Should Ability Scores matter?

[Ascendant]

Many new class and race updates have seen a move away from abilities gated by stats, and racial stat increases have been made flexible to the point of near-homogeneity.
New subclasses often have their features scale to Prof/LR uses, with even pre-existing features (i.e. bladesong) being divorced from ability scores.

I could given examples of how much or little individual ability scores choices matter in character builds, or point out that for better or worse Proficiency has streamlined quite a lot in terms of game design, or the frustration of certain 'taxes' in builds. However, I more want to speak in broad terms as we consider the future of DnD.

I don't mean to imply that Ability Scores aren't fun. I absolutely love my crunchy numbers more than anything, and fully acknowledge that many fun characters and RPing moments/choices can come from 'imperfect' stats and builds.
My question is simply this; what would be lost in removing their impact, current implementation, or existence as a whole? I'll put my own thoughts and hypotheticals below, but I want to open this for conversation:
Does the existence of ability scores enhance character design, or burden it? What suggestions would you have for them going forward?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think it enhances it as long as it's treated right. As I see it, ability scores are how you signal your character's allegiance to a set of archetypal approaches to problems/adventuring in general in more than a binary fashion.

STR--This is the Strong Guy archetype. Those focusing here tend to solve problems by overpowering them physically. They favor direct approaches to combat, usually involving big weapons. Also correlates with heavy armor and tanking blows (or deflecting with armor) rather than dodging them. Tends to struggle at the subtle. The archetypal home of the warrior[1]
DEX--This is the Nimble Guy archetype. For various reasons, this includes the "weak archer" archetype, despite archery taking substantial muscle. Being focused here emphasizes a different kind of strength than STR, less focused on brute musculature and brawn and emphasizing precision of force over quantity of force. Those focusing here favor dodging and subtle approaches over blocking and overt approaches. The archetypal home of the expert[2].
CON--This is the Tough Guy archetype. Usually secondary, but it could be primary under some circumstances. Resisting damage and poison are hallmarks here. Often Strong Guys are also Tough Guys to a larger degree than most.
INT--This is the Smart Guy archetype. They solve problems by out-planning or applying clever tricks. Often correlates with high DEX, but not always. Archetypal home of the mage.
WIS--This is the Perceptive Guy archetype[3]. They solve problems by being in tune or looking for flaws and hidden weaknesses. Tends to correlate better with high STR, but not always. Archetypal home of the priest.
CHA--This is the Face archetype. They solve problems by talking their way out or by force of personal presence. Often associated with subtle approaches, but can be used as a bludgeon.

And these are each spectra, sliders to be tweaked while the whole thing is bounded. Most characters have 1-2 good scores, 1-3 ok scores, and the rest are weak (relatively or absolutely). And when you play into that, it enriches the game. When it's treated as just a "how can I push my combat numbers up and specialize in one tiny niche", it's a problem.

[1] broader than the fighter class
[2] broader than the rogue class
[3] Wasn't going for the obvious "Wise Guy" quip. Because that has a different meaning entirely.

[Amechra]

OP, I'd like you to google the phrase "Death to Ability Scores".

[Dienekes]

If a mechanic is implemented into a game it should matter. What depends is the extent of it.

The issue with 5e, is that they really tried to do too much with it. Ability scores ended up being, the primary means of staying on curve or above (which when everyone starts going above quickly just becomes the curve) of mechanical effectiveness. And it was a means of differentiating different species, and it represented your characters personal physiology and mentality, and for many classes it became the primary way of differentiating individuals outside of subclass when it came to feats.

And you’ll notice the whole mechanical effectiveness curve and chance to differentiate are strictly at odds with each other. And the curve also creates a situation where some racial/player identity is strictly sub-standard not really in an interesting way, but in a purely mathematical way.

There are some potential solutions, the one WotC picked where they simply removed ability scores as a reflection of different species, which allowed everyone to be on curve. And that’s effective.

I don’t personally like it. But then I am always of the opinion that the races should be regarded as wildly different species with unique physiologies. If Goliaths are naturally 8 feet tall, and born as strong as a gorilla, they should naturally just be stronger than a human or halfling. I’m a bit more simulationist than 5e is currently going down.

Were it up to me. I’d personally instead knock down the importance of ability scores to class by a notch or three. Or at least diversify them. If Proficiency is worth more than ability scores for most the game rather than just at the very end then ability scores would be less of a problem. If they used the subclass system to create reasons why each class might want to have Wizards with high Strength or Charisma (they already did Dex) then it’s less of a problem.

But those solutions would require way more work what WotC has done.

Now there is the argument to remove them completely, and honestly I think it could work. But I’m less convinced for 5e specifically. There is just so much emphasis placed onto ability scores. Maybe a different system can avoid them completely, though I do personally find keeping them does allow an ease of mentally grasping what mechanics are doing. You are strong; you lift heavier things, you hit hard. All that is pretty intuitive. Far more than some systems I’ve seen that gave a list of features that you could just pluck with little rhyme or reason to create whatever you want. Sure that method has way more diversity and requires much higher system mastery, which both can be seen as good things to some people. But it often just strips these things down to numbers rather than having an inherent meaning that can help shape roleplay.

Again, that’s not necessarily what will happen if you remove ability scores. But it is a potential consequence to look out for.

[ender241]

PhoenixPhyre touched on their main purpose. But they also act as a way to create certain synergies, especially when it comes to multiclassing. It becomes easier to balance features with some things only working with one ability score. For example, if barbarian reckless attack works with any attack, it can easily be exploited in different ways (on-demand sneak attack for any rogue multiclass, any crit-fishing build, etc.).

Ability scores also serve as a way to balance offense vs defense. You can pump Con currently but then your offensive capabilities will probably fall short. How do you even compute AC without Dex?

Without ability scores you lose customization options, flexibility, balance becomes harder, etc. Every character can basically do anything they want, but everyone feels very the same. Which I get was kind of your point, about racial ability score bonuses going away. But taking that even further doesn't help the game imo.

[RogueJK]

For example, if barbarian reckless attack works with any attack, it can easily be exploited in different ways (on-demand sneak attack for any rogue multiclass...).

You already have that. There's nothing about a Rogue that says they have to focus strictly on DEX. There are very few Rogue subclass abilities that specifically involve their DEX score, with most being 17th level capstones. So you can already easily build a STR-based Rogue/Barbarian that has on-demand Advantage for Sneak Attacks from Reckless Attack. They're limited to using Finesse melee weapons, but you can still make STR-based attacks with Finesse weapons, and a finessable 1H Rapier has the same damage dice as a 1H Battleaxe/Longsword/Warhammer. (That "rapier" can be easily refluffed as something more stylistically appropriate, like a basket-hilted broadsword for a Highlander Rogue/Barbarian, or a cutlass for a Pirate Rogue/Barbarian.) Plus this lets you do fun things like stack High STR + Athletics Expertise + Rage, to have Advantage + Huge Athletics Bonus on your Grapple checks.

[Willie the Duck]

Let's just take winning a fight as a simple example. I think that the number one and two ways that you should be able to represent someone who is really good at winning fights (in a D&D-like game) should be by being in a fighter-like class, and your level. Attributes should be a distant third. In no small part because learning how to minimize the consequence of an attribute weakness (particularly, say, strength when up against giants and dragons) ought to be part of that being a high-level fighter. oD&D had this (a high primary attribute mostly just let you advance in your class a little faster) up until supplement I, and the basic/classic line had still rather minimally-influential attributes (okay, an 18 Str/18 Dex/18 Con fighter is going to do significantly better than a 10/10/10 one, but in a 3d6-down-the-line system that isn't happening, and the 13/10/12 fighter isn't dead in the water compared to a 16/15/14 one. Certainly better than an 8 str 5e fighter using a str-weapon).

Personally, I would not mind attributes being divorced from most primary metrics of success. Say, instead of adding Str/Dex/casting-stat to melee, ranged, and spell attacks/DC calculation, PCs could start with on +1, one +2, and one +3 and assign one to each of those combat types; and leave attributes out of it. Then attributes could be devoted to things like skills, carrying capacity, languages known, etc. What this would do is allow someone to explore the concept of a magic school dropout (low int wizard) still trying to make it in the world or the 98 lb weakling trying to be a warrior, and have fun with those ideas (and have some limitations, like the weakling carrying all their gear) without being mechanically too weak for any campaign except DM-pulling-punches-to-facilitate-the-concept.

Since the OP brought up the race updates, I'll say that, while the update has clearly suffered the growing pains of any after-the-fact revision not planned for initially and thus having all sorts of wonky edge cases, I always thought that attribute bonuses were the least interesting way to differentiate races to begin with (again probably showing my BX/BECMI roots here).

[ender241]

You already have that. There's nothing about a Rogue that says they have to focus on DEX. There are very few Rogue subclass abilities that specifically involve their DEX score, with most being 17th level capstones. So you can already easily build a STR-based Rogue/Barbarian that has on-demand Advantage for Sneak Attacks from Reckless Attack. They're limited to using Finesse melee weapons, but you can still make STR-based attacks with Finesse weapons, and a finessable 1H Rapier has the same damage dice as a 1H Battleaxe/Longsword/Warhammer. (That "rapier" can be easily refluffed as something more stylistically appropriate, like a basket-hilted broadsword for a Highlander Rogue/Barbarian, or a cutlass for a Pirate Rogue/Barbarian.)

True, and I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't possible but rather that there are trade-offs. Without ability scores you can reckless attack + sneak attack with a two handed weapon (hello gwm) without sacrificing stealth/AC. Unless you revamp the whole system. Anyway, it was just one example, and maybe not the best one.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure I agree with the OP's premise. Sure, uses/day might be moving more towards PB, but plenty of modern features are still indexed to ability score for effectiveness. Tahsa's is current design for instance, and there we have:

- Artificer: Flash of Genius, and each subclass' bonus damage mechanic. (Artillerist's cannon and firearm use additional die rolls for damage, but they use Int to hit.)
- Barbarian: Beast's Call the Hunt and Wild Magic's Wild Surge are both indexed to Con.
- Bard: Creation's Mote of Potential and Eloquence's Universal Speech are indexed to Cha.
- Cleric: Order's Embodiment of Law, Peace's Balm/Potent Spellcasting, and Twilight's Eyes of Night are all indexed to Wis.
- Druid: Spore's Halo and Spreading Spores, Star's Archer and Chalice, and Wildfire's Spirit (emergence) and Cauterizing Flames are indexed to Wis.
- Fighter: Psi Warrior's Protective Field/Bulwark, Psionic Strike and TK Thrust/Master are indexed to Int. Rune Knight's runes are all indexed to Con.
- Monk: Mercy's Hands and basically everything about Astral Self are indexed to Wis.
- Paladin: Glory's Glorious Defense and Watcher's Will + Abjure The Extraplanar are indexed to Cha.
- Ranger: New BM's pet, Swarmkeeper's Gathered Swarm, and basically everything for Fey Wanderer are indexed to Wis.
- Rogue: Phantom is pretty ability-score agnostic, while Soulknife's powers are indexed to Dex.
- Sorcerer: Aberrant's Telepathic Speech and Warping Implosion are Cha-based. Clockwork Soul is agnostic.
- Warlock: Fathomless' Tentacle and Genie's Vessel (AC) are indexed to Cha.
- Wizard: Bladesinger is pretty heavily Int-based. Scribes is agnostic.

And just to round this out with Fizban's, which is even more recent:

- Monk: Ascendant's Breath of the Dragon, Frightful Presence and Explosive Fury are Wis-based.
- Ranger: Drakewarden's Drake's Breath is Wis-based.

So I would say ability scores both are and will continue to be pretty relevant for subclass design, even for martials.

[Sneak Dog]

Ability scores are essential to the system, for they are used to resolve the 'any' action. A player wants to do anything, you can just call for a check using the closest ability score that seems appropriate. They want to swing from the chandelier, crash through the window and make a stylish entrance? No need to make up a chandelier-swinging subsystem on the spot and pick whether you want to roll 1d100, 1d8 or 1d20. Just call for an ability check or two that seem appropriate. They'll even be better at it if it fits their character, as they'll have chosen the appropriate ability score!

[Ascendant]

OP, I'd like you to google the phrase "Death to Ability Scores".

Truly, nothing new shines under the sun.
Thank you, I have some reading to do.



I think it enhances it as long as it's treated right....
Most characters have 1-2 good scores, 1-3 ok scores, and the rest are weak (relatively or absolutely). And when you play into that, it enriches the game. When it's treated as just a "how can I push my combat numbers up and specialize in one tiny niche", it's a problem.

I couldn't agree more. I worry there is a point where numbers become constraints, complicating concepts rather than enabling them, but I don't think 5e at its best crosses that line. Is the "1 great, 2 good, 3 okay, one bad" enough? Does it need to be quantified?

I prefer my numbers in the background where I can count on them to do their job. I prefer build options that add versatility rather than pure +X.
Fun feats and race abilities are why I love character building. Allocating points... Less so. If I ran a game long term, I imagine I'd try to divorce ASI's from feats to allow a greater breath of options, but that's a separate can of worms.




The issue with 5e, is that they really tried to do too much with it. Ability scores ended up being, the primary means of staying on curve or above (which when everyone starts going above quickly just becomes the curve) of mechanical effectiveness.

..The curve also creates a situation where some racial/player identity is strictly sub-standard not really in an interesting way, but in a purely mathematical way....

I like your examination. I prefer options and abilities rather than values as a means of diversifying races, but I very much agree with your stance on subclasses and the possible improper weighting of scores and proficiency.




Personally, I would not mind attributes being divorced from most primary metrics of success....

I always thought that attribute bonuses were the least interesting way to differentiate races to begin with (again probably showing my BX/BECMI roots here).

I quite like this proposal, and you took the words right out of my mouth.

I thought it would be interesting if you had "major" and "minor" Proficiencies, to allow scaling at different rates. I would like to see this applied to something like Saving throws, where even your non-proficient saves can have some gradual improvement.



...I would say
ability scores both are and will continue to be pretty relevant for subclass design, even for martials.

Very true, consider me corrected.
I still worry about the implications on gameplay though; this seems to be pigeonholing options rather than expanding them. If you want to build a Drakewarden, your Wis will be more critical for effectiveness than it may be for a Hunter. Should you be unable to play/punished for playing a Drakewarden with less Wis? If more things are stat dependant, then in puts more pressure on players to seek bigger numbers rather than enabling concepts.

Perhaps this is too broad of an "RP vs G" debate, but I would argue that's the balance WoTC is trying to strike now.



Ability scores are essential to the system, for they are used to resolve the 'any' action... They'll even be better at it if it fits their character, as they'll have chosen the appropriate ability score!

A very good point, and one that has me joyfully holding fast to my character sheet. Having a baseline seems essential to enable flexibility in play, unless you want to establish a bonus/skill for everything (see 3.5 to your preference).
I think my real issue is a potential imbalance of ASIs, inadvertently "taxing" choices at risk of being ineffective.

[Psyren]

Very true, consider me corrected.
I still worry about the implications on gameplay though; this seems to be pigeonholing options rather than expanding them. If you want to build a Drakewarden, your Wis will be more critical for effectiveness than it may be for a Hunter. Should you be unable to play/punished for playing a Drakewarden with less Wis? If more things are stat dependant, then in puts more pressure on players to seek bigger numbers rather than enabling concepts.

Perhaps this is too broad of an "RP vs G" debate, but I would argue that's the balance WoTC is trying to strike now.


I would call that "rewarding specialization" moreso than "pigeonholing," and view that as more feature than bug. For example, Rangers who care about Wisdom make sense - even putting their spells and Wis-based subclass features aside, the iconic fantasy of the class is being survivalists and trackers. I'm not saying you'd be wrong to want to roleplay a Ranger with 8 or 10 Wis, but I could easily see other rangers failing to respect your character much when you continually lose your quarry, easily get lost, or risk starving if you don't pack a lunch for a short hike outside town, to name a few examples.

Having features that synergize with that class fantasy by keying both from the same ability score is elegance in design. And rather than frame the issue as "RP vs. G" (aka Stormwind Fallacy) I'd argue that it enables both.

[Sneak Dog]

A very good point, and one that has me joyfully holding fast to my character sheet. Having a baseline seems essential to enable flexibility in play, unless you want to establish a bonus/skill for everything (see 3.5 to your preference).
I think my real issue is a potential imbalance of ASIs, inadvertently "taxing" choices at risk of being ineffective.

3.5 doesn't have everything. 3e introduced the ability scores to resolve the 'any' action.

In 5e, you can remove ability scores from literally everything but resolving the 'any' action and you'll be fine. Remove them from all combat statistics and abilities, class features and everything. Scribble in +3. You might miss it a smidge in the homogenisation of saving throws, but that's it I'm pretty sure. Just use them for ability checks. Heck, you can remove them from proficient ability checks if you want. Make those a homogenous +3 +proficiency.

[KorvinStarmast]

Does the existence of ability scores enhance character design, or burden it? What suggestions would you have for them going forward? I honestly think that this belongs in the parent forum, Roleplaying Games, rather than 5e since for 5e attributes do matter, so the should is irrelevant. (Dienekes' post does a nice job of covering that). You are talking about designing a new system from the ground up. Willie's point on how they mattered less in the original game is spot on, however, that approach has been consigned to the dust bin of history for this game. (Other games treat this differently). B/X was probably a cleaner implementation than AD&D (in terms of simplicity) with the +1 for 13-15, +2 for 16-17 and +3 for 18 and I suspect that WoTC could apply that model to their general bounded accuracy approach with good result. Will they? I don't know.

[Willie the Duck]

3.5 doesn't have everything. 3e introduced the ability scores to resolve the 'any' action.
That was introduced at least as far back as Moldvay-Cook (1981) with p. X51 being rather notable in the OSR community as providing (in some minds) as being all that was necessary for a general resolution mechanic in D&D.

[KorvinStarmast]

That was introduced at least as far back as Moldvay-Cook (1981) with p. X51 being rather notable in the OSR community as providing (in some minds) as being all that was necessary for a general resolution mechanic in D&D. The 'roll under' mechanic (in my experience) predated that, but my memory might be cross referencing similar but different things. I wish I could point you to a Dragon Mag article or something, but my clearest memory is a thing in 1981 where I was sitting on the floor and the DM (my good friend's wife) was telling me to roll under my dex score ... not sure where she got that from TBH but we all used it in that circle of players/DMs.
But I think someone in our college group had learned that at a Convention that he'd gone to in the late 70's.

[Tanarii]

I'd be happier if they either mattered for your class, or they mattered for resolution checks (ability checks). Not both.

[Greywander]

So my issue has to do with optimization. Typically, every class has a primary score, and this will be pushed to 20. You do have some exceptions, of course, but this is almost always the case. Most classes have a secondary score; if the class is MAD (like a monk or paladin), the secondary score will also be pushed to 20, if they're SAD (like a wizard or fighter), usually a 14 or 16 is fine. And then CON is a tertiary stat for everyone. It's basically always the same.

If you're a wizard or artificer, you max INT, otherwise you dump it. Everyone is either grabbing 15 STR for plate or 14 DEX for a breastplate/half plate (and everyone gets at least medium armor via dips). CHA caster max CHA, dump INT and WIS, WIS caster max WIS, dump INT and CHA. Martials dump all mental stats for more STR/DEX and CON. Your class basically dictates what your ability score spread will look like, and while there's some wiggle room for variety, there's not a lot.

Why? If this is how it is, then why not just divorce these concepts from the existing ability scores? Ability scores could remain, to be used with ability checks, and possibly saving throws. We could almost just double up with proficiency, treating it as if it were our primary/secondary score.

But we could also create a new set of scores. Mimicking the primary/secondary/tertiary triad, we could have an offensive score, a defensive score, and a, uh, support/smart/finesse score? The offensive score would act like STR or DEX, adding its bonus to attack and damage rolls, including for spells. The defensive score would boost your HP and AC. And the support/smart score... well, I suppose it could basically fill in for whatever your class's secondary score used to be. So paladins would use the offensive score for their weapon (and spell) attacks, but their support score would boost their Aura of Protection. A wizard would use the offensive score for offensive spells, but might use the support score for any spell that isn't directly offensive (e.g. save vs. non-damaging effects). Spells would probably need to be sorted into offensive, defensive, or support, which would determine which score they used (as a quick fix, spell schools could be associated with one of the three scores). You might also use this triad of scores to bolster saves (e.g. offensive score boosts "fortitude saves" (STR and CON), defensive score boosts "will saves" (WIS and CHA), and support score boosts "reflex saves" (DEX and INT)).

The benefit of using a triad of scores separate from the regular ability scores is:

You have a lot more freedom when choosing your ability scores, since your class features no longer depend on them. You can be a charismatic cleric or a muscle wizard or a scholarly warrior.
You have meaningful customization within the triad. Instead of just maxing everything, you have to choose which area to specialize in, or if you want to be more balanced.
Assuming everyone has the same points to distribute among the triad, characters should be pretty much balanced with each other, regardless of how your ability scores are distributed.

Anyway, that's just an idea. It's just... it would actually work really well, you could almost slot it in seamlessly.

[Kane0]

Does the existence of ability scores enhance character design, or burden it? What suggestions would you have for them going forward?

Yeah ability scores are good to have. Or attributes, or core stats, or key traits, whatever your system call them. Its a way to measure aspects of your character and differentiate between two characters that would otherwise be very sinilar or even identical, which takes greater importance in class-based design as opposed to say point buy or XP spend designs.

Regarding D&D's historic six, yeah they could probably use a touch up depending on which direction you want to take the game, but since there are so many people pulling in different directions all over the place inertia tends to win out.
Personally I would probably do a little chopping and changing, for example merge strength and constitution into Might then introduce Discipline to better represent mental mental fortitude and concentration. Dexterity and Intelligence stay largely the same, Wisdom basically just turns into Intuition/perception (not changing the name though so there isnt two abbreviations to INT) and Charisma pivots to spirit, a literal sense of self and force of personality.
But I know some people that really like Luck and want that to become a core stat, though not so much for Honor in my experience.

[MoiMagnus]

I'd be happier if they either mattered for your class, or they mattered for resolution checks (ability checks). Not both.

I think I can agree with that.
+ Tying ability score to classes pushes it toward balance and trade-offs. That's a giant tag "you need to minmax that or your class ability will not be as strong as they can". And when the game is not correctly balanced, peoples start complaining about things like SAD vs MAD.
+ Tying ability scores to resolution checks pushes it toward verisimilitude (unless you go the 4th ed route of gamifying skill challenges, which can probably done in a better way that what 4th ed did). It creates frustration when the fiction does not match the chances of resolution. And most fictions that peoples have in mind are not perfectly balanced or interesting to minmax and they're fine with it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Regarding D&D's historic six, yeah they could probably use a touch up depending on which direction you want to take the game, but since there are so many people pulling in different directions all over the place inertia tends to win out. True enough. I'll dig out my original EPT rules and post the six from that game, I remember that Psychic Ability was an attribute but right now the memory modules in my brain can't rattle off all of them. Darned age! (Barker used percentile dice, not 3d6, for attribute scores).

Personally I would probably do a little chopping and changing, for example merge strength and constitution into Might then introduce Discipline to better represent mental mental fortitude and concentration. Dexterity and Intelligence stay largely the same, Wisdom basically just turns into Intuition/perception (not changing the name though so there isnt two abbreviations to INT) and Charisma pivots to spirit, a literal sense of self and force of personality. A verisimilitude problem with mixing STR and CON as Might is illustrated in the Marathon runner. Not super strong, but endurance forever. :smallbiggrin:

Fixing the mental stats is as simple as removing spell casting from CHA. My usual wheeze about that will not be repeated here.

[Greywander]

I'd be happier if they either mattered for your class, or they mattered for resolution checks (ability checks). Not both.

I think I can agree with that.
+ Tying ability score to classes pushes it toward balance and trade-offs. That's a giant tag "you need to minmax that or your class ability will not be as strong as they can". And when the game is not correctly balanced, peoples start complaining about things like SAD vs MAD.
+ Tying ability scores to resolution checks pushes it toward verisimilitude (unless you go the 4th ed route of gamifying skill challenges, which can probably done in a better way that what 4th ed did). It creates frustration when the fiction does not match the chances of resolution. And most fictions that peoples have in mind are not perfectly balanced or interesting to minmax and they're fine with it.
I was a bit long winded in my last post, but I suggested something like this. Ability scores would only be for ability checks and saving throws. In their place, we'd get three new scores that are used for attacks, spells, and class features. We could call these scores Offense, Defense, and Support, or perhaps Focus, Fortitude, and Adaptability, or some variation on "kill, not die, and other stuff". The benefit of "Focus" over "Offense" is that you can more easily apply it to things that aren't outright aggressive.

Anyway, this allows you to customize your ability scores without worrying too much about optimization, while the triad of new scores takes on all the optimization.


A verisimilitude problem with mixing STR and CON as Might is illustrated in the Marathon runner. Not super strong, but endurance forever. :smallbiggrin:
I've got some bad news. Endurance running is already covered by STR. CON isn't endurance, it's healthiness. STR is general athleticism, which can range from dead lifting to swimming to jumping and everything in between. To me, this seems like a feature; it allows you to have a character who is bulky and muscular or wiry and lean, or some other combination, so long as they have a model physique. You're not locked into being the Big Guy just because you took a high STR score.

CON is more things like resistance to poison and disease, how quickly you can heal, resistance to extreme environments, ability to go without eating, and so on. As I said, healthiness. Now, this does impact most other physical aspects of your character as well. If you're sick or hungry, it's going to affect your strength and endurance.

[Luccan]

While there might be a way to change them that's technically a cleaner implementation I think stats are good for representing the natural gifts of your character. A wizard with high Strength might not specialize in any particular Strength abilities, but they will surprise foes by busting out of grapples or dragging their unconscious fighter buddy to cover. And part of the strength (heh) of that system is it doesn't require anything more than sticking a big number in Strength, which you have to stick a number in to anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've got some bad news. Endurance running is already covered by STR. CON isn't endurance, it's healthiness. STR is general athleticism, which can range from dead lifting to swimming to jumping and everything in between.
sorry, I rowed Crew in college, and I don't buy what you are selling.

[Tanarii]

sorry, I rowed Crew in college, and I don't buy what you are selling.
You don't have to buy anything, because you are correct. Con represents stamina (PHB 12 & 177). It's the check used for "March or labor for hours without rest" (PHB 177), and the variant check used as an example: "if you have to swim from an offshore island to the mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this case, your DM might allow you to apply your proficiency in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check." (PHB 175)

[RandomPeasant]

I think that the number one and two ways that you should be able to represent someone who is really good at winning fights (in a D&D-like game) should be by being in a fighter-like class, and your level.

If you want the game to work like that, you are asking for a far more fundamental overhaul of the game than anything to do with ability scores. Having a class (or collection of classes) that has "good at combat" as a protected niche is simply unfeasible in a game where one of the three books is a pile of combat encounters for you to have. You can have classes with different niches in combat, but niche-protecting "win fights" is a death sentence for balance.


Yeah ability scores are good to have. Or attributes, or core stats, or key traits, whatever your system call them. Its a way to measure aspects of your character and differentiate between two characters that would otherwise be very sinilar or even identical, which takes greater importance in class-based design as opposed to say point buy or XP spend designs.

That's not unique to ability scores, everything does that. Having a background system that allows one character to be a streetwise orphan and another a sheltered noble allows you to differentiate between characters that would otherwise be identical. Having a subclass system that allows one character to draw their arcane power from a pact with a demon and another from dealings with the fae allows you to differentiate between characters that would otherwise be identical. By definition any choice you make allows you to differentiate between characters that would be identical if you had not made that choice. I think you can make a reasonable argument that the degree to which attribute priorities correlate with class choice makes them a worse differentiator than most alternatives.

[Greywander]

While there might be a way to change them that's technically a cleaner implementation I think stats are good for representing the natural gifts of your character. A wizard with high Strength might not specialize in any particular Strength abilities, but they will surprise foes by busting out of grapples or dragging their unconscious fighter buddy to cover. And part of the strength (heh) of that system is it doesn't require anything more than sticking a big number in Strength, which you have to stick a number in to anyway.
The problem with this is that it makes the character at best a one trick pony. Wizards do have some great tools for grappling, although one of the more potent ones is Polymorph, making an actual STR score obsolete. The best wizard spells for grappling tend to be shapeshifting spells, so if you're not using those then you're worse at grappling than the fighter and have fewer hit points. Now, it's true that there's still a lot of good wizard spells that don't rely on high INT, but there's no denying this is a substandard build.

I mentioned the option of separating ability scores entirely from attacks/spells/class features and instead creating a new trio of scores that fills the same design space as a class's typical primary/secondary/tertiary scores. But you could also go the other way and just make every ability score actually useful for every class. You could make it so that STR actually does some really useful things for a wizard, not just grappling, such that a STR wizard is a viable build that is competitive with a standard INT wizard. Thing is, this requires a lot more work to come up with useful things for these other ability scores to do.

[Tanarii]

If you want the game to work like that, you are asking for a far more fundamental overhaul of the game than anything to do with ability scores. Having a class (or collection of classes) that has "good at combat" as a protected niche is simply unfeasible in a game where one of the three books is a pile of combat encounters for you to have. You can have classes with different niches in combat, but niche-protecting "win fights" is a death sentence for balance.
Worked in oD&D, B/X, AD&D and BECMI.

[Witty Username]

Hm, this sounds familiar:https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?610416-Are-ability-scores-too-impactful

I feel like I have formed some actual opinions since. I stand by my notes that Ability scores matter more to play style than class features, generally. And I think I personally believe if you have "Fighter" on you character sheet, your character should fight effectively, somewhat regardless of ability scores, or at the very least it is a fair expectation.

[Kane0]

I think thats just a sacrifice that games have to make when rendering entire people into sets of six numbers, there will be places where things dont map properly. There are plenty of ways to be smart but only one intelligence, plenty of ways to be socially inept but only one charisma, etc.
Con is a bit wierd, it doesnt have any native skills nor spellcasting or other ability functions mapped to it, but at the same time is an important secondary stat for everyone because of saves and HP. From a game design perspective that doesnt lead to interesting decisions, either put in more things that actively rely on it or scrap it in exchange for something else that does lead to interesting decisions.

[Witty Username]

You don't have to buy anything, because you are correct. Con represents stamina (PHB 12 & 177). It's the check used for "March or labor for hours without rest" (PHB 177), and the variant check used as an example: "if you have to swim from an offshore island to the mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this case, your DM might allow you to apply your proficiency in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check." (PHB 175)

I wholeheartedly agree, but from experience this requires some deliberate practice on the DMs part between sessions. That being said I have managed in play:
Charisma (religion) -sermonizing
Strength (Acrobatics) - scaling a wall, player was trying to get away with stuff
Charisma (Investigation) -asking for directions
Wisdom (Nature) - gathering herbs of a specific kind
.
Theoretically, Con should be usable for anything.
I think Call of Chultuhu, had an example of translated to 5e a Constitution (Investigation) of pulling an all nighter to research a topic.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

As to the 2nd question from the OP:
I'd like to see ability scores matter for more things, particularly things that aren't necessarily linked to specific classes. I'd say that's particularly true of attributes that are currently weaker, like Int.
For example, I miss the 2e bump to number of proficiencies for Int. Or how about some sort of regeneration based from Con? This, and more, would open the door for characters that don't necessarily have to max out their primary ability to be competitive. It would lead to more variety of characters.

[RandomPeasant]

Con is a bit wierd, it doesnt have any native skills nor spellcasting or other ability functions mapped to it, but at the same time is an important secondary stat for everyone because of saves and HP. From a game design perspective that doesnt lead to interesting decisions, either put in more things that actively rely on it or scrap it in exchange for something else that does lead to interesting decisions.

Honestly, attributes in general don't lead to particularly interesting decisions. Few classes care enough about enough ability scores for there to not be an obviously correct thing to max, and if you started letting people max more stats to make up for that, you'd quickly hit the point where everyone just maxed everything. That said, it's not like ability scores add all that much complexity to the game, and they're enough of a sacred cow that whatever you could get for killing them probably isn't worth it.

[Kane0]

Honestly id rather disconnect class features from stats so there can actually be more freedom and variety between characters. If a priest doesnt have to have wisdom for their casting they are free to emphasize their brawn, wits or social graces while still functioning as a priest. Same goes for martials, instead of choosing between just str and dex they can be suave or cunning or whatever instead.
Then its a matter of making sure that those stats have a good spread of use cases, both for checks and saves.

Edit: which is functionally very similar to simply gutting them entirely and adjusting prof bonus to operate in their place.

[RandomPeasant]

I suspect that would lead to more homogeneity, not less. Now, regardless of which attribute is "best" in general, your incentive to pump whatever your class cares about is large enough to overwrite the quality difference. But if you make it so that everyone can invest in any stat freely, suddenly the best stat is the best for everyone, and even a minor difference in value is likely to lead to a large degree of convergence.

[Witty Username]

Or weighing them differently. I like the idea personally of prof being more and scores less in ratios. Bounded accuracy is a concern, so straight increases to proficiency are maybe not the way to go. But if say fighter reaches +4 or +5 in the proposed system at level 1 we are looking pretty good.

Something like double proficiency axe modifiers for checks gets there. But also like add 2 to proficiency, and cut 2 from modifiers could work. Probably would take playing with the numbers a bit.

[Amechra]

A big part of why 5e's implementation of ability scores falls flat for me is that they're overdetermined by character creation.

If you look at the standard array, it's effectively equivalent to starting with an 8 in every ability score and then applying twelve ASIs. In the level ranges where I mostly play (3rd through 9th), you get one or two extra ASIs, which are almost definitely going to be used to either improve your best ability score (because you probably have multiple things that depend on it) or pick up a vital-to-your-concept feat. In conjunction with how precious skill proficiencies are (you need to either multiclass or spend a precious ASI on a feat that gives you more skills), you have a system that makes it hard to leave your "niche".

"You only get 5-7 stat boosts" really starts to bite when you realize that you might not see all of those boosts, and that the first 2-3 stat bumps are effectively chosen for you.

[Pex]

They're legacy now, and while perhaps a game mechanics system could exist without them there's no reason to get rid of them. Even if only an aesthetic appeal, it sounds and looks better to me to say I have 18 ST than +4 to ST rolls. Comparing 18 to 12 gives an image that's different from comparing +4 to +1.

[Tanarii]

I
Theoretically, Con should be usable for anything.
Even with variant checks, it shouldnt be anything. It should be checks that base action is a Con related thing, before looking at any skills or tools proficiencies that apply. The 5e method is consider appropriate ability score first, then proficiency. Not proficiency first, then ability score.

So it should be the default check for stamina (which IMO is a synonym for endurance, or close enough) tasks that require a check. The only question is if your DM uses the variant checks rule and allows you to apply Athletics proficiency.

[t209]

Well, depends since I do have issue with "dex builds".
Warhammer fantasy did have Weapons and Ballistic Skills to be somewhat separate from Strength and Dexterity stats (that or being adapted from war games's ability stats, aka place where Elves need to use spears so that they can be tanky and older editions did have them use battle ax) so that you can still be not buff but can be good with weapons...also being a game where you are a doofus surviving in dark fantasy instead of up an coming hero saving the day, maybe not a good comparison.

[Goobahfish]

As mentioned previously, I think they should?
There is a trope of a Strong character but dim character, Fast but fragile etc. It is nice that different players in a party can specialise (i.e. the X-men).

I think they should matter less, certainly.
The range for rolls/saves isn't too bad. -1 vs +5 is about the same range as proficiency.

For damage rolls etc it is a lot worse. D6+5 for a Dagger makes Dex 60% of the damage.

The primacy of stats (as per 'Death to Ability Scores'):
CON > DEX > WIS > INT/CHA/STR
is half the problem. There aren't enough passive bonuses for playing a high CHA druid and too many bonuses for playing a high CON druid.

In my own homebrew game (I also play vanilla 5E), to alleviate this I have split Dex into Dexterity (ranged attacks, opening locks) and Agility (dodging, climbing, jumping). Strength and Constitution both add to HP but only at level 1. Initiative is moved to a new stat (which is also perception and saves vs illusions) etc. The point is to flatten the ability scores out so taking each one is viable and dumping any stat is a bad idea. (Honestly the real underlying problem is that 5E's stats... are legacy and thus 'classic' but ultimately not well designed).

So yeah... there are basically three ways to fix it:

#1: Make each stat valuable and no stat too valuable (my preferred solution - never going to happen).
#2: Make all the stats basically fluffy (skill checks and maybe saves but few impacts on class abilities).
#3: Accept 5E and its flaws

[Khrysaes]

As to the 2nd question from the OP:
I'd like to see ability scores matter for more things, particularly things that aren't necessarily linked to specific classes. I'd say that's particularly true of attributes that are currently weaker, like Int.
For example, I miss the 2e bump to number of proficiencies for Int. Or how about some sort of regeneration based from Con? This, and more, would open the door for characters that don't necessarily have to max out their primary ability to be competitive. It would lead to more variety of characters.

I use an Int based skill point system rather than proficiency in skills, ala 3.5. with bonus skill points given for int mod, and maximum ranks in a skill being = to 2x proficiency.

Expertise gives bonus skill points.

Jack of all trades works as normal.


Con is already tied to regeneration because when you spend an HD you heal the roll + con. There are other features that either increase this or gain other sorts of con based regeneration, I think the Champion fighter has one.

[KorvinStarmast]

... when rendering entire people into sets of six numbers, there will be places where things don't map properly.
Yep.

Con is a bit weird, it doesn't have any native skills nor spellcasting or other ability functions mapped to it, but at the same time is an important secondary stat for everyone because of saves and HP. And concentration. And holding your breath (PC). :smallwink:

Or how about some sort of regeneration based from Con? Your HD roll +Con bonus reflects that regeneration function (at least somewhat). (Are you thinking regeneration like the life (red) ball in Diablo II refilling slowly if you have +life regenerate affixes and features?).

Edit: which is functionally very similar to simply gutting them entirely and adjusting prof bonus to operate in their place. Simpler, but does that offer the variety that the game hopes for?

A big part of why 5e's implementation of ability scores falls flat for me is that they're overdetermined by character creation. Legacy thing.

"You only get 5-7 stat boosts" really starts to bite when Try playing when you get no stat boosts. :smallwink: We had a thread within the last two months that showed how bounded accuracy being what it is, you don't actually need more than 16 STR (a decent case was made for 14 STR) from level 1 through 20. We also discussed how much more important the caster bonus was.

They're legacy now, and while perhaps a game mechanics system could exist without them there's no reason to get rid of them. Even if only an aesthetic appeal, it sounds and looks better to me to say I have 18 ST than +4 to ST rolls. Comparing 18 to 12 gives an image that's different from comparing +4 to +1. +1.
They work well enough.

For Kane0:
EPT scores were Strength, Intelligence, Constitution, Psychic Ability, Dexterity, Comeliness. Finally dug it up.