One stat to rule them all, or what if we merged Dex and Str?

[diplomancer]

So, this is a thought I had during the recent "finesse was a mistake" thread. Instead of nerfing martials for the sake of realism by abolishing Finesse weapons, why not boost Martials for the sake of realism by abolishing Dex.

First, what do I mean by that? Just what it says on the tin: everything that, right now, is ruled by Str or Dex is now ruled by this new one stat to rule them all, let's call it Physique.

What does it accomplish, what are its drawbacks, what are its benefits?

As to the first question: apart from boosting martials, it accomplishes a "freeing of the imagination"; within the parameters of your stat, you can be as buff or as nimble as you wish. You don't have to be thinking "how is my 8 Str character wielding this Rapier?! Goodness, this game is so lame and unrealistic!"

1- First, and obviously, it's a BIG boost to Barbarians; they are the one class that really do want to raise both Str and Dex, not just "I'll raise str but it would be nice to have a high dex". But Barbarians are not a very strong class anyhow. One potential problem here would be Barbarian 1 dips, though. Could be solved in a few ways; making Unarmored AC a higher level feature (but letting Barbarians start with some armor instead) would solve the dipping problem or maybe changing Unarmored AC to be Con+1+Barb level/5 (round up).

2- for all the other Martials, it's a boost, but not a huge one; Paladins get to have a better Initiative. Monks get to actually be good at grappling. Rogues become even better at grappling than they already are. Martials who use big weapons get to not suck at range.

3- what about casters? In general, they still want to raise their casting stat, but let's consider a few gishes:
A- Bladesinger- not much will change, specially because of the restrictions of Bladesong
B- Pact of the Blade- can actually afford to not be an Hexblade and still be somewhat viable without a Fighter dip.
C- Valor Bard and Swords Bard- Swords Bard will probably not change, as the fighting style they get were already oriented to the dex-weapons; like Rogues, they will make great grapplers (even better, as they get Extra Attack). Valor Bards might go into Heavy Weapons. Could be interesting.

One possible side effect: (mostly) eliminating Heavy Armor; this is because many players will think one extra point of AC is not worth the Stealth disadvantage. That could actually be a good thing, specially if you want your game to be more "Lord of the Rings" and less "Excalibur". On the other hand, where Stealth is not an issue or is impossible, like in a Jousting Tournament, any martial with Heavy Armor proficiency could want (and be able) to use one.

So, am I going crazy? Should I be burned at the stake for going against sacred cows? Is there something I'm missing that would be grossly overpowered with that change?

[OldTrees1]

There are pros and cons to splitting Dexterity into Agility, Flexibility, and Precision.

Pros:
Now you can better mechanically instantiate characters that are Flexible but not Precise or Precise but not Agile.

Cons:
Now the system is more complicated. Complexity is the price of depth.

Was it worth it to split Dexterity in Agility, Flexibility, and Precision? This has the same underlying question as merging Strength and Dexterity into Physique. Is the added depth from being able to have characters that are "B but not C" worth the added complexity of having "B" and "C" separate categories rather than merge them into "A"?

What would be lost?
The lumbering giant.
The nimble waif.

How complex is it to have both Strength and Dexterity instead of Physique? (hard to say since I am used to Str & Dex)

[diplomancer]

There are pros and cons to splitting Dexterity into Agility, Flexibility, and Precision.

Pros:
Now you can better mechanically instantiate characters that are Flexible but not Precise or Precise but not Agile.

Cons:
Now the system is more complicated. Complexity is the price of depth.

Was it worth it to split Dexterity in Agility, Flexibility, and Precision? This has the same underlying question as merging Strength and Dexterity into Physique. Is the added depth from being able to have characters that are "B but not C" worth the added complexity of having "B" and "C" separate categories rather than merge them into "A"?

What would be lost?
The lumbering giant.
The nimble waif.

How complex is it to have both Strength and Dexterity instead of Physique? (hard to say since I am used to Str & Dex)

But this is the beauty of it. You're not losing the lumbering giant or the nimble waif. You can still play either; it's not because the rules say that your character could carry a lot or wield a GreatAxe effectively that you have to do it. Want to play a nimble waif? Wear light armor, fight with a rapier, don't go around carrying too much. Want to play a lumbering giant? Do the opposite.

Meanwhile, with current rules, the only way to play Aragorn is to roll really well.

[Notafish]

I generally don't like the way that ability scores are used in the game - they have never meshed well with the skill system, and I would rather they describe a character's relative strengths and weaknesses rather than affecting the dice rolling part of the game to the extent that they do. I don't think a single Physique score would make much difference at a high level, though builds would shift.

That said, I think an objection to having just one active physical stat is that it does muddy the waters somewhat for how players want to imagine their character - more emphasis would need to be put on class choice and skill use to differentiate between a nimble character and a tanky character. The six attributes are a useful shorthand for roleplaying, even if their interactions with the rules lead to certain choices being strictly more/less optimal.

I've played around with the idea of striking Con from the game, and even toyed with homebrewing versions of all the classes to fit a Monk template (all PCs use Dex as their martial stat and Wis as their casting stat, full stop.) But even if it makes the mechanics work better in my head, it's still a fairly noticeable change and it might be easier to simply introduce my group to a new system rather than suggesting that we are going to play 5e, but with a redesigned character sheet. On this note, though, the forum's Grod the Giant also put together some rules for playing 5e without ability scores (included in this (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/359663/Grods-Grimoire-of-the-Grotesque), I think), which might be an easier pitch than tweaking the ability score system.

[KorvinStarmast]

But this is the beauty of it. I don't see any beauty in it, I see additional complexity with no added value.


The six attributes are a useful shorthand for roleplaying, even if their interactions with the rules lead to certain choices being strictly more/less optimal. They are good enough if not perfect.
On this note, though, the forum's Grod the Giant also put together some rules for playing 5e without ability scores (included in this (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/359663/Grods-Grimoire-of-the-Grotesque), I think), which might be an easier pitch than tweaking the ability score system. That would be fun to play test, but I don't think any of my players would care to do that.
They just want to play.
They don't demand perfection. "Good enough" is fit for purpose.

[Segev]

But this is the beauty of it. You're not losing the lumbering giant or the nimble waif. You can still play either; it's not because the rules say that your character could carry a lot or wield a GreatAxe effectively that you have to do it. Want to play a nimble waif? Wear light armor, fight with a rapier, don't go around carrying too much. Want to play a lumbering giant? Do the opposite.

Meanwhile, with current rules, the only way to play Aragorn is to roll really well.

This is fallacious. "The rules say I can deadlift an orc, but I wanted to play a nimble waif, so I claim that my PC can't," is an incredibly frustrating position to be in.

It's in the same category as, "Well, I want to play a blind character, so my character can't see. I don't get anything for this."

[langal]

But this is the beauty of it. You're not losing the lumbering giant or the nimble waif. You can still play either; it's not because the rules say that your character could carry a lot or wield a GreatAxe effectively that you have to do it. Want to play a nimble waif? Wear light armor, fight with a rapier, don't go around carrying too much. Want to play a lumbering giant? Do the opposite.

Meanwhile, with current rules, the only way to play Aragorn is to roll really well.


That would make the slow lumbering hill giant very agile - which doesn't make sense. Players could switch 'on the fly" the moment they find Plate + 1. Which I would find a bug rather than a feature.

I think you can do something simpler - like removing damage bonuses for Dexterity or something. Maybe increase the max Dex AC bonus by one across the board to compensate. Make low Strength penalties apply no matter what (less 8 STR, 20 Dex optimized waifs).

The best warriors would have more balanced stats rather than 20/8 or 8/20. I don't think this is huge problem anyway - but I'm not playing with a bunch of uber-optimizers right now.

[diplomancer]

This is fallacious. "The rules say I can deadlift an orc, but I wanted to play a nimble waif, so I claim that my PC can't," is an incredibly frustrating position to be in.

It's in the same category as, "Well, I want to play a blind character, so my character can't see. I don't get anything for this."

It's in the same category as "I'm an honorable character, not a murder hobo, so I won't murder people or steal from them even if I could get away with it and derive mechanical advantages from it". It's a roleplaying limitation on what you want your character to do, among all the different actions your character could take (and if there IS a moment where you'd really like to deadlift the orc, for whatever purpose, you can explain it as a surge of adrenaline or the classic "I had no idea I could do that!", or whatever.


One thing I just realized would indeed be hard to balance and potentially problematic. Starting Saving Throws. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and Bards get one of Str or Dex, but not the other. For Fighters and Barbarians, maybe the solution would be to just strip Con saving throw (though I don't like it very much), and for Bards and Rogues just let them get Str saves as well for free. Rogues are not a very good class anyhow, and though Bards ARE a good class, they have the worst saves in the game. Still, not very happy about any of these quick fixes. And monster saving throws would also be thrown out of whack. Hmm...

[JNAProductions]

It's in the same category as "I'm an honorable character, not a murder hobo, so I won't murder people or steal from them even if I could get away with it and derive mechanical advantages from it". It's a roleplaying limitation on what you want your character to do, among all the different actions your character could take (and if there IS a moment where you'd really like to deadlift the orc, for whatever purpose, you can explain it as a surge of adrenaline or the classic "I had no idea I could do that!", or whatever.

The difference is that, by default, there’s no honor stat.

Killing or peace is entirely roleplay.
Lifting heavy objects is stat-based.

[Mastikator]

I find the idea of a 30 str/dex tarrasque matrix-dodging arrows and break dancing to be incredibly hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

[diplomancer]

The difference is that, by default, there’s no honor stat.

Killing or peace is entirely roleplay.
Lifting heavy objects is stat-based.

The capacity of lifting heavy objects is stat-based. Actually lifting a heavy object is a roleplaying decision, that you can just choose not to do if it doesn't fit how you view your character.

[Doug Lampert]

I find the idea of a 30 str/dex tarrasque matrix-dodging arrows and break dancing to be incredibly hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

You mean you didn't already visualize it as break dancing?

How else do you explains how it makes 8 attacks a round as it frantically spins to bring it's tail around and rears up to use its claws and leans forward to hit you with the horns while simultaneously swallowing you whole and then takes 3 more claw or tail attacks as legendary actions.

[Mastikator]

You mean you didn't already visualize it as break dancing?

How else do you explains how it makes 8 attacks a round as it frantically spins to bring it's tail around and rears up to use its claws and leans forward to hit you with the horns while simultaneously swallowing you whole and then takes 3 more claw or tail attacks as legendary actions.

By the gods you're right, that would also explain the reflective carapace, the movement of its dance has a chance to return spells. Just like a jedi's light saber (who also are known to be dancers)

[OldTrees1]

But this is the beauty of it. You're not losing the lumbering giant or the nimble waif. You can still play either; it's not because the rules say that your character could carry a lot or wield a GreatAxe effectively that you have to do it. Want to play a nimble waif? Wear light armor, fight with a rapier, don't go around carrying too much. Want to play a lumbering giant? Do the opposite.

Meanwhile, with current rules, the only way to play Aragorn is to roll really well.

What beauty? I still see losing mechanical instantiation of the lumbering giant and nimble waif. I have to invent Strength and Dexterity by arbitrarily adding ad hoc penalties to the Physique roll depending on if it is a Strength or Dexterity roll when playing either character. I can do it, but only by undoing the "beautiful" change.

No, let's call it what it is, when you remove a differentiation, you remove that differentiation. That has pros and cons. It might still be worth it, but Physique does not get to claim to be the best of both worlds if I have to reinvent Dexterity.


PS: Actually 5E saves you a bit there. 5E's lower assumed baseline and no assumed ASI growth means Aragon can be Str 14 Dex 14 and still be good enough at 20th. But that is a quirk of 5E rather than something to rely on.

[sithlordnergal]

The capacity of lifting heavy objects is stat-based. Actually lifting a heavy object is a roleplaying decision, that you can just choose not to do if it doesn't fit how you view your character.

You're looking to use RP as a way to dictate mechanics. That's not going to work very well. Just look at the Druid's dislike of metal armor. There's no logical reason for it to be there, there's nothing mechanical backing it up. Its just...there...a pointless rp restriction that stands out like a sore thumb because nothing else has an RP restriction like that. Heck, if I were at a table where a player actively refused to lift heavy objects despite being perfectly capable of doing so, I'd be quietly questioning why they aren't aiding the party. And if their RP decisions led to harming the party, such as refusing to lift/hold something heavy to help the party escape/survive, I would not blame the players at all if that party member found themselves in hot water.

At least with the Str/Dex split there's an actual mechanical reason you don't give the guy with 8 Strength the 1000 pound door to hold. It generally feels better if you have a mechanical reason to back up your RP reasons. If a person with 8 Strength is unable to hold up the door to your party's escape, you shrug your shoulders and sigh, not their fault their build wasn't useful here. But if the 20 Strength dude refuses to do so, you're sort of left wondering why they tried to get the entire party killed, ya know? And if everyone has 20 Strength and 20 Dex...well...why would they try to screw over the party by refusing to help.

[diplomancer]

You're looking to use RP as a way to dictate mechanics. That's not going to work very well. Just look at the Druid's dislike of metal armor. There's no logical reason for it to be there, there's nothing mechanical backing it up. Its just...there...a pointless rp restriction that stands out like a sore thumb because nothing else has an RP restriction like that. Heck, if I were at a table where a player actively refused to lift heavy objects despite being perfectly capable of doing so, I'd be quietly questioning why they aren't aiding the party. And if their RP decisions led to harming the party, such as refusing to lift/hold something heavy to help the party escape/survive, I would not blame the players at all if that party member found themselves in hot water.

At least with the Str/Dex split there's an actual mechanical reason you don't give the guy with 8 Strength the 1000 pound door to hold. It generally feels better if you have a mechanical reason to back up your RP reasons. If a person with 8 Strength is unable to hold up the door to your party's escape, you shrug your shoulders and sigh, not their fault their build wasn't useful here. But if the 20 Strength dude refuses to do so, you're sort of left wondering why they tried to get the entire party killed, ya know? And if everyone has 20 Strength and 20 Dex...well...why would they try to screw over the party by refusing to help.

You mean the sort of life or death situation where there are stories of people in real life who have found themselves to be capable of far greater feats of strength than they would have thought possible before, probably due to surging adrenaline?

But anyway, this is different from the Druid. In this particular case, it's a self-imposed roleplaying restriction. The player wants to play a nimble waif, and so he's roleplaying this stat in this particular way (I.e, great carrying capacity as "adrenaline surges", only for life or death situations). Certainly I'm not advocating anyone coming to the player and saying "you're using a Rapier and wearing Light Armor therefore you're incapable of carrying heavy loads". That would indeed be needlessly complicated (and in practice pretty much splitting the two stats again, which is the opposite of this proposal).

[Rukelnikov]

Considering that medium armor wearers are pretty much the only ones who don't care for more than a 14 in either stat, full casters will rapidly gain a reputation for being able to lift a lot and having great athleticism.

[diplomancer]

Considering that medium armor wearers are pretty much the only ones who don't care for more than a 14 in either stat, full casters will rapidly gain a reputation for being able to lift a lot and having great athleticism.

If they are very high level in a featless game, perhaps, since their ASIs are going first to their casting stat, and Con is still more important. So this is a buff to a caster's tertiary stat (while being a buff to a martial's primary stat).


Now I've got to stop and ask you guys something: does carrying capacity matter all that often in your games? I understand why it's the first objection. Carrying capacity is undeniably connected to strength and not to agility. But would your games be truly in any way different if all Dex-based characters could carry as much as Str-based ones? Because my games wouldn't change at all.

[Rukelnikov]

If they are very high level in a featless game, perhaps, since their ASIs are going first to their casting stat, and Con is still more important.

And also levels 1-3, or even 1-7, if everyone spends their lvl 4 ASI in a feat.


So this is a buff to a caster's tertiary stat (while being a buff to a martial's primary stat).

It wouldn't buff the martials primary stat, the primary will still be the same number, it'd be a buff to the martials secondary or lower stat.


Now I've got to stop and ask you guys something: does carrying capacity matter all that often in your games? I understand why it's the first objection. Carrying capacity is undeniably connected to strength and not to agility. But would your games be truly in any way different if all Dex-based characters could carry as much as Str-based ones? Because my games wouldn't change at all.

Every now and then comes into play in my games, but it's not ever present or close to it.

[diplomancer]

And also levels 1-3, or even 1-7, if everyone spends their lvl 4 ASI in a feat.

If they sacrifice their Con. And one of their few skill choices to get Athletics.


It wouldn't buff the martials primary stat, the primary will still be the same number, it'd be a buff to the martials secondary or lower stat.

It's the same number, but it does a lot more things. That's a buff. The Monk now can grapple. The Knight can fire a bow.

[Rukelnikov]

If they sacrifice their Con.

a 14 is not terrible or unseen tbh


It's the same number, but it does a lot more things. That's a buff. The Monk now can grapple. The Knight can fire a bow.

Ah, I misunderstood this point. I get what you mean now, still I think a Plate using Cleric gets more from this than a Dex focused Fighter, so in the end, its not a caster/martial division, its a Str/Dex division, where high Str characters get more than high Dex ones.

[clash]

Rather than combining the stats I would just change the way weapon attacks work. Make so that when making an attack roll, you can add your strength and dex modifier to attack rolls and damage up to a combined total of +5. Now you can play any combination of strong and nimble effectively and it doesn't need with things like monster stat blocks.

[False God]

I think Str & Con would make a more reasonable combo. They represent too few elements of the game and often overlap on their concepts.

[Leon]

May aswell just have Two stats ~ Physical and Mental

[strangebloke]

no. CON and DEX and STR reinforce different archetypes and allow characters to feel distinct. The Queen of Grapplers is mechanically differentiated from Nimble **** Crabb, or Hard-as-Nails Steve. DND is meant to simulate archetypes, not physical biological realities.

STR is largely a terrible stat with only niche applications at low levels and abilities that scale miserably. But what value it has comes from the fact that if you're a STR focusing character you're probably the only one in the party. Maybe very rarely you'll have a Fighter and a Barbarian tag-team, but its rare.

[langal]

May aswell just have Two stats ~ Physical and Mental

Uhh...you can still be mutual attribute dependent if you make an Eldritch Knight or something.

Maybe just one. Call it "Attribute".

[Beefstrider]

Considering the str 8 rapier wielder, i suggest putting a minimum str requirement on weapons.
Ofc daggers and darts and such can have very low limit, but rapiers could have like 11 or 12? Greatswords 15?

Just a thought. It would add a bit of realism imo

[Salmon343]

I quite like this. I'd probably make some further changes:

1) Merge mental stats into one attribute called Focus, or Spirit, or whatever. Heavily consider nuking Con, or rolling it into Physique. We now have a symmetric system of Physical Aptitude, Mental Aptitude, and maybe tankiness as a separate thing.

2) Divorce skills from stats. The main problem with merging stats and the like together is that you lose granularity. This now means that your graceful dex warrior is now just as good as the muscle powerhouse at lifting - with the stats merged it becomes a little disbelieving for the characters to be good at certain skills that roleplay calls for them not to be.

Separating stats from skills stops this problem. Its also a good thing to do in general I think - the stat bonus to skill checks is too large, it means that you can't build a character with skills in a variety of things that plays effectively. You need spread out stats, which is expensive and makes you less effective in combat. Divorcing combat stats from skill stats would fix this issue.

[Segev]

You mean the sort of life or death situation where there are stories of people in real life who have found themselves to be capable of far greater feats of strength than they would have thought possible before, probably due to surging adrenaline?

Again, why would EVERY very nimble waif have this mysterious reserve of strength they suddenly call upon to lift the 1000 lb. door (or whatever), but couldn't before, while the clumsy waifs don't have this ability?

The capacity to lift heavy objects or wield a two-handed sword as well as you do a dagger - better, even, since the unified stat means the bigger damage die is probably better unless you've got a LOT going for making that dagger amazing - is there if you've got unified Str and Dex, and "role playing" that you don't have it means, no, you don't "adrenaline surge" to massive strength in those clutch moments, but rather that you pretend you fail on checks you should be succeeding.

That would be like unifying Intelligence and Constitution and then having wizards' players pretend their PCs pass out at 50% hp. (Why unify those two? Because they do equally different things in D&D from what Str and Dex do in D&D, and I am demonstrating the absurdity of the "just pretend you don't have stats that say you can do this" argument.) That's RPing a fragile but smart guy, right?

"The strong guy" and "the nimble guy" are two distinct archetypes, and need distinct mechanics to represent them. So much so that even a system deliberately simplified to Body, Mind, and Soul stats to represent all things physical, all things mental, and all things spiritual/willpower, has defects to allow you to buy down your brute force or nimbleness if you have a Body score high to represent the other thing only.

"Role playing" that you don't have the mechanical abilities your sheet says you do is akin to deciding that, no, your warlock doesn't recover spells on a short rest because his patron is stingy. You can do it, but your really RPing a delusional character who thinks they lack an ability they have. Or you're otherwise ignoring or breaking the rules. Doing so "for RP" to make yourself weaker is not much better than doing so "for RP" to make yourself stronger. I'm sure some DMs and tables will be okay with it, just as some are okay with breaking the rules "for RP" even if it makes you stronger in clutch situations, but if you're having to effectively house rule a weakness into your character because of a proposed change, that proposed change might be the problem.

[OldTrees1]

Uhh...you can still be mutual attribute dependent if you make an Eldritch Knight or something.

Maybe just one. Call it "Attribute".

Hmm, some characters might be NAD (no attribute dependency) if they swap to another's attribute, let others act, or use actions that don't scale with attributes.
Maybe just zero. Call it "Level".

[Willie the Duck]

Is there something I'm missing that would be grossly overpowered with that change?

I don't know about overpowered (since I've seen wizards with a random 14-16 str before and it didn't make them a melee powerhouse), but what happens to the non-gish wizard that previously had a decent Dex for defense? Do they now have a decent Physique (and, if so, what differentiates them from the gish)? From the standpoint of using attributes to capture thematic differences in the character you are playing, I think this reduces the granularity.

[diplomancer]

Again, why would EVERY very nimble waif have this mysterious reserve of strength they suddenly call upon to lift the 1000 lb. door (or whatever), but couldn't before, while the clumsy waifs don't have this ability?

I can think of several explanations. I believe the easiest one is "she could do it before, she just didn't know it, having never tried; after all, she had a pretty developed musculature, being able to do back flips and all that sort of things. Add to that the adrenaline of the moment, and it's perfectly understandable".


The capacity to lift heavy objects or wield a two-handed sword as well as you do a dagger - better, even, since the unified stat means the bigger damage die is probably better unless you've got a LOT going for making that dagger amazing - is there if you've got unified Str and Dex, and "role playing" that you don't have it means, no, you don't "adrenaline surge" to massive strength in those clutch moments, but rather that you pretend you fail on checks you should be succeeding.

Well, regardless, if they're trying the checks, they are going to succeed at them.




"The strong guy" and "the nimble guy" are two distinct archetypes
Agreed



and need distinct mechanics to represent them

This is the point of this thought experiment. To check whether this is true; or, to be more precise, whether they can be represented by other mechanics than the ability score. Perhaps you can just represent them by giving the "strong guy" Athletics, Heavy Armor, and a Maul and the "nimble guy" Acrobatics, Light Armor and a Rapier? Just not having proficiency in Athletics (if you want your character to be more nimble than strong) will go a long way.


"Role playing" that you don't have the mechanical abilities your sheet says you do is akin to deciding that, no, your warlock doesn't recover spells on a short rest because his patron is stingy. You can do it, but your really RPing a delusional character who thinks they lack an ability they have. Or you're otherwise ignoring or breaking the rules. Doing so "for RP" to make yourself weaker is not much better than doing so "for RP" to make yourself stronger. I'm sure some DMs and tables will be okay with it, just as some are okay with breaking the rules "for RP" even if it makes you stronger in clutch situations, but if you're having to effectively house rule a weakness into your character because of a proposed change, that proposed change might be the problem.

I don't know about your sheets, but I believe the official sheets don't even have a "maximum encumbrance" field.

And I think it's pretty bad form to tell other players what their characters can do (unless they are newbies, and even then it'd be polite to wait for them to ask for your help). Specially if, the way a character is described, the other characters would have no idea that she's actually capable of doing that stuff.

[Segev]

I can think of several explanations. I believe the easiest one is "she could do it before, she just didn't know it, having never tried; after all, she had a pretty developed musculature, being able to do back flips and all that sort of things. Add to that the adrenaline of the moment, and it's perfectly understandable".Sure. For some. But all?


Well, regardless, if they're trying the checks, they are going to succeed at them.And that's the problem.


This is the point of this thought experiment. To check whether this is true; or, to be more precise, whether they can be represented by other mechanics than the ability score. Perhaps you can just represent them by giving the "strong guy" Athletics, Heavy Armor, and a Maul and the "nimble guy" Acrobatics, Light Armor and a Rapier? Just not having proficiency in Athletics (if you want your character to be more nimble than strong) will go a long way.Technically, you could remove ability scores entirely and use other mechanics to represent what they do. Ability scores do two major things: 1) They provide an insight into The Character in terms of what their raw capabilities are, independent of personality or specialized training or unique skills. Whether this is valuable or not is an open question, I think. 2) They provide a fallback/default place to look to answer the question, "Can you do X?" when there isn't a feat, feature, or spell that definitively says you can. They provide a varied base for resolution of capability that is lost if you have only a level-based bonus (or no bonus at all and just roll a die/flip a coin).

I think (2) is too valuable to give up by getting rid of attributes entirely. I think we should be very cautious about merging or adding attributes unless you have a statement about the game and people in it you want to make. L5R uses its "rings" and their associated mental and physical attributes to make a statement about the metaphysics of the setting. White Wolf wanted more granularity, and eventually codified 3 attributes per major category of physical, social, and mental (though they didn't do the best job, in my mind, with social, since whether Charisma or Manipulation is called for is entirely in the stunt you pull to do the action, which isn't a good delineation in my mind). BESM went for 3 stats, Body/Mind/Soul, and then notably has defects for Body that let you split out being weaker at strength based stuff or dex based stuff.


I don't know about your sheets, but I believe the official sheets don't even have a "maximum encumbrance" field.No, but they have a space for "Strength" and the rules for how much you can carry are in the PHB, and are based on STrength. Merge Str and Dex and now you have anybody who is agile being able to carry a lot of weight.


And I think it's pretty bad form to tell other players what their characters can do (unless they are newbies, and even then it'd be polite to wait for them to ask for your help). Specially if, the way a character is described, the other characters would have no idea that she's actually capable of doing that stuff.Perhaps not, but it is also rude to deliberately make a character that holds back the party.

It's one thing if you're trading off things, but if all you're doing is deciding, "Nah, my PC failed that save vs. being used against the party despite having a bonus that actually would mean the d20 roll succeeded," is kind-of rude, too.

[diplomancer]

No, but they have a space for "Strength" and the rules for how much you can carry are in the PHB, and are based on STrength. Merge Str and Dex and now you have anybody who is agile being able to carry a lot of weight.

If that's the main problem that this rule would bring, I don't think it's a big deal. It's definitely not more of a big deal than small characters having the same carrying capacity as medium characters, or, for that matter, most small races not having a Str cap. Personally I think it's just weird to accept one but draw a line at the other.

[Segev]

If that's the main problem that this rule would bring, I don't think it's a big deal. It's definitely not more of a big deal than small characters having the same carrying capacity as medium characters. Personally I think it's just weird to accept one but draw a line at the other.

Small characters have halved carrying capacity, IIRC.

And it's not the only problem. It's just the most obvious one. "I'm an agile waif, so I can't wield this greatsword that there's actually no reason I can't wield, and, in fact, if I do wield it, I do just as well as the strongman, who also does just as well with my light throwing daggers as I do," is the bigger one. You're reducing the archetypes available, and forcing mergers of them, and then telling players, "Well, if you want an archetype I have force-fed into another archetype, just pretend you're not good at things you are objectively good at."

[diplomancer]

Small characters have halved carrying capacity, IIRC.

You're mistaken. They can't grapple Large creatures, and have disadvantage with Heavy weapons, but in other regards a 20Str Halfling is just the same as a 20Str Human, including even how far they can jump, which is absolutely hilarious once you visualize it.


And it's not the only problem. It's just the most obvious one. "I'm an agile waif, so I can't wield this greatsword that there's actually no reason I can't wield, and, in fact, if I do wield it, I do just as well as the strongman, who also does just as well with my light throwing daggers as I do," is the bigger one.

Strong men can throw or wield daggers as well as nimble waifs already; they can't fire a long bow as well, though (and that's an almost universally recognized problem, which this suggestion would solve).


You're reducing the archetypes available, and forcing mergers of them, and then telling players, "Well, if you want an archetype I have force-fed into another archetype, just pretend you're not good at things you are objectively good at."

I'm not reducing archetypes, I'm using different mechanics to express them (while simultaneously enablingarchetypes, like the traditional Action Hero, that current mechanics are simply not very good at implementing); and I'd put the last sentence as "just don't do things that you think your character wouldn't do", which is what I'd say for pretty much any character decision, actually. Whether they'd be good at doing what they don't do is not that important if they don't actually do it.

The big two-handed weapons are not even that good without GWM, Rapier+Duelling+Shield is probably better overall. So there are perfectly valid mechanical reasons why your "nimble waif" character is not attacking with a Maul, it's not like you're crippling your character when you do so. And a Feat is a considerable opportunity cost, so there are very good reasons not to take any feat that you think doesn't fit your character well.

[JNAProductions]

I'm not reducing archetypes, I'm using different mechanics to express them; and I'd put the last sentence as "just don't do things that you think your character wouldn't do", which is what I'd say for pretty much any character decision, actually. Whether they'd be good at doing what they don't do is not that important if they don't actually do it.

In response to the bold... You are. Pretty much everyone in this thread is explaining how what you're doing reduces it, and you're just insisting without counterarguments that they're wrong.

[diplomancer]

In response to the bold... You are. Pretty much everyone in this thread is explaining how what you're doing reduces it, and you're just insisting without counterarguments that they're wrong.

Because people in this thread are not engaging with my point. Say I want to play a nimble waif. I use leather armor, a Rapier, get proficiency in Acrobatics, Stealth and Sleight of Hand (but not Athletics), and go around trying to do Acrobatic stunts. I choose feats that enhance that archetype. I play a Rogue Swashbuckler. How is it that my character is NOT a nimble waif? Because I could carry a lot of stuff (even if I don't)?
With the same argument, you could claim I cannot believably play a small character with high Str, because it's unbelievable that a 3' guy that weighs 40 pounds can carry around, tirelessly, 300 pounds, and it's absolutely ridiculous that he can jump for 20'. If you can believe that, you can believe that a "nimble waif" (who, remember, has actually a well developed musculature, whatever her Str score, or she wouldn't be able to do stuff that she already does in the game as it is now) can carry more stuff than she gives herself credit for.

Or what if I want to make a hulking giant? I use Plate Mail, carry a Maul, get proficiency in Athletics (but not Stealth or Acrobatics) and go around making a lot of noise. I get the GWM feat. I choose the Fighter Rune Knight class. I choose an Orc as my race. How is it that I'm not a hulking giant? Because I can competently fire a bow with which I've been trained (which I should be able to, anyhow)?

So, what, exactly, is the archetype that I'm losing?

[strangebloke]

In response to the bold... You are. Pretty much everyone in this thread is explaining how what you're doing reduces it, and you're just insisting without counterarguments that they're wrong.

Agreed. Some people want to be Guts, some people want to be Serpico. You might be able to be Guts while being a master of stealth and thievery, but you really can't be Serpico and be this yolked-out chad who breaks down doors with his fists.

[JNAProductions]

Because people in this thread are not engaging with my point. Say I want to play a nimble waif. I use leather armor, a Rapier, get proficiency in Acrobatics, Stealth and Sleight of Hand (but not Athletics), and go around trying to do Acrobatic stunts. I choose feats that enhance that archetype. I play a Rogue Swashbuckler. How is it that my character is NOT a nimble waif? Because I could carry a lot of stuff (even if I don't)?
With the same argument, you could claim I cannot believably play a small character with high Str, because it's unbelievable that a 3' guy that weighs 40 pounds can carry around, tirelessly, 300 pounds, and it's absolutely ridiculous that he can jump for 20'. If you can believe that, you can believe that a "nimble waif" (who, remember, has actually a well developed musculature, whatever her Str score, or she wouldn't be able to do stuff that she already does in the game as it is now) can carry more stuff than she gives herself credit for.

Or what if I want to make a hulking giant? I use Plate Mail, carry a Maul, get proficiency in Athletics (but not Stealth or Acrobatics) and go around making a lot of noise. I get the GWM feat. I choose the Fighter Rune Knight class. I choose an Orc as my race. How is it that I'm not a hulking giant? Because I can competently fire a bow with which I've been trained (which I should be able to, anyhow)?

So, what, exactly, is the archetype that I'm losing?

Because the nimble waif can still carry 300 pounds of gear without breaking a sweat, and manage 600 pounds with difficulty.
A strong but small PC is superheroic in their realm of expertise. No, it doesn't make sense from a realism point of view, but it fits the fantasy.

When the rules explicitly say "You can do X," and you just choose not to, it's at a bare minimum inelegant. And honestly, to me? It's bad, generally speaking. Not always, but usually.

Country Bumpkin Cleric.

Wisdom 20, and so +5 to Insight. No proficiency, because they're a bit naïve, but they've got the raw stats. When the party visits a city, they choose to roll with disadvantage or just outright say "I rolled a 1" without actually rolling when falling for tourist traps.

The reason I'm okay with this? Couple of points, but mainly that this is probably fun for the table. If it's not, then it's worth talking to the player OOC about it, but most tables I've been it will find it funny, believable, and enjoyable.

Notably, this is not a life or death scenario.

[diplomancer]

Because the nimble waif can still carry 300 pounds of gear without breaking a sweat, and manage 600 pounds with difficulty.
A strong but small PC is superheroic in their realm of expertise. No, it doesn't make sense from a realism point of view, but it fits the fantasy.

When the rules explicitly say "You can do X," and you just choose not to, it's at a bare minimum inelegant. And honestly, to me? It's bad, generally speaking. Not always, but usually.

Country Bumpkin Cleric.

Wisdom 20, and so +5 to Insight. No proficiency, because they're a bit naïve, but they've got the raw stats. When the party visits a city, they choose to roll with disadvantage or just outright say "I rolled a 1" without actually rolling when falling for tourist traps.

The reason I'm okay with this? Couple of points, but mainly that this is probably fun for the table. If it's not, then it's worth talking to the player OOC about it, but most tables I've been it will find it funny, believable, and enjoyable.

Notably, this is not a life or death scenario.

As far as I'm aware, most PCs don't go around carrying their maximum capacity (assuming their DM cares in the first place), even if they can¹. They actually don't do a lot of things that they could do, as a matter of fact (and so does everyone, all the time).

But what if it's a life-or-death situation? Then, if you want, you can choose to let your Waif try to do it (she will probably suceed), and it's trivial to explain that in-game, since it's a life-or-death situation, specially once you remember that, having what would be in the original rules a high Dex, she's already somewhat fit.


1-IIRC, in BECMI (which did care a lot about it), all characters had the same carrying capacity, regardless of their strength. I honestly don't think 5e would change at all if that was the rule

[Segev]

Let's put it this way. You claim you're not reducing archetypes. Okay.

I create a class that gets full casting, knows every spell printed, had Extra Attack and additional Extra Attacks at every level the Fighter gets them, gets Fighter ASIs, and gets one subclass from every class in the game.

You can, of course, choose not to use most of those features! You can play your "I only wield arcane magic from the wizard list out of my spellbook" wizard despite being of this class! But all the options are still there, if ever you choose to take them, and refusing to use them is your character in character choosing not to do things he's perfectly capable of doing.

As opposed to your character actually only having the powers of a wizard.

[OldTrees1]

Because people in this thread are not engaging with my point. Say I want to play a nimble waif. I use leather armor, a Rapier, get proficiency in Acrobatics, Stealth and Sleight of Hand (but not Athletics), and go around trying to do Acrobatic stunts. I choose feats that enhance that archetype. I play a Rogue Swashbuckler. How is it that my character is NOT a nimble waif? Because I could carry a lot of stuff (even if I don't)?

Say I want to play a nimble waif. I use leather armor, a Rapier, get proficiency in Acrobatics, Stealth and Sleight of Hand (but not Athletics), and go around trying to do Acrobatic stunts. I choose feats that enhance that archetype. I play a Rogue Swashbuckler. And every time I make a Physique(Strength) check I reinvent the Strength attribute by applying a ad-hoc penalty to my Physique check to fix it being too high for the characterization of my nimble waif character?

How is it that my character is NOT a nimble waif using the Physique attribute? Because I had to reinvent the Strength attribute to fix the thematics. Physique gets 0 credit for characters that result in me reinventing Str/Dex.

[diplomancer]

Say I want to play a nimble waif. I use leather armor, a Rapier, get proficiency in Acrobatics, Stealth and Sleight of Hand (but not Athletics), and go around trying to do Acrobatic stunts. I choose feats that enhance that archetype. I play a Rogue Swashbuckler. And every time I make a Physique(Strength) check I reinvent the Strength attribute by applying a ad-hoc penalty to my Physique check to fix it being too high for the characterization of my nimble waif character?

How is it that my character is NOT a nimble waif using the Physique attribute? Because I had to reinvent the Strength attribute to fix the thematics. Physique gets 0 credit for characters that result in me reinventing Str/Dex.


No. You just roll the check as is, no penalty necessary (as that would indeed defeat the whole purpose), and try to come up with a description that fits what you picture for your character. Houdini was not particularly strong, but he could still escape bonds quite well (to use an example of a mechanic that's usually done with Str).

[OldTrees1]

No. You just roll the check as is, no penalty necessary (as that would indeed defeat the whole purpose), and try to come up with a description that fits what you picture for your character. Houdini was not particularly strong, but he could still escape bonds quite well (to use an example of a mechanic that's usually done with Str).

That does not work. If I roll the check as is, the result will be higher than fits my character. Either you are removing my character by forcing them to pass a check they should fail OR I am reinventing Str/Dex in order to have the mechanics of the check accurately reflect my nimble waif.


It is okay to admit that merging Str/Dex means not being allowed to have characters with mechanical differences between Str/Dex unless they undo the merge by reinventing Str/Dex.

There are pros and cons to merging/splitting attributes. We can recognize both.

[diplomancer]

That does not work. If I roll the check as is, the result will be higher than fits my character. Either you are removing my character by forcing them to pass a check they should fail OR I am reinventing Str/Dex in order to have the mechanics of the check accurately reflect my nimble waif.


It is okay to admit that merging Str/Dex means not being allowed to have characters with mechanical differences between Str/Dex unless they undo the merge by reinventing Str/Dex.

There are pros and cons to merging/splitting attributes. We can recognize both.

Which is why Houdini couldn't escape bonds; see, he wasn't buff enough. I guess the magic was making everyone believe that he could escape the bonds, when in fact he drowned to death every time he pulled his stunts. Quite a powerful illusionist indeed!

[OldTrees1]

Which is why Houdini couldn't escape bonds; see, he wasn't buff enough. I guess the magic was making everyone believe that he could escape the bonds, when in fact he drowned to death every time he pulled his stunts. Quite a powerful illusionist indeed!

We are not talking about Houdini. We are talking about my nimble waif making a physique check they should fail but you want to force them to pass.

The lumbering giant walking across a narrow ledge but falls off and has to catch themselves.
The nimble waif that is knocked down by a rampaging bull.

Our character's ability to fail at what they are not good at is as important as their ability to succeed at what they are good at. In order to play these characters the player would have to penalize the thematically inappropriate checks to fix the mechanical disparity between character concept and merged Physique attribute. However doing so is reinventing Str/Dex, so the real question is Physique XOR these characters.

[diplomancer]

We are not talking about Houdini. We are talking about my nimble waif making a physique check they should fail but you want to force them to pass.

The lumbering giant walking across a narrow ledge but falls off and has to catch themselves.
The nimble waif that is knocked down by a rampaging bull.

Our character's ability to fail at what they are not good at is as important as their ability to succeed at what they are good at.

And I'm talking about how, in most cases, you can describe it in a way that fits how you envision your character. Your nimble waif was knocked down by the raging bull (assuming what you're describing is a successfull hit from a Bull and then a successful str save against being knocked prone from the waif), but just jumped up from the floor immediately, because she's just that nimble, and has almost supernatural core strength. The result is the exact same as the hulk withstanding the bull with sheer strength,(I.e, they are both not prone) but the description is different.

By the way: one of the design goals of this change would be to give a relative buff to martials (because they have a greater incentive to pump either Str or Dex). Pointing out: "this makes a martial succeed in some situations he'd have failed otherwise" is the change working as intended.

[OldTrees1]

And I'm talking about how, in most cases, you can describe it in a way that fits how you envision your character. Your nimble waif was knocked down by the raging bull (assuming what you're describing is a successfull hit from a Bull and then a successful str save against being knocked prone from the waif), but just jumped up from the floor immediately, because she's just that nimble, and has almost supernatural core strength. The result is the exact same as the hulk withstanding the bull with sheer strength,(I.e, they are both not prone) but the description is different.

By the way: one of the design goals of this change would be to give a relative buff to martials (because they have a greater incentive to pump either Str or Dex). Pointing out: "this makes a martial succeed in some situations he'd have failed otherwise" is the change working as intended.

But I am talking about the other cases. There are cases where you are making a check the character is not meant to be good at and then should be able to fail. That nimble waif failed the opposed Strength check and was trampled against the cobblestones. They did not suddenly leap back up to their feet because "being nimble means never failing a strength check".

I am also talking about characterization. You decided my nimble waif had "almost supernatural core strength" despite that being false. Your nimble waif might have supernatural core strength. Mine doesn't. Mine has below average core strength but above average flexibility and precision.

Your nimble waif passes all their strength checks because they make none. Even if you can't imagine how this strength check could be replaced by something in character, you will go along with the assumption that somehow it worked. My nimble waif passes some strength checks and fails others. Sometimes they don't get to ignore their lower strength and they feel the impact of that characterization.

If you merge Strength and Dexterity into Physique you delete my nimble waif. There are pros and cons to that, but your nimble waif is not the same as mine. Seeing the difference will help understand the cons of the merger and thus help accurately evaluate if this change is a good idea. (I think you are well aware of the pros already :smallwink:)

[diplomancer]

It's interesting how the argument in the thread went from "it's not nice to your group to not attempt something that your character is perfectly capable of doing because RP" to "I want my character to fail at things"

I don't know about you, but I want my character to succed at everything she tries. Sure, many times she won't (even if she gets to add her Physique stat to a particular roll, so I don't know what you mean by "passes all Str checks". Even a raging Barbarian fails Str checks every now and then), but I won't be sad and think "succeeding on this roll goes against how I envision my character, because she'd have failed that roll if Dex and Str were still split". I'll just be happy that she succeeded at the roll, and come up with an explanation for it that fits my character.

This is even more true of a game like D&D, with its notoriously fickle D20, where a 20 Str Barbarian can fail to break open a door only to have the 8 Str Wizard suceed.

I'd also say that your nimble waif wirh below average core strength probably shouldn't have a very high dex. Maybe a 14, if she's in fact exceptional in hand-eye coordination and flexibility? But that would start a whole new rabbit hole. .. anyhow, though "nimble waif" is a somewhat common archetype, I don't think "nimble waif with low core strength but still a very high Dex score" is that common of an archetype.

[OldTrees1]

It's interesting how the argument in the thread went from "it's not nice to your group to not attempt something that your character is perfectly capable of doing because RP" to "I want my character to fail at things"

It is the same elephant. We are just describing different aspects.

It is a low Str high Dex converted into a high Physique character. Now it magically has inappropriately high Str and passes checks it should have failed, or it passes all Str checks because it never rolls any Str checks (see next quote), or it reinvents Str/Dex by applying ad-hoc penalties to restore the thematic. A catch-22 between those 3 options.


so I don't know what you mean by "passes all Str checks"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth
If a character never rolls any Str checks, then they pass all their Str checks.


I don't know about you, but I want my character to succeed at everything she tries.
I would rather play the character than have them succeed. Part of the character are their flaws and weaknesses. The areas they are not as good. They will generally try things they are good at, but sometimes their weaknesses are challenged despite their efforts and intentions. (like if they tried to shoot the bull and the bull decided to introduce the waif to the road)

If you merge Str and Dex I can't play a low Str high Dex character. Either their Str never comes up (n/a Str high Dex), or when it comes up, it reveals the character is actually a high Str character (high Str high Dex).



PS: RE core strength:
Dexterity is already a large umbrella but core strength sounds like ave-mid Strength or ave Con to me depending on what you mean. Maybe that was a miscommunication between us. However it is irrelevant.

[sithlordnergal]

It's interesting how the argument in the thread went from "it's not nice to your group to not attempt something that your character is perfectly capable of doing because RP" to "I want my character to fail at things"


This is because you refuse to acknowledge that without mechanics to back it up, your RP means virtually nothing. Its why changing a Fireball from a ball of fire to fireworks is perfectly fine, cause nothing mechanical about Fireball is changing. In this case, you're attempting to use RP to back up the idea your character is bad at Strength or Dexterity when the mechanics of your idea show the exact opposite. This utterly fails because the mechanics you came up with state you're just as good at Dex checks as you are Str checks, because they have the share the same score. It doesn't matter how much you RP or flavor it, you're still just as good Strength checks as you are Dexterity checks and vice versa.



I don't know about you, but I want my character to succed at everything she tries. Sure, many times she won't (even if she gets to add her Physique stat to a particular roll, so I don't know what you mean by "passes all Str checks". Even a raging Barbarian fails Str checks every now and then), but I won't be sad and think "succeeding on this roll goes against how I envision my character, because she'd have failed that roll if Dex and Str were still split". I'll just be happy that she succeeded at the roll, and come up with an explanation for it that fits my character.


So, people do want their characters to succeed, but they also want a clear differentiation between the two. A Fighter with 20 Dexterity plays very differently from a Fighter with 20 Strength. One is likely wearing Heavy Armor and charging in with a Greatsword, the other is likely wearing Light Armor and standing in the back firing an arrow. We don't want the Fighter with 20 Dexterity to suddenly pick up a Greatsword and Heavy Armor and be just as effective as the Fighter with 20 Strength. Because at that point there's no real way to differentiate between the two.

And while you can claim "But you can choose not to do that" or "you can RP that you don't do that" all you like, the fact of the matter is that a single physical stat would have that be the norm, and anyone who doesn't carry a Longbow and either a Greatsword or Longsword and Shield will be purposefully weakening themselves for no reason what so ever.



This is even more true of a game like D&D, with its notoriously fickle D20, where a 20 Str Barbarian can fail to break open a door only to have the 8 Str Wizard suceed.


This...doesn't actually happen as often as you might think. It can happen occasionally, but even then, its a very rare case.




I'd also say that your nimble waif wirh below average core strength probably shouldn't have a very high dex. Maybe a 14, if she's in fact exceptional in hand-eye coordination and flexibility? But that would start a whole new rabbit hole. .. anyhow, though "nimble waif" is a somewhat common archetype, I don't think "nimble waif with low core strength but still a very high Dex score" is that common of an archetype.

See, here's the thing, core strength doesn't actually exist all that well in DnD. Its why you can have a character with 8 Strength, 20 Dexterity, and 16 Constitution be perfectly fine. Or you can have 20 Strength, 8 Dexterity, and 16 Constition and still be perfectly fine. While it may not be a common archtype outside of DnD, whichI am not sure that's true, it is very much a common archtype in DnD.

Actually, a good example from movies for someone who's extremely nimble but lacks strength is Inigo Montoya from Princess Bride. Throughout the movie Inigo is shown to be extremely nimble, highly skilled with a blade, but he never has any great shows of physical strength, like what you'd see from a high strength score. He's pretty good at acrobatics, as shown in his fight with The Dread Pirate Roberts, and has a high Constitution, as shown when he gets stabbed multiple times, but he's never shown to have high physical strength. Meanwhile Fezzik is the exact opposite, extremely strong and capable of great feats of strength, but lacks the dexterity Inigo has.

[Goobahfish]

I remain unconvinced that this is a good change.

I don't think you can really RP your way out of it either.

My big slow half-orc is still going to make his Physique saves and the midgy halfling is still going to pass Strength saves to avoid being stuck in glue...

I think it also misunderstands what the issue is. It is not that Strength isn't good, it is that having a low strength isn't really punishing unless you actually need it (Fighter/Barb etc). Having a low strength on a Wizard should have a downside other than "need more bags of holding".

[langal]

I suppose in this system, Inigo the player is only choosing to be quick. Fezzig's player is only choosing to be slow.

Of course, either can always have "adrenaline" active at all times and actually be as strong and quick as they want? So what really is the point?

Why not just have a lower strength (or Dex) then? I think there are better ways to solve whatever problem you are trying to solve.

[RazorChain]

Then you could just take it further and have Physical, Mental and Social stat and everyone would be happy.

Then we can simplify skills as well

Know stuff
Observe stuff
Talk to stuff
Thiefing stuff
Do stuff
Heal stuff

and then we can simplefy combat as well

Hit stuff with magic that does 1d6 dmg that increses every odd level
Hit stuff not with magic that does 1d6 dmg that increases every odd level

simplify restistances as well
Resistance to magic stuff
Resistance to not magic stuff

[Segev]

Then you could just take it further and have Physical, Mental and Social stat and everyone would be happy.

Then we can simplify skills as well

Know stuff
Observe stuff
Talk to stuff
Thiefing stuff
Do stuff
Heal stuff

I'd go with:

Memory
Noticing
Conversation
Clandestine
Making

Healing stuff would be Mental(making) or Mental(Noticing), for bandaging / treatment and for diagnosis, respectively.

Thieving stuff would usually be Physical(Clandestine). Bard stuff would usually be Social(Conversation) or Social(Clandestine), depending on whether they're just persuading or they're lying and deceiving.

[strangebloke]

As a thought exercise. Why have ability scores at all?

Just have one score called "stat" that governs everything. You can rp however you like, do whatever you like, but all creatures are equally good at everything. A trex is strong, and nimble, and intelligent.

From a simulation perspective, something is lost here. From an archetype perspective, a lot is lost here.

You could get rid of ability scores entirely if you change the math of proficiency, but simply combining two scores doesn't achieve anything.

[Damon_Tor]

I'd rather merge Str and Con TBH.

[Ortho]

Ah, yes, because as we all know, Black Widow and the Hulk are actually the exact same build!

In all seriousness, I fail to see how homogenizing martial characters is going to benefit anyone.

[False God]

I've played through a variety of different RPGs, and Strength and Agility almost always remain independent short of ultra-minimalist games that have 1 stat for everything physical and 1 stat for everything mental. Those games usually reinforce concepts with skills, ie: lifting and tumbling are different skills, so the "buff" characters have more "strong-man" skills and the "agile" characters have more dexterity-related skills.

5E doesn't have enough skills to do the latter. But D&D has never really had enough skills per stat to truly bring a character to life based solely on their skill selection.

Which is part of the problem with some stats and not with others. They have fairly low representation in the game. Dex has fairly high representation in the game. It has a couple skills, it covers a couple tools, it applies to some important secondary stats, it covers a couple modes of combat.

Strength...does not. It covers a couple modes of combat (default hitting and grappling), a one skill (although optionally any skill in 5E can be paired up with any stat if the DM chooses), lifting/carrying capacity (arguably something that doesn't come up in play often) and a couple tools (though again, tools don't necessarily have a default associated stat).

Con has a similar problem. It doesn't cover any modes of combat. It has no skills (although the DM may call for Con checks in certain situations). It doesn't really have any tools*. It helps HP.

Int is well represented in skills, with 5 of them, covers a mode of combat (spellcasting), covers some tools*,.
Wis is well represented in skills, with 5 of them, covers a mode of combat (spellcasting) and again, covers some tools*.
Cha, again, is well represented in skills with 4 of them, covers a mode of combat (spellcasting) and again, covers some tools*.

Ideally, all stats should look like the mental stats. 3-5 skills, covers a mode of combat, covers some tools and applies to one secondary area of the game(AC/HP, etc...) (the mental scores mostly lack this).
*Again, tools can in theory call for any base stat or paired skill.

Strength needs a buff as does Con, together they'd about even out. Dex doesn't need any buffing or to cover any additional elements of the game. While I agree that a player can simply choose to "not" make rolls they feel are inappropriate to their character's concept, there certainly is a high pressure in D&D to "roll for it anyway" if you've got a good stat in it (something I dislike about the game).

[awa]

I'd rather merge Str and Con TBH.

That is the logical one as an archetype the strong guy has strong overlap with the tough guy and when that isn't the case they are usually talking about will power rather pure physical durability.

[Ortho]

That is the logical one as an archetype the strong guy has strong overlap with the tough guy and when that isn't the case they are usually talking about will power rather pure physical durability.

I feel that merging Constitution in particular with anything is kinda pointless, because everyone needs hitpoints and will therefore invest in it at least somewhat. This doesn't accomplish anything except turning everyone's 14 in Constitution into a 14 in Strengthitution.

Being hardy is part and parcel of being an adventurer, if only because of survivorship bias. Being well muscled, not so much.

[strangebloke]

I feel that merging Constitution in particular with anything is kinda pointless, because everyone needs hitpoints and will therefore invest in it at least somewhat. This doesn't accomplish anything except turning everyone's 14 in Constitution into a 14 in Strengthitution.

Being hardy is part and parcel of being an adventurer, if only because of survivorship bias. Being well muscled, not so much.

Well, if you adjusted Point Buy / Standard array it might not be practical to get a 14 in CON. Like lets say you go with something like 21 point buy and you look at a sorcerer. The sorcerer wants 16 in DEX and 16+ in CHA. Even if they're a half elf, they won't get better than 12 STR/CON. If they do go for 14 or 16 STR/CON, they're going to have to give up DEX to do that as well as tanking their other stats. Few characters would willingly be weak but a lot are going to end up with 12 or 10 STR/CON, or are going to make sacrifices in other areas like AC.

Meanwhile, the barbarian who has STR as his main stat is very happy because he can start with good unarmored AC, great HP, and great damage.

It all depends, basically.

[Damon_Tor]

I feel that merging Constitution in particular with anything is kinda pointless, because everyone needs hitpoints and will therefore invest in it at least somewhat. This doesn't accomplish anything except turning everyone's 14 in Constitution into a 14 in Strengthitution.

It buffs strength builds relative to dex builds, and it fits an archetype. Everyone "needs" a lot of things. Everyone needs a nice initiative score too.


Being hardy is part and parcel of being an adventurer, if only because of survivorship bias. Being well muscled, not so much.

Think of it as a bonus to HP and not the source of HP. HP come primarily from the hit dice provided by your class.

[DomesticHausCat]

While we are at it I would abolish wisdom as well. Make the stats as such:

Might
Con
Int
Cha

That's all you need imo

[Damon_Tor]

While we are at it I would abolish wisdom as well. Make the stats as such:

Might
Con
Int
Cha

That's all you need imo

Combine Might and Con into "Body". Then Combine Int and Cha into "Mind".

Or we just give each class +4 to things they are supposed to be good at, +2 to things they are supposed to be okay at, and scrap stats entirely. Make it a part of the "proficiency" system and just allow how "strong", "fast", "clever" you are etc to be a matter of roleplay.

[DomesticHausCat]

Why not just have one stat? Could make the game called Monostat. 😆