Regarding the scale of ability checks thread, I actually came back to an idea that has been percolating through my mind for some time: increasing the number of ability scores. This started with a look at Dex and Con but Str and Int (and maybe even Wis and Cha) can be split up into additional scores. For Strength there would be Immediate Strength (applied to melee attack and damage rolls, jump, climb and swim checks and strength checks for breaking things) and Long Term Strength (need better names) which would apply to a crucial, but often overlooked aspect-carrying capacity. My reasoning here is that I suspect there are a fair number of people on these boards who could bench press an amount equal to their own body weight (immediate strength) but that they would not be quite as able to carry it over a long distance needing to expend strength continuously over a longer period and relying on different muscles (dragging complicates matters because the ground is supporting the weight, so that would be immediate strength)-all the skills are short actions but might occur over a long sequence.
For Dex there are Reflexes and Coordination; Reflexes for speedy but potentially imprecise movements and Coordination for precise but potentially slow movement-
Reflexes-Reflex saves, AC bonus, Escape Artist, Tumble
Coordination-Ranged attack rolls, Balance, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, Ride, Sleight of Hand, Use Rope
For Constitution there are Health and Stamina, Health being for shrugging off effects quickly like not getting sick, while Stamina is about enduring a circumstance:
Health Fort saves
Stamina: Hit points, Concentration checks
For Int there will be Applied Intelligence and Innate Intelligence (need better names here too). Innate represents raw thinking ability, while Applied represents the knowledge developed through training in a particular field.
Innate: Skill points, Search
Applied: Spellcasting (if Int based), Languages, Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Knowledge, Spellcraft (if an Int based caster; I like the ELH variant rule of spellcasting score determines ability modifier for spellcraft)
I can’t think of a way to divide Charisma or Wisdom effectively. I tried with Wisdom, but with Charisma being practically indivisible and 11 being an odd number, I’ll leave Wis and Cha intact. I’m not actually planning to implement this any time soon, since it would require reworking EVERY SINGLE STATBLOCK out there but I present it for individuals with much more free time to work with if they wish.
While I somewhat see the point I think that adding this much complexity to ability scores is just not worth whatever benefits to realism one might gain. Sort of why one learned to not actually use weapon speed in 2nd edition. Realistic, maybe - accounting nightmare definitely.
Divide Charisma into Personal Presence, Social Empathy, and Comeliness. Then divide Wisdom into Perception and Willpower. Then when each ability score has undergone mitosis at least 4 more times, it will take 16 hours to roll up a character, and players will have all the dump stats they could ever want...
Or go the other direction with the Amber Diceless system: Strength, Endurance, Psyche, and Warfare are the only abilities, and they cover what in 3e are your BAB, class levels, and skills as well.
The AD&D 2nd ed Player's option series (see "Skills and Powers") had a system very similar to what you are proposing. Each ability score was broken into two related sub-ability scores. I liked the idea, but never bothered implementing it into a 3.5 contex.
I recommend using extreme care in considering this kind of breakdown in any system other than 2E Player’s Options. They work well in that milieu but might not in another context. Make very sure each sub-stat has a true function in the game. Refer to the “Old Schoolers! 2nd Edition Charisma” thread for more information, particularly the chart that Xellan posted showing the breakdown and how they applied in 2E.
Dump charisma altogether.
This thread brings to mind the hundreds (thousands?) of articles, posts, rants, and other discussions of "realism" in gaming from the old days. In light of those old discussions I submit the following:
What you're proposing is a method of injecting real-world dynamics and paradigms into a system designed for entertainment and relaxation. There are several problems with this.
First, you will never be able to do it satisfactorily. The real world doesn't break down into simple mathematical formulae. There are far too many factors involved in how charismatic a person is, for example, ranging from cultural factors to physical factors to psychological factors. None of these can be quantified in any meaningful way. Consider this example: a guy picks up a girl at the bar. He's not drunk, she's not drunk, and when he wakes up in the morning she's already dressed and ready to go. He doesn't see her at her worst. Nonetheless she is no longer as attractive. This is a real-world example that has happened many times to many people. Why? Is she no longer as pretty? Has her personality changed? Is his vision impaired? Is her charisma score now lower? How would you quantify such a situation? Answer: you can't. You can try to describe how and why it happens, but the moment you try to apply numbers to it you find yourself in an impossibly complex situation.
Second, the balance between realism and playability is incredibly difficult to achieve. Witness, for example, the Armor Class system in D&D. As it stands, armor makes your character harder to hit. In reality, armor absorbs some of the damage, deflects some of it, makes it more difficult for you to move (to varying degrees), people with different somatypes find different kinds of armor more or less difficult to wear and use, etc. How would you quantify these traits? You could easily come up with a system by which you compare the qualities of each weapon to the qualities of each suit of armor, modified by the traits of both the attacker and the defender, and so on. Such a system would be unwieldy in the extreme. It would take half an hour just to resolve a simple hit.
I could go on, but I won't bore you. Permit me to limit my comments to this: think of all your ability scores as composites combining all the factors you've mentioned before. Assume that the distinctions between those factors don't really matter in any meaningful way. If it really grates on your nerves, just include an extra score or two (Perception, Comeliness, whatever) and leave it at that. Anything more and your game will bog down and become less fun. Give up on trying to make your game reflect reality any better than it already does.
My 2cp, offered in thanks for the memories evoked by the original post.
What you're proposing is a method of injecting real-world dynamics and paradigms into a system designed for entertainment and relaxation.
The whole “reality vs. fantasy” argument comes up so often one would think there would be a resolution to it by now. But there isn’t. They are inversely proportional; the more of one, the less of the other. To me, it’s all a matter of comfort levels. The DM and players know what they want, so the amount of “realism” employed is a function of that desire. If I like lots of “realism” and recruit (read: end up with by practice and attrition) players who do as well, then that’s what my games will have. If I can’t find any players who like that level, I have to gear down to their comfort level (or a compromise between) and play there.
Searn and I had a head-butt a while back on this issue and neither of us were really satisfied with the outcome of the basic argument. In our conflict, physics was the issue, but it could be anything else like economics, politics, etc. Though I agree with the basic assertion that quantification of an ever expanding pool of variables quickly approaches impossibility, I can also decide that I do want to use some of them just for that bump of “realism” that helps my players and I “visualize” the activity, or helps make an action seem more “heroic” in its proportions, etc. It’s an individual selection, not an absolute.
It’s an individual selection, not an absolute.
That's exactly my point, though you stated it much better than I, and my bias for ease of play over "realism" showed through. Well done.