Man,
defining ability scores is hard.
I want ability scores that can succinctly define an aspect of a character without leaving question to what it can be used for. Let's take D&D and Pathfinder for example using Wisdom. It defines both your ability to determine if someone is leaving out details they're giving... and... also the ability to perceive. What? How does my ability to discern lies also mean I can spot fine details with my eyes? I can see how if you bend it just enough to be something like "your observational power", which I can agree with if that's the case. Wisdom is also used to solve philosophical questions like what love is. But I don't like Wisdom is also used for Nature and Medicine. I get using Wisdom for Medicine is about piecing together things you have observed to create an accurate image of what's going on, but learning medicine is entirely about knowing what a body is made of and how it functions, which is entirely Intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to problem solve practical problems, like math. Imagine if your doctor knew you had internal bleeding (Wisdom), but lacked the knowledge of how to fix it (Intelligence), so they decide that they want to bleed you out so your body doesn't bloat from blood. Yikes. I wonder if using a combination of abilities together would make a more complete image.
So what about Charisma? Here's an excerpt from my post about Thaumaturgy:
... "This problem is: What type of ability score can represent fate? My first thought was Charisma, but I like neither D&D nor Pathfinder's definition of it (that's a muse for another time). Charisma is defined as both your ability to interact with people but also your force of personality? Someone can be impressionable but be really bad when interacting with people. Think about an online user with a strong presence because they're anonymous, but would be terribly shaken and maybe even incapable of verbalization if forced to personally interact with people."
I don't like how Charisma is presented within the game. But let me quickly touch on something: Ability scores within the game are simplified to keep things short. At least that's what I've noticed from my insight. It would be really crunchy if you had to keep track of 14 ability scores, more than half of which you likely wouldn't use.
On the topic of Charisma, I'm usually not fond of how it's often used for attacks and spell casting. Why can the Sorcerer and Bard in D&D swoon magic to be cast at their behest? Of course, Charisma in that game also represents will power, so I'll let it slide. But what if Charisma was solely a people skill? This is where things can be fun. Imagine what type of character relies on Charisma for getting an attack in. Suave pirates and deceptive assassins come into mind. They still need precision, but by fooling their opponents they create an opening for themselves. That's really fun and flavorful! But why stop there? Let's look at spell casters!
What sort of spell caster needs to fool their opponents? The schools of Enchantment and Illusion come to mind. It's not enough that you have the Intelligence to create an illusion with a spell, you need to control it to make it seem convincing. You can make a pot for boiling food but that doesn't mean you know how to cook. Thus, I am in full support for spells requiring different casting abilities, rather than being defined by your "class" (Sorcerer, Wizard, and so forth). What if a spell caster that used spells for plants and animals used Nature for their spell casting? They would naturally be amazing with Nature skill checks too.
Before I go, I would like to say one last thing about Charisma. I think Insight should be a Charisma skill, and not wisdom. It's a people skill. Investigation is the best non-person observation.
- Red
