Mental/Physical Prejudices, a Rant

[Orion]

For as long as anyone can remember, D&D "casters" have been dependant on so-called mental ability scores, while "fighting-men" have been similarly slaves to the physical stats. This has gone on so long, and been so widely copied, that some people apparently feel this is the way things *must* be. Not so.

Point One: Source Material

No correspondence between particular mental faculties and magical ability can be derived from the fantasy literature. Some people have magic because they're gods or elves or some bullshit and they're just born with it. Some "wizards" learned magic through intuitive, meditative techniques that clearly fall under D&D Wisdom. Some people have natural magical talents and no social skills, which the D&D Sorcerer doesn't replicate. Some settings have idiot savant mages. Some Marty Stu's like Rand Al'Thor wield real ultimate power while failing spectacularly to have INT, WIS, OR CHA.

This doesn't mean that an individual setting can't impose a requirement -- and D&D is a setting. But you certainly can't pretend that the literature forces it upon you.

Fighters have a similar thing going. Okay, they're generally physically *capable* yes, but your average farmboy-turned hero isn't necessarily a physical powerhouse. If you picked one D&D statistic to define a fantasy hero, you'd get answers all over the map. Sure, Hercules is really strong, but Perseus is smart and Jason is charismatic, and they all do their share of martial heroics.

Point 2: Psychoanalysis.

D&D characters based on INT have a tendency to be, well, awesome. Wizard, Beguilers and Assassins are seriously the bomb. Characters based on STR and CHA on the other hand are shit. Bards? Barbarians? Sorcerers?

I'm inclined to feel that D&D is mostly designed and played by nerds who want INT to be the most important virtue in the world, presumably because it's the only one they have. Every time their wizard runs loops around the party barbarian, it's a litle bit of vicarious revenge against the high school quarterback. "Where are they now, sucker? He's working as a bagboy in the supermarket and I'm chain-binding efreeti!"

I like to think I'm a pretty smart guy (I got to University of Chicago) but I also think physical development is important. I like to work out, and I have no problem believing that physical training might allow people to accomplish amazing things, or even that physical training might be part of learning "magic."

Part Three: Party Balance

I'll grant you that averaging the source material as a whole, magic-users do tend to be more mentally gifted and fighting-men more physically gifted. But that's a dangerous dynamic to port to an RPG. I'll tell you why:

What game mechanical features are based on each stat is seriosuly arbitrary. D&D has allowed people to add variously STR, DEX, and INT to hit; add DEX, INT, or CHA to reflex saves, and so on. What I'm gonna hold constant is the *skills*. To Base Archery, say, on dex means that people who are good at shooting you are also good at sneaking and balancing, while basing it on wisdom means that people with good aim are also good at spotting hidden things and predicting enemy actions.

Frankly, while physical skills are cool and all, generally speaking only mental skills are going to have wide-ranging effects on the setting. If you want your character to be engaged in the story, to be able to interact meaningfully with NPCs, you'd better be good at stuff like crafting, diplomacy, or sense motive. Magic-users don't actually need skills. They have spells. Let's give the fighters a chance.

Seriously, why the hell is the staple D&D wizard an omnidisciplinary polymath who is an expert on all things written down anywhere? Why is the stereotypical D&D fighter an uneducated yokel? Personally, I think skills like Knowledge (Local, Nobility, Geography, Dungeonering, and Nature) belong in the hands of people who spent time running business or living in the land, not those who spent all their time studying, you know, magic.

Part 4: Mechanics

One option of course is to do away with ability scores entirely, but let's assume we're not doing that. We still have tremendous flexibility in how we handle things. Here are some examples from the first draft of a dungeon punk RPG I'm writing:

Add INT to hit with Melee attacks: STR made sense, kind of, for armor piercing except for the thing where it worked against unarmored enemies. and with touch spells. But this is D&D where people can seriously have adamantine laser swords and other bullshit. The hard part of hitting someone is getting through their guard, which involves faking them out and spotting holes in their technique.

Add WIS to AC: you don't have to be able to touch your foot to your head to get out of the way of a sword. Sure, I can see how being good at Hide and Tumble would lead to better survivability... but I can make the same case for Spot and Sense Motive

Add CHA to HP: Con is a stupid stat. It doesn't actually interact with much of anything, there are like no skills based on it, yet everyone wants it for the HP. Meanwhile CHA is a dump stat. Let's shove the poison resistance part over to STR, giving non-barbarians a reason to care, and add the HP to CHA. HP is mostly plot armor anyway, and high-CHA charactrs probably have Destiny.

Add DEX to arcane casting: You still need good aim to scour people with arcane fire, and the gestures have to be made precisely too.

Add STR to Divine Casting: the limitation to divine casting is the amount of energy your body can channel.

[ckafrica]

I personally think the mechanic solution is in fact to get rid of attributes. I want my character to hit well in melee. It should be completely up to me whether it is due to brawn or agility or my wiles.

[Bigode]

Some Marty Stu's like Rand Al'Thor wield real ultimate power while failing spectacularly to have INT, WIS, OR CHA.

Examples, please.

Fighters have a similar thing going. Okay, they're generally physically *capable* yes, but your average farmboy-turned hero isn't necessarily a physical powerhouse.

Does that Mary Sue have any high ability?

D&D characters based on INT have a tendency to be, well, awesome. Wizard, Beguilers and Assassins are seriously the bomb. Characters based on STR and CHA on the other hand are shit. Bards? Barbarians? Sorcerers?

If you don't mind me asking, it seems the assassin you talk about's the Tome - do you feel the Str/Cha dissing kept valid in them?

Add CHA to HP: Con is a stupid stat. It doesn't actually interact with much of anything, there are like no skills based on it, yet everyone wants it for the HP. Meanwhile CHA is a dump stat. Let's shove the poison resistance part over to STR, giving non-barbarians a reason to care, and add the HP to CHA. HP is mostly plot armor anyway, and high-CHA charactrs probably have Destiny.

I think it's a bad idea to have characters with different levels of relevance in the same party, which's what "Destiny" would allude to. Besides, keeping on psychoanalysis, doesn't a good part of the Charisma hype (which's true in quite a many RPGs, and 1 of the most common misconceptions in D&D) come from mathtarded "true roleplayers" (a.k.a. "walking Stormwind fallacies", not necessarily everyone who cares about roleplay) tooting the only virtue they (supposedly) have?

[Talisman]

I personally think the mechanic solution is in fact to get rid of attributes. I want my character to hit well in melee. It should be completely up to me whether it is due to brawn or agility or my wiles.

Spirit of the Century does this. "Might" is a skill; if you want to tip over cars, take a high Might. Melee attacks are a separate and unrelated skill. Et cetera. There are no "ability scores" per se, but you can take "aspects" (sort of a combined edge/hindrance) like Strong as an Ox or (from one of my PCs) More Degrees than a Thermometer.

Personally, I like Brawn (Str + Con), Agility (Dex), Intellect (Int) and Spirit (Wis + Cha); conceptually, at least.

---

Actually, you could make an argument for just about any ability/power combo. Take hit points:

Str: Muscle mass = ability to absorb damage
Dex: Since hp are an abstraction, this represents your fatigue from dodging and twisting. Higher Dex = can dodge better and longer = more hp.
Int: Umm...okay, you got me here.
Wis: Strength of will; forcing your body to function despite damage.
Cha: Plot armor, Destiny, and sheer ego strength

Or arcane spellcasting:

Str or Con: Arcane fire burns the soul. How hardy you are = how well you can control it.
Dex: As noted above.
Wis: It takes a mighty will to control arcane magic.
Cha: It takes a mighty ego to control arcane magic.


At so on.

[Elennsar]

I could make a defense for the existing attributes, but not the existing game with the existing attributes.

Really, what seems to distinguish Great Heroes (whether we look at our world or myths or fiction) is that they have (at least one) area of being awesome and everywhere else is good enough unless its a weakness.

For instance, Achilles probably has sucky social skills. However, some other Greek Heroes are equally awesome overall and have good social skills.

And it doesn't appear that they are bad fighters for it.

I like the idea of Wisdom relating to archery. Or at least making Dex less "physically competent at any anything you want to roll". That is too much for one stat. It overshadows what little Constitution does and makes Strength rapidly irrelevant.

[ckafrica]

Oh shit look who moved in. there goes the thread...

Talisman: That's kind of my intent I think. First you'd need a list of abilities that everyone should be able to do to some extent, and those that need training to be able to do. Give the one's that done need training some base that can be increased and the ones requiring training just starts at zero.

[Elennsar]

Moving on.

You could make the arguement. Would it benefit the game, at representing the setting/s it intends to represent, to have any option open?

[Voss]

So, care to take a stab at psychoanalyzing the fact that the 'dump stat' for 4e is Int rather than Cha?

[Bigode]

So, care to take a stab at psychoanalyzing the fact that the 'dump stat' for 4e is Int rather than Cha?

While I did know Int's the new dump, care to enlighten me: is Cha now good or middling like say, 3.x Con/Wis?

[Orion]

You're kidding, right?

Int is the prime Requisite for Wizards, who are still awesome if built right, Warlords (the martial melee class that doesn't suck), and a prime stat for Warlocks as well (the only class with cool abilities).

That's 3 out of 8 characters who are going to want INT. Conversely, Rogues and Rangers need Dex, so they will never have a high INT. The remaining classes (Fighter, Paladin, Cleric) Get more or less the same benefits from INT as DEX -- DEX is probably better because of stealth and initiative, but 4E fights are long and stealth rules are borked, so...

Yeah, not feeling the dump-statness.

[Voss]

1 class uses it, 2 classes can use it, and 5 classes can happily set it to 8 and not care about it at all.

I call that a dump stat.

Consider charisma in 3e: 2 classes have to use it, 2 classes can use it.

[Bigode]

You're kidding, right?

Int is the prime Requisite for Wizards, who are still awesome if built right, Warlords (the martial melee class that doesn't suck), and a prime stat for Warlocks as well (the only class with cool abilities).

That's 3 out of 8 characters who are going to want INT. Conversely, Rogues and Rangers need Dex, so they will never have a high INT. The remaining classes (Fighter, Paladin, Cleric) Get more or less the same benefits from INT as DEX -- DEX is probably better because of stealth and initiative, but 4E fights are long and stealth rules are borked, so...

Yeah, not feeling the dump-statness.

What I felt from my own reading (seemingly similar to Voss' impression) was that Int's the one useless ability if you don't happen to have your class hanged on it. So you might as well call Cha "not a dump-stat in 3.x" because sorcerers actually are awesome, clerics might get a free nightstick or 2 outta it, and druids who might get to CL 17 actually do derive something they might care about from it in 3.5, which's more than can be said about physical abilities.

[Orion]

WIS and CHA are at least as useless (you only need one)

STR nearly so.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Cha also gives bonuses to the skills you can fail at.

Diplomacy check fail? That's okay because the plot needs to move along. You HAVE to win (many times, most DMs) in order for story to continue, so you are going to win even if you dumped CHA with a 6, and have no ranks.

Hiding, spotting, knowledge, etc. OTOH, you can totally fail at.

[RandomCasualty2]

I personally think the mechanic solution is in fact to get rid of attributes. I want my character to hit well in melee. It should be completely up to me whether it is due to brawn or agility or my wiles.

Yeah, pretty much ability scores are pointless. They do a few things:

1) Give multiclass characters a MAD system, where they can't have good attributes in both of your needed scores.
2) Give you a chance to build a shitty character, like a low int wizard.
3) Allow you to have one wizard be better than another who are both the same level.
4) Cuts off certain options from you. In 4E, if you have low dex and are a fighter, you can't use a bow.

Now, as you might imagine, none of these are good things. Some people who are pro single class would say that #4 is good because it forces people to play certain archetypes, but if you like the idea of open multiclassing, then #4 is a bad thing.

Really, I think people should be just taking abilities and should be good at them. If you take "swordfighting" you should be good at that.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Yeah, pretty much ability scores are pointless. They do a few things:

1) Give multiclass characters a MAD system, where they can't have good attributes in both of your needed scores.
2) Give you a chance to build a shitty character, like a low int wizard.
3) Allow you to have one wizard be better than another who are both the same level.
4) Cuts off certain options from you. In 4E, if you have low dex and are a fighter, you can't use a bow.

Now, as you might imagine, none of these are good things...

I wouldn't call that an exhaustive list, although you've certainly managed to cover a lot of the negatives. The existence of those negatives, however, is totally dependent of how you use the ability scores: they are no different from any other numerical attributes that vary between characters.


I believe that ability scores work best in a classless game. In such a case, they can provide a basis for everything. In a classed game, they become less useful: options are grouped by 'what you can do' (your class) rather than 'what you're good at' (your attributes). Still, if you want to have capabilities which are independent of class, ability scores or skill ranks can work fine.

[Psychic Robot]

As much as I agree with all that's been said, I really like the 6-stat system. I don't know why.

[Gelare]

Quick idea:
There are two tiers. First, we have the combat tier, which consists of six things, let's say melee attacks, ranged attacks, AC, fort, ref, will. Every character chooses one of their six ability scores (STR, DEX, and so on.) to be tied to one of those six combat elements, so you can choose to have melee attacks based on your dex if you're a swashbuckler or your strength if you're a raging barbarian or your wis if you're a zen master.

Second, we have the skills tier, which consists of eighteen skills - knowledges, persuasiveness, balance, whatever. And you can key each of your abilities to three separate skills. So you can be persuasive by threatening people with your big muscles or by making logical arguments, you can tail someone by being nimble enough to slip from hiding place to hiding place or by being able to read your mark and know which shoulder he's going to look over next so you can compensate.

This is just the skeleton of an idea, it doesn't work for all skill/ability combinations, and I have straight up no idea what to do with constitution, but does that seem promising as a starting point to anyone?

[RandomCasualty2]

I believe that ability scores work best in a classless game. In such a case, they can provide a basis for everything. In a classed game, they become less useful: options are grouped by 'what you can do' (your class) rather than 'what you're good at' (your attributes). Still, if you want to have capabilities which are independent of class, ability scores or skill ranks can work fine.

In a classless game, basically ability scores form your class. But instead of fighter, wizard, etc., you've got strength guy, int guy, charisma guy and so on.

And that's still pretty bad, because again it hoses people who want to do multiple things and rewards people who just over specialize like whores.

And in classless you've still got character points that limit how many different disciplines or abilities you can take. So again, ability scores just hose people who try to take abilities from more than one "class", and encourage characters to specialize.

[CatharzGodfoot]

In a classless game, basically ability scores form your class. But instead of fighter, wizard, etc., you've got strength guy, int guy, charisma guy and so on.

No. That's d20 Modern, not a classless game.

And in classless you've still got character points that limit how many different disciplines or abilities you can take. So again, ability scores just hose people who try to take abilities from more than one "class", and encourage characters to specialize.

Is that a fact? Why do you assume that anyone is dumping limited resources into the "disciplines" or "abilities" that you've made up?


As I said, a classless system with ability scores is no different from a classless system that uses numeric attributes that can vary between characters. Regardless of whether you call it "strength" or "might" or "athletics", the effect on the game will probably be the same.

[Talisman]

In a classless game, basically ability scores form your class. But instead of fighter, wizard, etc., you've got strength guy, int guy, charisma guy and so on.

And that's still pretty bad, because again it hoses people who want to do multiple things and rewards people who just over specialize like whores.

And in classless you've still got character points that limit how many different disciplines or abilities you can take. So again, ability scores just hose people who try to take abilities from more than one "class", and encourage characters to specialize.

Such has not been my experience with any of the classless games I've played in/run. In fact, IME, classless games tend to encourage diversity in a PC, whereas classed games encourage hyper-specialization.

The ability to pull "skills" from the fighter list, the rogue list, the bard list, etc makes classless PCs much broader and less specialized. Take my last Savage Worlds PC, Cap'n Hank. He was a badass mechanic; he was also a competent melee guy, a decent shot with a gun, had some general knowledge, and had a chance at stealth. He wasn't the flat-out best at anything (except fixing stuff) - we had a dedicated melee guy, a dedicated gunslinger, a dedicated thief/breakdancer, etc. But Hank contributed well, and could fill nearly any role he needed to.

I could not have made Hank in a classed system, because no one class would have given such a broad variety of skills and multiclassing would have shot me in the foot.

It's perhaps worth mentioning that in SW, abilitiy scores are somewhat distinct from skills. You can totally have a crappy Dex and a good Archery skill...your Archery will cost you more points, but it can be done.

[Maj]

I think it's a bad idea to have characters with different levels of relevance in the same party, which's what "Destiny" would allude to.

I tried to rebel against this idea, too. But sometimes the other players in the group actually do want an easy storyline to follow, and they don't want to be the leader. Based on my personal experience, I chalk it up to the inability to make decisions - both about character background, and where the character is going (read: number of available plot hooks for the DM).

As much as I agree with all that's been said, I really like the 6-stat system. I don't know why.

I kinda do, too. Though our games have devolved to the point where each character picks one main stat and a secondary stat, and then we build "classes" around that. We've had hit points, magic, and AC based on all sorts of things. I kinda like it.

[koz]

I have enormous levels of affection for the six-stat system too, despite all the flaws that it does have in its current execution. This is largely because DnD was my first tabletop RPG, and thus, all future RPG experiences are measured by it. It is likely that PR and Maj feel this way for similar reasons - essentially, they have sentimental value for you, as they do for me.

[Talisman]

Strangely enough, D&D was my first RPG as well, yet I have absolutely no attachment to the six-stat system. I can play just as well in Savage Worlds or 7th Sea (both of which have 5 stats) or Deadlands (which has 10).

[koz]

Being attached to it is more to do with not wanting to change it for systems where it is used, rather than an inability to play in systems where it is not inherent. If this is not what came across, it was intended that way.

And your case, Talisman, proves that, as for anything, YMMV.