Alternative ability scores (and a concept 4 ability score system)

[Greywander]

Ability scores are one of the sacred cows of D&D, and the thing is that they've been around a long time but didn't always work the way they do now. Since ability scores now function differently than they originally did, I think it's worth asking if we should really keep them as they are, or if we should rework them.

The other day, I was reading an article by Angry GM (https://theangrygm.com/your-ability-scores-suck/), and one of the fundamental points that he seemed to be making is that the primary purpose of ability scores is giving you different ways of interacting with the world. It's one of the reasons why CON feels like such the odd man out. CON isn't something you do, it's something that you use when things are done to you.

Just now, I was reading another article, this one by DIY & Dragons (https://diyanddragons.blogspot.com/2019/01/8-abilities-6-3-or-4-ability-scores.html), and what they propose is that there are 8 fundamental stats built off of three dichotomies. Those dichotomies are: physical vs. mental, force vs. grace, and attack vs. defense. Now, something important here is that the attack vs. defense dichotomy doesn't mean exactly what it sounds like it means. Rather, "attacking" is when you do something, and "defending" is when something is done to you.

Putting these two articles together, it seems like the optimal choice is to go with a system of four ability scores, where the attack vs. defense dichotomy is ignored. This goes back to what Angry GM was saying about how your ability scores should be used to take action (e.g. "attack"), so instead of having separate scores for defending (being acted on), we'll just double up and use the same scores for both. This leaves us with four scores: physical force, physical grace, mental force, and mental grace.

This actually matches almost exactly an attribute system I came up with independently a while back. One difference was separating "macro" dexterity and "micro" dexterity, with feats of agility and acrobatics getting filed under the physical force stat. The physical grace stat was more of a Precision stat, so lots of hand-eye coordination, stealth, and I think I even included things like engineering and perception. Basically, the stat for thieves and craftsmen. In fact, you could have even referred to the four stats as "knight", "thief", "sage", and "bard". These weren't the names I used, though I did refer to these as sort of "class archetypes" to demonstrate what sort of character would most want that stat.

I'm not sure this is actually an improvement, though. Nor am I entirely sure I fully agree with either article I linked to. What do you think? And what are some alternative ability score systems you've used or seen? Do you think we should just add to what's already there? Split up or combine existing scores? Start from scratch with a new list? Let me know.

[OldTrees1]

Given how hard it is for WotC to make content outside of the combat pillar, I recommend considering the ability score system primarily outside of combat.


Consider the passive impact of the score in addition to the active.


You are right that Constitution, unlike its mental counterpart Wisdom, does not have some active use* like Perception. However there is merit in having an endurance stat as an alternative to force/grace.


*Not entirely true. For monstrous anatomy there are cases where Constitution has active uses.

[Greywander]

However there is merit in having an endurance stat as an alternative to force/grace.
Perhaps. But when we only have room for a few ability scores, is it better to use one of those ability scores for an endurance/constitution/stamina stat, rather than folding it into a strength/physique stat and using that ability score for something else? I think it comes down to a question of priorities. High priority things get their own ability score, low priority things get lumped together or folded into another ability score.

TBH, one place I can see CON getting more use is with travel and outdoor survival, pillars of play that D&D doesn't really do much with. Part of the problem, though is that there still isn't much that you can do with CON (a forced march, maybe?), it's all about having things done to you. I think to make an endurance stat viable, you have to add something more to it, something with a more active component, and that distinguishes itself from Strength.

Part of the point Angry GM was making is that the core of 5e is the ability check system, and ability scores exist primarily to serve that system. How often do you roll CON checks? Almost never. Rework CON into something you roll as often as any other ability score, and then we'll be in a good place. Under the paradigm laid out by DIY & Dragons, though, CON would clearly fall under physical force defense, and if we want to make CON more active then that means integrating it with physical force attack, which brings us back to having a single unified Strength stat that does what CON used to do in addition to its other stuff.

There is another paradigm, one that I've thought of myself, though I don't think it's as well thought out. It involves a triad of power, finesse, and defense. For example, with mental stats in D&D, CHA is power, INT is finesse, and WIS is defense. You see the same thing actually with physical stats. We still have the same problem, though, which is making the defense stat have a more active component, which is why I don't think it's as well thought out. Perhaps there's some way to reframe this triad in a way that suggests a more active way to use defense.

Hmm, maybe instead of "defense", we could phrase it as "patience"? That certainly works for WIS. However, this suggests quite a different approach to physical stats. We have Strength, our power score, Agility, our finesse score, and... I'm not sure. But I feel like the "patience" score would encompass both physical toughness but also things like deftness of hand. Basically, all the stuff I filed under Precision in the OP. Which is a weird combo. Basically, thieves suddenly become extra tanky, and chunky barbarians are also great with using fine tools. Though TBH it makes about as much sense as grouping fine motor skills together with acrobatic skills.