campaign is bad and breaks up with arguments and confusion. You may roll again next campaign after taking sever months off.
3: The campaign fails because of factors outside anyone's control. No hard feelings, just disappointment. Play again as desired.
4: The campaign plays through to completion, though everyone is left wanting a more satisfactory story next time. Play again as desired.
5: The campaign is great, everyone has fun and thinks highly of the whole endeavor. Play again as desired.
6: The campaign is the best thing to ever happen to the players and games-master. They don't want it to end, but eventually with tears of joy it does. No need to play again, you beat the game.

I think the last option makes everything so much simpler.

5 years later ... “Why we should streamline into a D4 roll”

[Battlebooze]

5 years later ... “Why we should streamline into a D4 roll”

Omg, I'm dying sir. Thank you for that. :smallbiggrin:

[Skrum]

I am far more bothered by the lack of overlap between strength and constitution than strength and dexterity. As others have said, these stats are (at least in part) about creating iconic character types. Super strong characters are common in fantasy. Super dexterous/fast characters are common. But super strong characters that are also flimsy? Not so common. But as it stands, making a hulking brute often requires cranking up Str and Con, while an agile character only needs Dex.

I think Str and Con have more in common than Str and Dex.

[Segev]

I am far more bothered by the lack of overlap between strength and constitution than strength and dexterity. As others have said, these stats are (at least in part) about creating iconic character types. Super strong characters are common in fantasy. Super dexterous/fast characters are common. But super strong characters that are also flimsy? Not so common. But as it stands, making a hulking brute often requires cranking up Str and Con, while an agile character only needs Dex.

I think Str and Con have more in common than Str and Dex.

The reason merging Str and Con isn't because archetypal strongmen aren't also often archetypally tough, but because Constitution is more than just toughness: it's endurance. And the archetypal strongman doesn't necessarily have tremendous endurance, while the archetypal whipcord acrobat and even the archetypal charismatic bard aren't necessarily muscle-bound, but can easily have great endurance. The archetypal wizard is a scrawny nerd with little endurance, but being a scrawny nerd with the endurance to keep going no matter what isn't outside the archetype's bounds the way muscle-bound nerd would be.

[Snails]

If there is a stat that should be dumped first, I would go with one of the mental stats. The physical stats are not perfect, but I have never known a single player who found them even a little bit confusing -- they communicated something useful about the PC effectively enough.

And to emphasize a point made earlier, it is not about the stats actually being right in some logical way, but whether their existence on the character sheet communicates effectively to the player about the PC, when trying to imagine a character similar to known archetypes.

If you are really serious about simplifications, get rid of all six stats and fold it all into the Proficiency Bonus and Skill System and Class features.

The man with the pointy stick is good at hitting things, and we expect that a 1st level dude will have a +5 to hit with his favorite stick and a 10th level dude will have a +9. Do we need to know more than that and delve into the details about his physique? Do we specifically need to make sure this guy is bad at using a bow? Do we specifically need to make sure this guy is mediocre at Acrobatics?

If you like that kind of texture, then you are someone who wants Str and Dex to be explicit in your game.

If you do not think it is worth the effort to have the rules discourage the burly knight in shining armor from being very good at Acrobatics, then you can make do without either Str or Dex at all. And you might as well ditch all six, at that point, too.

BTW, I am completely serious about ditching all six stats -- it certainly can work. If you really want simplification, dare to really re-imagine the system. As others have pointed out, perhaps you are really making an entirely new game rather than putting a little polish on D&D...

[KorvinStarmast]

If there is a stat that should be dumped first, I would go with one of the mental stats. Fuse INT and WIS, and return Cha to a non spell casting stat. (yeah, my usual ax to grind even though I love me my celestial warlock)

But that ain't happening.

[loki_ragnarock]

Fuse INT and WIS, and return Cha to a non spell casting stat. (yeah, my usual ax to grind even though I love me my celestial warlock)

But that ain't happening.

Nah, Cha should be a derived stat based on your other direct stats, like some summation of int, wis, and dex divided by 3, or maybe 1/2 int, 1/4 wis, 1/3 dex, with a modifier for social values like rank or...

... oh no. No. That kind of thinking is how you wind up playing Chivalry and Sorcery. No one wants that.

Also, some of these other suggestions are how you wind up playing other games as well:
Fusing strength and con? Why, that's basically 7th Sea!
Physical, Mental, Social? Why, that's a streamlined White Wolf!
Charisma subsumed into int and wis? That's Savage Worlds! (Kinda!)

But D&D has the stats it has. They are iconic, definitive, essential; if you don't have 'em, you aren't playing D&D. You might be playing one of a number of other fine role-playing games, and that's okay.

Just, uh, lay off the C&S. It's... it's alot.

[Kane0]

Three stats.

Mental: Will
Physical: Fortitude
Agility and Awareness: Reflex.

Go. (I am sure that you will recognize those from 3.x.)


Don't be silly. The three stats should clearly be Body, Mind, and Soul.


Strength, Skill and Will.

Might, Finesse and Resolve.

Grit, Moxie and Cutzbah.

As much as I love the rule of 3, maybe we need a fourth for personality and interaction or differentiating being smart from being cunning or intuitive.

[PhantomSoul]

Nah, Cha should be a derived stat based on your other direct stats, like some summation of int, wis, and dex divided by 3, or maybe 1/2 int, 1/4 wis, 1/3 dex, with a modifier for social values like rank or...

... oh no. No. That kind of thinking is how you wind up playing Chivalry and Sorcery. No one wants that.


:P

Dunno what they do, But STR+DEX->CON and INT+WIS->CHA could have its perks (Obviously a completely different system, yadda yadda yadda haha)

[Skrum]

The reason merging Str and Con isn't because archetypal strongmen aren't also often archetypally tough, but because Constitution is more than just toughness: it's endurance. And the archetypal strongman doesn't necessarily have tremendous endurance, while the archetypal whipcord acrobat and even the archetypal charismatic bard aren't necessarily muscle-bound, but can easily have great endurance. The archetypal wizard is a scrawny nerd with little endurance, but being a scrawny nerd with the endurance to keep going no matter what isn't outside the archetype's bounds the way muscle-bound nerd would be.

Oh I know why it's like that, and it makes a certain sense, but I would be in favor of Strength giving some level of defensive ability - or contributing to HP.

It also bothers me that powerful fighters are no better at defending themselves than low level fighters, but now we're talking about more serious changes to the system.

[Snails]

Nah, Cha should be a derived stat based on your other direct stats, like some summation of int, wis, and dex divided by 3, or maybe 1/2 int, 1/4 wis, 1/3 dex, with a modifier for social values like rank or...

... oh no. No. That kind of thinking is how you wind up playing Chivalry and Sorcery. No one wants that.

Also, some of these other suggestions are how you wind up playing other games as well:
Fusing strength and con? Why, that's basically 7th Sea!
Physical, Mental, Social? Why, that's a streamlined White Wolf!
Charisma subsumed into int and wis? That's Savage Worlds! (Kinda!)

But D&D has the stats it has. They are iconic, definitive, essential; if you don't have 'em, you aren't playing D&D. You might be playing one of a number of other fine role-playing games, and that's okay.

Just, uh, lay off the C&S. It's... it's alot.

You are a very, very cruel person. Terrible. Breaking my heart.

My fondest wish is to ascend in ability as an alchemist, achieve The Philosopher's Stone, play with the boon of a few wishes, and then be called to the mysterious Council of the Wise.

[Theodoxus]

Add moar stats! Fighting: To hit with melee attacks (where Str grants a damage bonus). Accuracy: To hit with ranged/thrown attacks (where Dex grants a damage bonus). Arcana: Baseline for magical affinity, where Cha/Int/Wis allow you to connect with your class specialized form of magic, Arcana tells you how Powerful your spells can be. Divinity: Baseline for divine affinity - like Arcana, but for the divine arts. One might call it Faith. Health: Where Constitution is physical and mental fortitude, Health is purely meat. It's been called Wounds in other d20 games. Perception: How aware of your surroundings are you. Making it its own attribute frees Wisdom to be more concerned with intuition and empathy; knowing thyself rather than knowing thy neighbor.

Yes, 12 attributes brings wholeness. Brings granularity where 6 (or 5 or 4 or 3) fail.

Although I'm actually pretty stoked about the Rock (Body/Strength), Paper (Mind/Learning) and Scissors (Agility/Blades) idea... Better than that old Fighter/Mage/Rogue game (that used the exact same concept, just worse).

[PhantomSoul]

Add moar stats! Fighting: To hit with melee attacks (where Str grants a damage bonus). Accuracy: To hit with ranged/thrown attacks (where Dex grants a damage bonus). Arcana: Baseline for magical affinity, where Cha/Int/Wis allow you to connect with your class specialized form of magic, Arcana tells you how Powerful your spells can be. Divinity: Baseline for divine affinity - like Arcana, but for the divine arts. One might call it Faith. Health: Where Constitution is physical and mental fortitude, Health is purely meat. It's been called Wounds in other d20 games. Perception: How aware of your surroundings are you. Making it its own attribute frees Wisdom to be more concerned with intuition and empathy; knowing thyself rather than knowing thy neighbor.

Yes, 12 attributes brings wholeness. Brings granularity where 6 (or 5 or 4 or 3) fail.

Although I'm actually pretty stoked about the Rock (Body/Strength), Paper (Mind/Learning) and Scissors (Agility/Blades) idea... Better than that old Fighter/Mage/Rogue game (that used the exact same concept, just worse).

Go big or go home -- have a stat per weapon, so it's more like skills-meets-stats! Bonus points if you have a stat per weapon accuracy and a stat per weapon damage

[Snails]

Go big or go home -- have a stat per weapon, so it's more like skills-meets-stats! Bonus points if you have a stat per weapon accuracy and a stat per weapon damage

We need armor types, so that could be a matrix of modifiers for even more precise verisimilitude.

[Battlebooze]

Go big or go home -- have a stat per weapon, so it's more like skills-meets-stats! Bonus points if you have a stat per weapon accuracy and a stat per weapon damage


We need armor types, so that could be a matrix of modifiers for even more precise verisimilitude.


I've played plenty of Rolemaster. It can be fun but it is has serious issues.

[JackPhoenix]

It also bothers me that powerful fighters are no better at defending themselves than low level fighters, but now we're talking about more serious changes to the system.

What do you mean? Of course they are better at defending themselves... they have more HP, don't they?

[Sigreid]

Add moar stats! Fighting: To hit with melee attacks (where Str grants a damage bonus). Accuracy: To hit with ranged/thrown attacks (where Dex grants a damage bonus). Arcana: Baseline for magical affinity, where Cha/Int/Wis allow you to connect with your class specialized form of magic, Arcana tells you how Powerful your spells can be. Divinity: Baseline for divine affinity - like Arcana, but for the divine arts. One might call it Faith. Health: Where Constitution is physical and mental fortitude, Health is purely meat. It's been called Wounds in other d20 games. Perception: How aware of your surroundings are you. Making it its own attribute frees Wisdom to be more concerned with intuition and empathy; knowing thyself rather than knowing thy neighbor.

Yes, 12 attributes brings wholeness. Brings granularity where 6 (or 5 or 4 or 3) fail.

Although I'm actually pretty stoked about the Rock (Body/Strength), Paper (Mind/Learning) and Scissors (Agility/Blades) idea... Better than that old Fighter/Mage/Rogue game (that used the exact same concept, just worse).

You kind of almost described how Savage Worlds works.

[KorvinStarmast]

Strength, Skill and Will.
Strength, Skill, Will, Charm
Strength, Skill, Will, and Presence (or Mien)

Mien is roughly:
a person's look or manner, especially one of a particular kind indicating their character or mood.

Which IIRC takes us to the four attribute model that Dungeon World uses. :smallbiggrin:

Or,
Strength, Skill, Will and Style. :smallsmile:

[Catullus64]

Wired: Pick three adjectives from a class-specific list and add an extra +4 to related checks, attacks, and saves, on top of any other bonuses. (E.g. rogues could pick "Quick-witted," "Tricky," and "Greedy," and then would get to add +4 to initiative and to persuasion rolls related to getting paid, but NOT to attack rolls that the DM deems insufficiently tricky.) Players can make up their own adjectives with DM approval, and you can get a new adjective in place of an ASI.

Now there are fewer numbers to track and instead of your character being defined by six weirdly defined statistics, they get a few easy-to-interpret character traits!


That's kind of how things work in the Mouse Guard RPG. It's great for helping guide and direct character creation, and it's a ton of fun there, but on the actual table I found that it mostly resulted in a LOT of time spent arguing whether the current task really was or was not suitable to the "Timid" or "Short" trait. If you want such a setup, I think it needs to be far more systematized in terms of what applies to what... which basically just takes you right back to ability scores!

[PhantomSoul]

That's kind of how things work in the Mouse Guard RPG. It's great for helping guide and direct character creation, and it's a ton of fun there, but on the actual table I found that it mostly resulted in a LOT of time spent arguing whether the current task really was or was not suitable to the "Timid" or "Short" trait. If you want such a setup, I think it needs to be far more systematized in terms of what applies to what... which basically just takes you right back to ability scores!

I dunno, systematised application and not having arguments and uncertainty definitely aren't what I think of as features of 5e! (But that's not an inherent property of ability scores, just 5e.)

[Snails]

The more I think about the more I believe that people proposing to remove Str and/or Dex and/or Con are reacting to a reasonable perception that I will try to voice explicitly:


We pretty much "know" what a PC will have stat-wise based on a rough understanding of their archetype with only small error bars, so isn't handling bookwork for those stats just a "tax" that adds little value? Don't we "know" the Ftr1 will hit with a +5 and the Ftr10 will hit with a +10? Don't we "know" what their HP will be at these levels? Yes, there are error bars, but does the variety added by these error bars add much to the game play? In a flat math system, is a variation away from a +5 to hit at first level of +1/-1 or so big that it really justifies added complexity in the mechanics?

This is an entirely reasonable point of view. And I would suggest that this perception is accidentally buttressed by point buy becoming a more common practice, where the most optimal stat choices for a kind of build are fairly obvious. 5e is flexible enough that you are hardly required to make optimal choices to have fun. That said, if you guess the paladin in heavy armor has a Dex 8, how often are you going to be wrong?

For the record, the perception that there is an unnecessary "tax" and the perception that the mechanics could be simplified is rational. I very much disagree with removing these stats, but it is not because the idea is outright illogical in any way.

[Skrum]

What do you mean? Of course they are better at defending themselves... they have more HP, don't they?

Well if you use HP as an abstraction, where only the last few HP are actual damage and the rest is "rolling with the blow" or whatever, than yeah. But most tables don't play that way. A hit is a hit, and some people and most monsters are hella tough.

[Theodoxus]

The more I think about the more I believe that people proposing to remove Str and/or Dex and/or Con are reacting to a reasonable perception that I will try to voice explicitly:



This is an entirely reasonable point of view. And I would suggest that this perception is accidentally buttressed by point buy becoming a more common practice, where the most optimal stat choices for a kind of build are fairly obvious. 5e is flexible enough that you are hardly required to make optimal choices to have fun. That said, if you guess the paladin in heavy armor has a Dex 8, how often are you going to be wrong?

For the record, the perception that there is an unnecessary "tax" and the perception that the mechanics could be simplified is rational. I very much disagree with removing these stats, but it is not because the idea is outright illogical in any way.


This is just a codified form of pre-generated characters. Which my players have always pushed back on, though 80% of the time they create something within that +/- 1 of 'optimal'. Of course, the other 20% are completely against type, just to demonstrate Stormwind, or at least to see if it's 'fun' to play a suboptimal build (and as the DM, let me tell you, it's not. For me, at least.)

[Snails]

This is just a codified form of pre-generated characters. Which my players have always pushed back on, though 80% of the time they create something within that +/- 1 of 'optimal'. Of course, the other 20% are completely against type, just to demonstrate Stormwind, or at least to see if it's 'fun' to play a suboptimal build (and as the DM, let me tell you, it's not. For me, at least.)

Yup, it is not very different from offering pre-gens.

And I am not surprised at your experience. The players like fiddling with those 6 knobs, even if 80% of time the result is not significantly different from what a pre-gen looked like.

There are ways to get away from it being nothing more than pre-generate characters, like adding "feat-like" options or further develop choices from backgrounds/races. But at the end of the day there will be a set of standard choices that will get played 80% of the time because they are known to be optimal or close to optimal, if that is the kind of players you have. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

I guess my point is there is an underlying perception that has much truth to it, driving these discussions. While it is plausible to remove one stat or six stats or something in between, I am skeptical that the perception that drives these discussions will actually change much. In other words, it you are actually being annoyed by sameness, then simplifying the game might not reduce your experience of sameness. There may other payoffs, too, but I think it is worth meditating on the underlying motivation.

[Stangler]

I am totally for rethinking stats in D&D but strength and dexterity is a good example of a choice that can have RP and gameplay relevance. I think where the stat choices become a issue is that they are so important that there really isn’t a choice as players just choose the main stat.

So IMO a game design should focus on the other stats for the stereotypical strength character.

Constitution becomes boring in this case but dexterity vs intelligence vs charisma is interesting IMO.