I’m designing a Pathfinder 2e hack called Netfinder, and right now we have 9 different ability scores: Strength, Agility, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Tech, Wisdom, Charisma, and NET. That feels like a lot to track. For context, Agility governs things like Stealth and Reflex saves, Dexterity covers things like Ranged attacks and Thievery, Tech is inspired by Cyberpunk and covers technical skills and cyberware, and NET is a unique magic connection score for spellcasting traditions. I’m wondering, in games you’ve played that use ability scores, how many do you find work best? What’s your ideal number and why?
8 Answers
Honestly, I’m a big fan of having zero ability scores. They’re a pretty archaic design choice rooted in D&D tradition. Plenty of great systems just use skills or other mechanics to define characters. That said, if you’re rolling stats randomly and only really care about extremes, having 6 to 8 scores is cool because it adds flavor and variety. If each point matters because players buy stats, keep it fewer so every decision counts.
I like 3 to 5 ability scores myself. Too many overcomplicate character sheets and slow down play, but too few make characters feel generic. For your system, I’d personally consider merging Agility and Dexterity or Tech and Intelligence unless they serve very different mechanical purposes. NET as a standalone magic ability score is a great flavor choice and I think it’ll help differentiate magic users nicely.
It really depends on how your system uses them, but a sweet spot seems to be between 3 and 6. Less than 3 feels too general, and more than 6 can get overwhelming unless each stat clearly has a unique and meaningful role. Your NET magic stat as its own ability score is an interesting choice — giving magic its own dedicated score is a cool way to separate it mechanically and narratively from other mental stats.
Honestly, if ability scores mostly feed into secondary stats like skills or saves, then having a lot doesn’t bother me much. But if you actually use each score frequently during gameplay, I prefer around 4 to 6 at most. That keeps things manageable but still gives enough variety.
Yeah, that makes sense. In Pathfinder, I can’t think of many times a raw stat is actually rolling directly, mostly just bonus additions like Strength affecting weapon damage.
I’d argue the ‘right’ number depends entirely on your game’s mechanics and story. Some games do great with 2 or 3 (like Lasers & Feelings), some with 4–6, others with more. What really matters is that each ability score has its own unique role and players get to make meaningful choices with them.
Your separation between Agility and Dexterity makes sense narratively—being nimble and being good with your hands can be distinct. Tech as a technical aptitude separate from Intelligence is valid too, especially for cyberpunk settings.
But I’d double-check that Int isn’t overshadowed or duplicated by Tech, and how often players need to juggle both. NET sounds like a cool unique stat, and I think having a dedicated casting ability can make your magic system feel special and independent from other stats.
Thanks for this! We definitely wanted to keep those distinctions clear to support the story and character flavor over pure mechanical simplicity. NET being unique is a core design choice — we wanted magic traditions to feel completely separate from other stats.
In most of my experience, 5 ability scores work well. Three or four forces too many unrelated things to get lumped together, and more than 6 just becomes a headache to keep track of during play. Five gives room to distinguish mental, physical, and social traits but doesn’t overwhelm players with clutter.
I’ve seen various successful approaches: nWoD uses nine split into three physical, three mental, three social scores, and that works well since the system references them often. Savage Worlds only has five, which works because it’s mainly skill-based and ability scores just boost checks occasionally. PF2e rarely uses ability scores directly beyond some checks, so your choice depends on how much you want to highlight them.
For your split between Agility and Dexterity: having Agility cover stealth and reflexes and Dexterity handle ranged attacks and finesse weapons is interesting, but you want to make sure players understand when each applies. Tech as a separate ability inspired by Cyberpunk fits if you want to distinguish technical aptitude from book learning. NET as a dedicated magic casting stat sounds good if magic traditions rely heavily on this connection and you want to let players develop it independently from something like Intelligence or Wisdom.
The important question: are these scores all frequently used in core mechanics or skill checks? If they overlap too much, it can cause confusion.
Thanks! Yeah, we want Agility and Dexterity to feel distinct—like being good with a gun doesn’t necessarily mean you’re also nimble or stealthy. We also wanted Intelligence to represent book smarts, separate from Tech which is practical skills like cyberware repair. NET is 100% its own space since it’s about the character’s connection to the magical Metaphysical space called MPhys, with unique traditions linked to it.
From what I’ve seen, it’s less about the exact number of scores and more about their design quality. Shadowrun’s 9 stats work because they’re all pretty distinct and cover unique areas (Constitution, Strength, Agility, Reaction, Charisma, Intuition, Logic, Willpower, Magic). It sounds like Tech and NET suit your setting well if they’re meaningful and not redundant. If you muddle scores too much or mix vague concepts together, the attributes lose impact and confuse players. I’d recommend only adding new ability scores if they represent something fundamentally different that players will engage with often.
I get what you mean! I haven’t played many systems without ability scores either, save for some indie games or a system where stats are on your mech instead of your character (like Lancer). But for this hack, we want that unique magic score, so some kind of ability score makes sense.