Yeah Attributes in D&D are pretty bizarre as a construct and could probably use a further overhaul.
I feel what's needed is a bit of a Zeno's paradox type situation for the Attributes, you know where when you get closer to either extreme (high or low) it should push out to create room for more nuance.
Maybe similar to way 18 Strength worked in 2e for Martial classes (from 18/01 to 18/99 or 18/00), but just doing that for every attribute? The high end is now 20 rather than 18 like it used to be, but they could do something similar. Perhaps 20/01 to 20/00, where the second value can capture more of the flavor element?
So say a Human can hit a 20/99 in STR but a Halfling caps out at 20/50 (to represent them being Half the size?) or similarly maybe an Orc never rolls lower than a 20/75 for STR because they're pretty huge? But then Orc might take a hit in INT or whatever, capping at 20/25 there. Perhaps Elves and Halflings never roll lower than 20/75 for DEX, because they're supposed to be all naturally dexterous that way etc. Then do that same sort of thing for all 6 attributes whenever they hit the 20. Sure it's a bit sleight of hand to just move another column over to the right for everything lol, but at least it'd providing for a large spread. Save anything higher than a 20/00 for monsters and demi-gods and whatnot.
I also feel like the low end is kind of wasted. The difference between say a 1 or 2 and a 3 in INT (to accommodate monsters and beasts vs 'intelligent creatures') is fairly huge, but then there's also a pretty massive gap between 3 and that baseline range of 8 and up, for the sort of standard starting range INT for PC's. It's a bit weird to do a scheme at base 10, but then to go all skipping about and having it where only even values make a difference. Almost to the point where it's like why even bother counting up 1-20 if so many of the intermediate values aren't really used for anything? Instead it might be interesting if 2 was the base starting value for PC attributes, and anything lower works similar to the 20 at the high end. Basically 1/01 to 1/00 covering everything from earthworms to the smartest of beasts and children in the case of INT. Just to open up the spread so it covers more of the fullest possible range.
I don't know, obviously that's all a bit vague and I'm just spitballing here, cause none of the numbers in D&D actually mean anything until the rest of mechanics are built out around them, but it just seems like we could use a bit more room with the min/max values at the high and low end. Just to accommodate some of the older ideas about what the attributes were meant to suggest vs how they actually worked in the mechanics of the gameplay.
I like this idea, I'd been toying with something similar, where everyone starts at 10 and your experience gained goes directly into the development of your attributes, with your race, background, and class changing the gain or requirement for different attributes. The idea to double the range came up as a way of making the differences more meaningful, but after a while I had to step back and admit that I what I was making probably wasn't D&D anymore. I like classless systems, and leveless systems too really, so anytime I try to rework a system in D&D it ends up taking a little too much from that school.
Like maybe we could change it so that everyone's attributes starts at 1, then they go through a Traveller style lifepath that brings their stats up to around 10, with different races having an easier time of beating the mean.
I like the idea of having each race have a stat maximum that when reached opens up into it's own range, maybe a system like this could be used so that different races have an easier time getting through that range.
