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, 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, 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.

[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.

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".