Quote from AEDorsay >>

Ok, I will play, and since I do pretty much a mix of all the forms, I will just go for into it.

First, you have to set some ground rules, and setting them would be the hardest part for everyone due to the philosophical differences involved. Yet if you cannot agree on the baselines, you won't be able to make practical arguments and effective efforts to change the minds of others. So, here we go:

First, recognize that an Average person of a given world is mechanically based on a human lifespan. So you need to know what an average human is for the world, and it should include how long they live in that world. We can use a baseline lifespan of 100 years, since it is a practical and commonly used baseline regardless of the world.

What are the stats of an average newborn (up to 6 months old)?

What are the stats of an average 10 year old?

What are the stats of an average 16 year old?

What are the stats of an Average 30 year old?

What are the stats of an average 50 year old?

What are the stats of an average 75 year old?

What are the stats of an average 90 year old?

The degree to which these scores change (if they do) will have an impact on the arguments, even if one accepts the premise that Adventurers are Exceptional members of the people, and even if one steps outside the confines of humans (for example, Tolkien's long lived elves) because in the game, the baseline is still humans.

Now, in the game, RAW, are their changes to the scores of these stats over time to regular people? If so, then it becomes reasonable to presume they change for Adventurers. If they do not, then it is unreasonable to assume they change for them.

In 1e, your score was your score. Dead stop. You could increase it through the use of magical items (books and tomes to increase wisdom and intelligence, girdles and rings and bracers for physical stuff). But you could not increase it by turning to working out or whatever.

in 2e, they introduced ways to improve those scores, up to a maximum of 20 or 24, but still mostly relied on magical enhancement.

Now, these are the baselines. To effectively have the conversation, you should know these things and be able to compare and contrast.

Hope this helps!

 
@AEDorsayAD&D use to work this way too where as you aged you physical stats would drop and your mental would go up. 

@Peiter_Devries - The only thing with the using EXP to pay for the increase I see is it stunts the overall growth and like Xalthu said it then becomes a slight headache for the DM ( I imagine that is you) Is now how do you determine what the players true level is. Right now for 5th ed things are balanced around what is in place and characters being able to gain these things. If you take out the feats/asi as is then the players will not be the same "level" as the monsters they should be fighting unless you lower the monsters too. 

I guess the question about what your suggesting if it sake of argument cost a level to add a stat point what level would they be. If they had enough exp to hit lvl 5 but used the lvl 5 exp for say a strength increase does that mean they are Lvl 4 or are they lvl 5. Cause if they are level 5 thats going to hurt them over all in combat. If there lvl 4 then that would be close to how it works now and shouldn't effect the power level of the party.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

I will note, at the pleasant stage where things are "downhill" going forward, that Wisdom is NOT passively improved over time.

 

At that stage, they are retired and normally no longer actively 'adventuring.' ASI's and/or  However, on top of that, just as not every PC develops stats identically, not every person develops equally. However, even if not in levels as we know them in game, people do learn things IRL.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Quote from Kotath >>

 

How many of them live the typical lives of adventurers? And are you arguing that people become more foolish over time?

That isn't really a line of inquiry I feel comfortable being pushed on this hard. My grandmother had a very steep mental decline over the years, starting fairly early, long before someone would be called elderly. So yes. Yes in my experience people lose more than they grow.

By the time you're an adult you're locked in, at your peak. Time only robs from you from there.

But that's why we play a fantasy game. With make believe and magic. Because in these worlds people can escape such fates.

But realistically, the only attribute that people in real life can imporive dramatically is strength. You work out, you gain weight, you get stronger. It is straightforward. And there are all sorts of stories of super scrawny people working out for years and going from frail to jacked. There are nearly zero stories of people studying really hard and going ffeom mentally disabled to solving millennium problems. Maybe....maybe you can keep the decline at bay. But you're not going from dull to genius. It just doesn't happen. But going from repping 15 lbs to 200lbs curls? Totally doable.

Strength is the only attribute where real world people can realistically change and change dramatically. And in a positive direction. 

Because life events can certainly cause a loss. Illness and disuse, drugs or lifestyle choices, all can lead to a loss. A decay. You stay sedentary and eat unhealthy and you'd find your corollary of str, dex, and con to all fall off. You get sick and you find them to fall off. You get older and muddled as time ravages your mind and your mental stat corollaries fall off too. These things don't get better with practice. You're at your peak as a young adult and then they wither away with time.

But with magic? All things are possible.

 

Yes, IRL, none of us recover completely from all damage taken, simply by sleeping it off. And, people staying sedentary are definitely not living typical adventurer lifestyles. However people do train stats other than strength. Marksmen practice their aim. Carvers, model makers, players of games such as tennis, etc develop their manual dexterity, as do real life pickpockets. Yes, eventually as one ages, time catches up and stats can eventually start to fade but again, not everyone equally. Some remain mentally sharp right to the end. And others are hampered by accidents or maladies. 

However, anyone who stays active improves along the way, even if they may be laid low along the way too. 

But youre not describing the attributes. You're describing specific proficiencies. 

Eg. You suggest pickpockets devolp manual dexterity. But are they not simply getting proficiency with sleight of hand and then eventually expertise?

To be sure, you suggest carvers, model makers, tennis players, and pickpockets all improve their manual dexterity. But if they were all improving the same 'thing' they'd all have the same capability as one another. Does pickpocketing make you a good tennis player? Does carving make you a good pickpocket? If these were an example of people who all were improving their Dex then they should all be identically improving and it would translate across disciplines. But does it?

Not really. Because like I suggest, this is better reprented by the skill proficiency system. They have skill proficiency in these things, or eventually expertise.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

But youre not describing the attributes. You're describing specific proficiencies. 

Eg. You suggest pickpockets devolp manual dexterity. But are they not simply getting proficiency with sleight of hand and then eventually expertise?

To be sure, you suggest carvers, model makers, tennis players, and pickpockets all improve their manual dexterity. But if they were all improving the same 'thing' they'd all have the same capability as one another. Does pickpocketing make you a good tennis player? Does carving make you a good pickpocket? If these were an example of people who all were improving their Dex then they should all be identically improving and it would translate across disciplines. But does it?

Not really. Because like I suggest, this is better reprented by the skill proficiency system. They have skill proficiency in these things, or eventually expertise.

 

Now you are limiting stats by specific skills. It is true that dexterity is harder to find examples of, but it is also true that slight of hand should technically be applicable to most other applications of similar dexterity. Carving is fine work and likely would make it easier to learn to pick pockets, since they both require fine hand-eye coordination.

I notice you are narrowing in on dexterity, though. As a kid, I used to be picked on a lot. I usually avoided fighting (although I could hold my own in a fight), so I got good at running and dodging. And later in life that did seem to translate into being better at dodging in unrelated situations. I have never been great at fine work, though. Mediocre at best on a keyboard, horrible on any stringed instrument. I can manage crude carvings but not any real fine work. But then... never had the patience for that kind of thing.

So maybe Dex should be two separate stats IRL.

Also perhaps Rolemaster better simulates reality. Rolemaster has both. For each stat, you have current and potential values. It is possible for your value in a given stat to start out at potential, but usually there is some room between the two. So, your stats can usually advance, but there is a limit to how far they can, and a separate limit for each stat. But... that is a completely different system from D&D and one considered too complex for most players. Oh and Rolemaster also breaks dexterity down into Quickness and Agility and breaks intelligence down into Reasoning and Memory. 

 

A reminder that Dex also includes these factors that are not part of sleight of hand:

• Control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent (manipulative restraint of complex features-- brakes and reins -- and depth perception)
• Steer a chariot around a tight turn (deftness and depth perception)
• Pick a lock (deftness)
• Disable a trap (nimbleness)
• Securely tie up a prisoner (knotwork)
• Wriggle free of bonds (contortion)
• Play a stringed instrument (nimbleness of fingers)
• Craft a small or detailed object (deftness)

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

 

 

 

A reminder that Dex also includes these factors that are not part of sleight of hand:

• Control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent (manipulative restraint of complex features-- brakes and reins -- and depth perception)
• Steer a chariot around a tight turn (deftness and depth perception)
• Pick a lock (deftness)
• Disable a trap (nimbleness)
• Securely tie up a prisoner (knotwork)
• Wriggle free of bonds (contortion)
• Play a stringed instrument (nimbleness of fingers)
• Craft a small or detailed object (deftness)

 

A reminder assumes those are all correct statements.

Controlling a heavily laden cart or fast moving chariot could also arguably be Animal Handling (Wisdom). To the extent it is not Animal Handling, which Skill would best apply? 

Tying up a prisoner is usually Survival, which also is normally wisdom. I could also make an Int argument. As someone with considerable knowledge of knot and ropework from a decade and a half in scouting, I would say dexterity is not much of a factor. If Dex is a factor in such an action, why doesn't Dex govern Melee accuracy?

Contortions, I would likely say Acrobatics.

Playing an instrument is usually Performance, which is actually usually Charisma. I could see an argument for Dexterity, but would also argue it is really Slight of Hand, especially with stringed instruments or any woodwind which similarly requires fingering.

Lock picking, trap disabling, which Skill would you apply to those, if not Slight of Hand? Ditto, crafting small objects?

 

 
well, I mean, those are all RAW, with my parentheticals. I yanked it straight outta the rules here.