Abilities Scores and Modifiers

[EnnPeeCee]

Basically, why to ability scores exist?

Its the modifiers that you actually use to derive a character's basic statistics. The scores themselves seem to be only there to find the modifiers. So why have them? Why not just roll for modifiers?

The only things I can think of that use the actual scores are rules for drowning and barbarian rage. Both could be easily ported to be based on the modifier instead.

Would there be any harm is dropping the scores a they are, and renaming ability modifiers as scores?

Maybe I'm forgetting something huge.

[Drachasor]

ME lIKE BIg NUMb3rs!

BeyoNd dat, dere be sum subtl3 raisins fr skorz, such as fordee lvl up BonIS!

[EnnPeeCee]

ME lIKE BIg NUMb3rs!

BeyoNd dat, dere be sum subtl3 raisins fr skorz, such as fordee lvl up BonIS!

True, the bonus from leveling up would need to be revamped a bit (unless you allowed for 1/2 bonuses).

And some people might think it weird for a "average" score to be a 0, but it really does make sense.

[SowZ]

True, the bonus from leveling up would need to be revamped a bit (unless you allowed for 1/2 bonuses).

And some people might think it weird for a "average" score to be a 0, but it really does make sense.

*shrugs* It does seem needlessly complicated, especially since you get things where have a con of 16 and a con of 17 and with the exception of one being closer to 18 there is no advantage to the higher score...

[Soranar]

I'm guessing it mostly has to do with the transition from the old rules (2nd edition) to the newer ones.

Back then a difference of 1 in a STAT actually meant something (str 18 vs 19 for example was a huge difference)

It was impossible to improve your character stats outside of magic items, going up 4 levels didn't give you a +1 to a STAT.

People still remembered the old way to roll characters (using several d6) and you try to keep things as familiar as possible to old players so the transition is easier (18 is still the highest score you can get without a racial modifier at character creation).

The idea that a score higher than 10 was a bonus and one lower a negative has been ingrained in DnD players for a LONG time. Since it was easy to keep that kind of thing in play the designers probably saw no reason not to.

Now consider if they had taken your advice (just keep the modifiers and forget the STAT altogether.

1rst, the 1/2 point thing wouldn't be much of a problem: 90% of the time a +2 every 8 levels would be the same thing BUT some feats do have impair STAT requirements (power attack, point blank shot, combat expertise, etc)

The point of this was to make it harder for certain races to get certain feats: small races get a -2 to STR so, in order to get power attack, they need to invest a 15 in STR (or 8 pts in a pointbuy system). Same goes for DEX based feats or INT based feats. Requiring a 12 would really make a difference in optimization.

Secondly, how do you roll a STAT and keep the same kind of distribution you used to have? Sure, most players assume everyone uses pointbuy but that's a fairly new rule, back in 2nd edition I don't think it existed.

If you roll, 3 (or -4) was your lowest possible result and it had a very low chance of happening (assuming you used the 4d6 remove the lowest technique) . 18 was nearly as unlikely to happen. Even if you only roll 3 dice, you average scores should be about 10.5 (basically a step above a commoner which is exactly what the designers had in mind).

You could try to come up with the something different but, in the end, it's just simpler to keep the old scale and use the modifier.

[Drachasor]

I'm guessing it mostly has to do with the transition from the old rules (2nd edition) to the newer ones.

Back then a difference of 1 in a STAT actually meant something (str 18 vs 19 for example was a huge difference)

At high levels it meant a lot. A lot of them had almost no difference between 6 and 14 [inclusive] though (e.g. low strength fighter hit just as much and for as much damage as a high strength fighter).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Well, if we're going old school (3d6), four FUDGE dice would be a decent approximation of modifiers, maybe a bit too normalized. A FUDGE dice is a d6 with two -1s, two 0s, and two 1s.

[power4me]

I could see it being necessary for things like constitution drain. The difference between a sixteen and a seventeen could be the difference between life and death.

[EnnPeeCee]

I'm guessing it mostly has to do with the transition from the old rules (2nd edition) to the newer ones.

Back then a difference of 1 in a STAT actually meant something (str 18 vs 19 for example was a huge difference)

It was impossible to improve your character stats outside of magic items, going up 4 levels didn't give you a +1 to a STAT.

People still remembered the old way to roll characters (using several d6) and you try to keep things as familiar as possible to old players so the transition is easier (18 is still the highest score you can get without a racial modifier at character creation).

The idea that a score higher than 10 was a bonus and one lower a negative has been ingrained in DnD players for a LONG time. Since it was easy to keep that kind of thing in play the designers probably saw no reason not to.

Now consider if they had taken your advice (just keep the modifiers and forget the STAT altogether.

1rst, the 1/2 point thing wouldn't be much of a problem: 90% of the time a +2 every 8 levels would be the same thing BUT some feats do have impair STAT requirements (power attack, point blank shot, combat expertise, etc)

The point of this was to make it harder for certain races to get certain feats: small races get a -2 to STR so, in order to get power attack, they need to invest a 15 in STR (or 8 pts in a pointbuy system). Same goes for DEX based feats or INT based feats. Requiring a 12 would really make a difference in optimization.

Secondly, how do you roll a STAT and keep the same kind of distribution you used to have? Sure, most players assume everyone uses pointbuy but that's a fairly new rule, back in 2nd edition I don't think it existed.

If you roll, 3 (or -4) was your lowest possible result and it had a very low chance of happening (assuming you used the 4d6 remove the lowest technique) . 18 was nearly as unlikely to happen. Even if you only roll 3 dice, you average scores should be about 10.5 (basically a step above a commoner which is exactly what the designers had in mind).

You could try to come up with the something different but, in the end, it's just simpler to keep the old scale and use the modifier.

You think the change in one attribute point would make that big of a difference for the feats that require a 13? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see it.

For rolling stats, you could do something like 3d3-6, which isn't exactly the same distribution, but I think should be similar.

And as for simplicity, sure, you wouldn't want to do this for just a simple houserule. But if one was to, as I'm thinking about doing, put together a homebrew system based on 3.5, I think it would be a great change to make.

[Craft (Cheese)]

You think the change in one attribute point would make that big of a difference for the feats that require a 13? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see it.

For rolling stats, you could do something like 3d3-6, which isn't exactly the same distribution, but I think should be similar.

And as for simplicity, sure, you wouldn't want to do this for just a simple houserule. But if one was to, as I'm thinking about doing, put together a homebrew system based on 3.5, I think it would be a great change to make.

If you were doing an entirely new game from scratch, maybe. It's just not worth the effort if you plan to convert a significant amount of the existing content, though.

Alternatively to trying to make random rolls match the distribution, you could just have a simple point buy system if you're going with a whole new game. Have all stats start at +0, and give players the option to shift points from any stat to any other stat, with a ceiling/floor of +/- 4.

[DoughGuy]

I could see it being necessary for things like constitution drain. The difference between a sixteen and a seventeen could be the difference between life and death.

As was mentioned any ability or apell that damages or drains a stat need a score. It also makes drain and damage slightly harder. If before you rolled a 1d6 for ability damage for a particular spell what would you roll to replicate this? Also would a modifier score of -5 or -6 be the equivalant of a score of zero?

[Immonen]

To answer the question, having ability scores like they are dates back to OD&D, when ability checks were handled by rolling a d20; a roll under your score was a success. For reasons of familiarity, this was kept the same throughout the new additions.

[gkathellar]

Pretty much as people have said: it's part of the legacy passed down from previous editions. A couple of d20 games (True20 revised and that other game that starts with a T and has like a bajillion races) have thrown it out, but mostly it's just the status quo.

[Greenish]

The only things I can think of that use the actual scores are rules for drowning and barbarian rage.Rage uses modifier. Number of tricks you can teach an animal uses score, as does the limit between animal intellect and true consciousness. Encumbrance uses score.

Minor stuff.