Ability scores vs ability modifiers: A homebrewer's dilemma

[Alent]

I'm doing a bunch of work on my Homebrew campaign setting/3.x system revamp, and I've run into an interesting question that I think I've argued myself in circles over enough that I need to get outside opinions. One of the main motivations and goals for my work is simplifying the rules and cutting out as much redundancy as is reasonable while trying to preserve the spirit of the 3.x/D20 system.

With that in mind, something I've seen that I like in an OSR game is removing ability scores in favor of the ability modifier. Instead of writing Strength: 18 (+4) on your sheet, you simply write Strength: +4 on your fighter's sheet and call it a day. No calculation of the math and numbers, you just start with the number you actually use and no longer need to explain the difference between the two to new/inexperienced players. If you're using point buy, there are no mechanical drawbacks to this that I can see. It forces a change to ability damage/drain, but efforts to resolve martial/caster disparity saw me change that a while back, anyway. It also solves a pesky problem in the game, the valueless odd ability score. Up to this point, the change makes great sense to me.

Then comes the less logical part of it- the feel of the rules. The character sheet looks different without that column there. It's like a void on the sheet. So while the change is pragmatic and fitting with my goals, it just feels awkward and I can't tell if that's "You need to play like this a few times to get used to it" or if it's indicative of a greater issue that makes a system "feel like it isn't D&D anymore". Seeing as how I want to preserve the feel and strengths of 3.x, and am deeply bothered with how 5e kept the feel but trashcanned the strengths, I'm rather concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's definitely a beneficial change, but I'm not sure it's the right change.

I plan on playtesting the idea after I finish playtesting the things I'm working on currently, but I'd like some sanity checking from the community. I've tried some googling since I figured the question had come up before, but my google-fu kept turning up different subjects about ability scores. Anyone have thoughts on it? Maybe someone can point me to earlier discussions on the topic and any consensus they came to? Desperately looking for a sanity check, here.

[Jormengand]

You can do this fairly easily by just rephrasing the way it's worded so that you have a score from -5 to 4 (or more as your race and ability score increases do stuff) rather than 0 to 18. So, instead of having 13 strength, you now have 1.5 strength - the only slightly counterintuitive part is remembering that -2.5 rounds down to -3, and any ability damage will need to be halved.

If you want to eliminate the weird fractions, then you just have to make any ability damage smaller directly (d3 to 1, d4 to d2, d6 to d3, etc.) and make ASIs once every 8 levels, not every 4 (Though it's hardly about to break anything if you keep it as every 4 - ask 5e).

[Morty]

Sticking to what "feels right" and putting form above function is the root cause of many problems D&D has, regardless of edition. Your reasoning is absolutely correct and removing the score/modifier distinction is the very least of all that should be done about attributes.

[JeenLeen]

Mutants & Masterminds does what you state, and I think it works pretty well. See a sample character at http://www.d20herosrd.com/9-gamemastering/npcs/the-witch/, and you can see how the attributes are all 0, +x, or -x. Those are the exact modifiers to the d20.
0 is noted to be human average (aka, 10 in D&D terms).

This assumes that, for whatever reason, you don't want 'useless' points as part of your system. For example, in most cases, Int 13 is mechanically equivalent to Int 12. Though there are a few feats that require 13 in them in 3.5, and 5e has 13 has the limiter for multiclassing.
But I agree that it doesn't hurt to drop the 'extra info' and just streamline the system so it only matters when it changes your results.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It makes sense to keep ability scores and ability modifiers separate if you want a +1 increase to a character ability to not have a corresponding +1 increase to what the ability is used for, or vice versa don't want -1 score to mean -1 modifier. AD&D went with that setup originally because the ability modifier was basically the standard deviation of the 3d6 roll to generate stats; most ability scores had a +0 modifier, then scores started increasing their modifier faster the higher the score got. Ability modifiers weren't as important in AD&D, it was mostly individual scores that gave benefits (like getting bonus XP for a 15+ in your prime requisite, having benefits against certain spells for high Wis scores, and so on), so collapsing scores down to modifiers loses that pattern and that granularity.

3e made use of the score/modifier disparity for ability boosts (it takes 8 levels to increase an even score's modifier by +1 with the every-4-levels stat boost, so it can be more beneficial to increase odd secondary scores than to keep pumping your main stat) and ability damage (if you have "Str 18" there can be a bunch of "Deal 1 damage to [stat] on a hit" abilities because it takes 2 hits to guarantee reducing the modifier by 1 and it takes 18 hits to paralyze someone, whereas if you have "Str +4" every hit reduces the modifier and it takes 9 hits, from +4 to -5, to drop them, and "1d6 Str damage" is much less potent when that means a -0 to -3 reduction than when it means a -1 to -6 reduction in modifier).

But if you don't have that goal, there's no real reason to keep scores around separate from modifiers. Most things in 3e ended up adding or subtracting from stats in chunks of +2 or -2 to guaranteed +1 or -1 changes i modifiers anyway, and if you're not attached to increasing stats by +1 every few levels and dealing 1dX points of stat damage with poisons then you can figure out other ways to represent that and just stick with modifiers.

[Composer99]

I'm doing a bunch of work on my Homebrew campaign setting/3.x system revamp, and I've run into an interesting question that I think I've argued myself in circles over enough that I need to get outside opinions. One of the main motivations and goals for my work is simplifying the rules and cutting out as much redundancy as is reasonable while trying to preserve the spirit of the 3.x/D20 system.

With that in mind, something I've seen that I like in an OSR game is removing ability scores in favor of the ability modifier. Instead of writing Strength: 18 (+4) on your sheet, you simply write Strength: +4 on your fighter's sheet and call it a day. No calculation of the math and numbers, you just start with the number you actually use and no longer need to explain the difference between the two to new/inexperienced players. If you're using point buy, there are no mechanical drawbacks to this that I can see. It forces a change to ability damage/drain, but efforts to resolve martial/caster disparity saw me change that a while back, anyway. It also solves a pesky problem in the game, the valueless odd ability score. Up to this point, the change makes great sense to me.

Then comes the less logical part of it- the feel of the rules. The character sheet looks different without that column there. It's like a void on the sheet. So while the change is pragmatic and fitting with my goals, it just feels awkward and I can't tell if that's "You need to play like this a few times to get used to it" or if it's indicative of a greater issue that makes a system "feel like it isn't D&D anymore". Seeing as how I want to preserve the feel and strengths of 3.x, and am deeply bothered with how 5e kept the feel but trashcanned the strengths, I'm rather concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's definitely a beneficial change, but I'm not sure it's the right change.

I plan on playtesting the idea after I finish playtesting the things I'm working on currently, but I'd like some sanity checking from the community. I've tried some googling since I figured the question had come up before, but my google-fu kept turning up different subjects about ability scores. Anyone have thoughts on it? Maybe someone can point me to earlier discussions on the topic and any consensus they came to? Desperately looking for a sanity check, here.

I'm not aware of there being any wider consensus on whether homebrewed 'remixes' of 3.X (or of any edition) should leave ability scores as is or dispense with the scores and stick with the modifiers. Instead, I think those who go to the effort of remixing or rebuilding a D&D edition simply either go one way or the other.

IMO:
- If you want to change ability scores as you have described above, great! Granted, it's more work than just ability damage/drain - you have to adjust racial ability score adjustments, level-based ability score adjustments, the effects of some spells and magic items, and you make "backwards compatibility" more difficult, but if you're willing to do all that, by all means.

- If you want to keep the ability scores as is, great! Since you have listed "preserve the spirit of the 3.X/d20 system" as a design goal, that certainly leaves you free to keep the ability scores as-is. It also means less work, since you don't have to adjust any of the mechanics I have noted previously (except for what you've already changed, of course).

So it seems to me that you should pick whichever you think is best for your game: it really won't suffer either way.

[Zombimode]

So it seems to me that you should pick whichever you think is best for your game: it really won't suffer either way.

Pretty much. That is the thing with all "I make a better 3.5" endeavours: chances that you find Players that actually agree with you that your version is really better instead of just different are very low.

[Alent]

All:

Thanks for the sanity check. I more or less kept coming to the same conclusion, but was just gun-shy about implementing it. Now I can finish my point buy rules. :smallbiggrin:


You can do this fairly easily by just rephrasing the way it's worded so that you have a score from -5 to 4 (or more as your race and ability score increases do stuff) rather than 0 to 18. So, instead of having 13 strength, you now have 1.5 strength - the only slightly counterintuitive part is remembering that -2.5 rounds down to -3, and any ability damage will need to be halved.

If you want to eliminate the weird fractions, then you just have to make any ability damage smaller directly (d3 to 1, d4 to d2, d6 to d3, etc.) and make ASIs once every 8 levels, not every 4 (Though it's hardly about to break anything if you keep it as every 4 - ask 5e).

... I hadn't even thought about doing fractional modifiers. Interesting. I don't think I can use them, but there are places in my revised weapon rules where they would actually yield whole numbers... Hmm... I need to do more math on that. :smallamused:


Sticking to what "feels right" and putting form above function is the root cause of many problems D&D has, regardless of edition. Your reasoning is absolutely correct and removing the score/modifier distinction is the very least of all that should be done about attributes.

Yeah, D&D attributes seem to combine all the worst traits of at least three editions of D&D. Reshuffling some of the functionality takes care of some of the bleh- I'm generally a fan of the fixes that basically make Zen Archery baseline as part of peeling functions away from Dex. I'd really like to see STR and CON merged, but I've found some fun alternatives to the way they work. (Like making slam attacks into damage+con mod.)


Pretty much. That is the thing with all "I make a better 3.5" endeavours: chances that you find Players that actually agree with you that your version is really better instead of just different are very low.

No kidding. Fortunately, I have a playgroup that at least enjoyed my first playtest, so I'm reasonably confident that as long as I keep it fun, things are well on track. For now it'll just be fun with friends and the occasional rule section finished enough to post here.

[Morty]

Yeah, D&D attributes seem to combine all the worst traits of at least three editions of D&D. Reshuffling some of the functionality takes care of some of the bleh- I'm generally a fan of the fixes that basically make Zen Archery baseline as part of peeling functions away from Dex. I'd really like to see STR and CON merged, but I've found some fun alternatives to the way they work. (Like making slam attacks into damage+con mod.)


I'm personally in favor of cutting them out altogether, but that's not the only way to do it. That said, while making Dex less loaded and Str less situational is good, what are you going to do about the mess that is Wisdom?

[Alent]

I'm personally in favor of cutting them out altogether, but that's not the only way to do it. That said, while making Dex less loaded and Str less situational is good, what are you going to do about the mess that is Wisdom?

In regard to it being too critical for perception type skills and the like? I disconnected specific skills from stats, adopting a system I saw in some game I've forgotten the name of (a whitewolf game?) where each skill has a list of acceptable stats, and the system empowers the DM to say "Okay, I can see how your con score would apply to this check." I also canned the usual perceptions for "Awareness" and "Search", with Awareness being the skill for noticing things and search being the skill for deliberately seeking things. (I also like the language feel behind "You aren't aware of what the rogue is doing" rather than "You don't see the rogue". It makes stealth feel less like mundane invisibility to me.)

It's not perfect, since Awareness and Search inherit the old automatic skill tax problem that spot/listen and perception had, but at the least you aren't forced to stack wis universally for them. If it continues to be an issue, I always liked that fix of keying will saves to Cha.

[Morty]

Less about being too critical and more about being generally incoherent. It's perception... but also willpower... and general "common sense". It's a bunch of things so it's not really anything.

[Alent]

Less about being too critical and more about being generally incoherent. It's perception... but also willpower... and general "common sense". It's a bunch of things so it's not really anything.

Ahh.

Yeah, lots of cognitive dissonance in the stat. I am opposed to the "common sense" interpretation for a handful of reasons, none the least of these that somehow the game encourages players to check their common sense at the door. :smallfurious:

Would it make more sense, do you think, if I framed Wis more as "A talent for the Humanities" to Int's "A talent for the Sciences" instead of as "common sense"?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Would it make more sense, do you think, if I framed Wis more as "A talent for the Humanities" to Int's "A talent for the Sciences" instead of as "common sense"?

As the AD&D PHB put it, "Wisdom is a composite term for the character’s enlightenment, judgement, wile, will power, and (to a certain extent) intuitiveness," so a better comparison than science vs. humanities would probably be "book smarts" vs. "street smarts" or analysis vs. awareness or the like. Both high-Int and high-Wis characters can be talented in and appreciative of the humanities, but the high-Int character is the "art history, critical essays on Hamlet, and baroque music" type while the high-Wis character is the "feel the painting, expressive poetry, and jazz" type. :smallcool:

[Morty]

Ahh.

Yeah, lots of cognitive dissonance in the stat. I am opposed to the "common sense" interpretation for a handful of reasons, none the least of these that somehow the game encourages players to check their common sense at the door. :smallfurious:

Would it make more sense, do you think, if I framed Wis more as "A talent for the Humanities" to Int's "A talent for the Sciences" instead of as "common sense"?

I'm not really sure if redefining it and describing it is going to help here. I just feel like some of its functionalities need to be moved elsewhere. But that requires changing the rest of the attribute list more significantly. Otherwise, though, no matter how we phrase it and define it, Wisdom still has mechanical effects on ill-fitting elements.