Rather than each pokemon having one ability, wouldn't it

You see how unbalanced things are already. You don't want this.

>>32714848

I do want this. I want it A LOT.

>>32714835
What's so weird about some specimens having different capabilities than others? It's something you see in many animal species as well.

>>32714967

>a snorlax that either isn't fat despite visually being fat, or is fat but not gluttonous
>a carracosta that is either made of solid rock or is sturdy, but not both
>an Arbok that is either intimidating or unnerving but not both, and this prevents it from having the ability to shed its skin despite being a snake
>a Venonat that either has compound eyes or its lenses are tinted or it doesn't have either even though visually it does, and only if it doesn't is it able to effectively run away
>a Grimer that either smells bad or is sticky, or else it's poisonous but only one of those things can be true at once
>a Sunflora that is either solar powered OR contains chlorophyll but not both even though chlorophyll-rich leaves are part of its model

Doesn't make sense

>>32714835
There's an OM around this. You should give it a try.

>>32715086
You're looking to deep into it. Abilities don't corresponded to a Pokemon's traits they're just names. It's no different from moves like Earthquake. It's the name a move, but it's not a literal earthquake because it's impossible for something other than the earth to cause one.

>>32715138

Thick Fat isn't literally a thick layer of fat protecting the pokemon from cold? Intimidate has nothing to do with the pokemon looking intimidating to its opponent? It's just a coincidence that every pokemon with Compound Eyes... is a bug type that has compound eyes? Weezing's "levitate" ability is some kind of metaphor?

A lot of abilities are clearly based on real physical traits of the pokemon