Getting rid of ability scores

[kyoryu]

Fate gets rid of ability scores, leaving only skills. Okay, there's a couple of skills that are awfully like ability scores, but they function like skills and don't do the attribute+skill thing that's so common.

[Chalkarts]

It ain't broke.
Leave it alone.

[Duff]

the first question you might ask is if there's any reason why a bard might want to prioritize strength as their secondary stat

In a word - style. Sometimes you want to play a bard who can win an armwrestle, or a fighter who can win at chess, or a Paladin who can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that's a valuable part of being able to customize your character

[Zakhara]

In a word - style. Sometimes you want to play a bard who can win an armwrestle, or a fighter who can win at chess, or a Paladin who can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that's a valuable part of being able to customize your character

Noble as that is, so long as the game provides concrete benefits to consistent, narrow arrangements of attributes by class, that sort of fun will just get optimized out.

I think subsuming those particulars (Fighters boast high STR, Rogues DEX, Bards CHA, etc.) and abandoning the need for numbers would be a possible step towards the sort of diversity/freedom you're advocating.

[quinron]

Noble as that is, so long as the game provides concrete benefits to consistent, narrow arrangements of attributes by class, that sort of fun will just get optimized out.

I think subsuming those particulars (Fighters boast high STR, Rogues DEX, Bards CHA, etc.) and abandoning the need for numbers would be a possible step towards the sort of diversity/freedom you're advocating.

Pathfinder 2e already does this to a certain degree - every class gets a free +2 to their core ability score. I actually think this is a great idea - it means you have some more freedom in your own distribution of scores because your most important one is already getting boosted a little.

[Luccan]

You'd have to rebuild some core expectations, but there's no reason you have to keep ability scores and mods. But it would end up different than other editions, because there are those fiddly bits in each edition that rely on your exact stat (translated into a modifier or not), not your modifier.

[KorvinStarmast]

Another early-edition oddity: if you had a high score in your Prime Requisite, you got more XP.

How is that an oddity? It's the original design framework. All since then has been a variant. (You can, if you like, argue that the variations have been improvements). The B/X model was, to me, the most sensible. 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3. (Mirrored with minuses at the other end). 9-12 is "+/- 0) What WoTC did with "a + at every other increase" doesn't fit very well with the bell curve shape of a 3d6 distribution...but it is still workable.

Strong Fighters weren't merely better at winning fights, they also advanced faster.

So did wiser clerics, and smarter wizards were able to cast the higher level spells.

It ain't broke.
Leave it alone.

Yep.

[Willie the Duck]

How is that an oddity? It's the original design framework. All since then has been a variant. (You can, if you like, argue that the variations have been improvements).

It is an oddity for anyone who has never seen it. 'Oddity' is not a pejorative.

The B/X model was, to me, the most sensible. 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3. (Mirrored with minuses at the other end). 9-12 is "+/- 0) What WoTC did with "a + at every other increase" doesn't fit very well with the bell curve shape of a 3d6 distribution...but it is still workable.

I'm also rather impressed with the 14-17=+1, 18=+2 system that Stars Without Number (and now Worlds Without Number) uses, and how well that works with its 2d6-based skill system (and the games premise that combat experience/class+level is the primary contributor to combat outcome, not raw attributs).

I think it is a good thing that the WotC model is relatively divorced from the original 3d6/bell curve model (4d6, drop the lowest, while being a binomial distribution, is pretty far afield), and is instead it's own thing. The numbers are applied to the game rules differently, so I think the larger numbers largely fit (although, as I said upthread, because the attribute contribution is so high, you don't see nearly as much variation in attributes for a given role).

[Jason]

In a word - style. Sometimes you want to play a bard who can win an armwrestle, or a fighter who can win at chess, or a Paladin who can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that's a valuable part of being able to customize your character

I'm playing a half-orc bard (college of swords) gladiator, and Strength is his primary stat. He's basically a pro wrestler who adventures on the side.

[Morty]

The fact that D&D attributes are largely an illusion of choice and determined by class is another issue, that would remain true even if they were pared down just to modifiers.

[Elves]

Keeping ability scores would make sense if you brought back what was apparently the old rule about having to roll your score or lower on the d20 for an ability-dependent task. That's a cool mechanic and it also justifies 5e's capping of player stats at 20. And it ties ability scores back to the d20 in a very direct way.


If you don't bring back that mechanic, there's no justification for keeping separate scores and modifiers. Just have the score be the modifier. If you want the granularity of the current system, simply introduce half-scores (my Strength is 2.5 or -2.5). The .5 in that case actually has a function as a tiebreaker on opposed rolls. --And even if it had no function at all it would still be more elegant than introducing an entire alternate score.

So either bring back "roll under your score on the d20", or remove 1-20 ability scores.

It ain't broke.
Leave it alone.

It's natural for things that no longer have a use to be removed. Otherwise you get a buildup of detritus.

[FrogInATopHat]

The fact that D&D attributes are largely an illusion of choice and determined by class is another issue, that would remain true even if they were pared down just to modifiers.

Yep





[please see my mandatory extra text to meet forum post length here]

[Elves]

The fact that D&D attributes are largely an illusion of choice and determined by class is another issue, that would remain true even if they were pared down just to modifiers.

It's not hard to largely decouple abilities from class gameplay (no more primary spellcasting ability, making Finesse baseline as 5e did, remove statmod from scaling class features). At that point abilities are for skill checks, saves, and feats. Arguably they would need more functionality to fill the void but you could also just make skill/ability checks a larger part of gameplay.

[Anonymouswizard]

The fact that D&D attributes are largely an illusion of choice and determined by class is another issue, that would remain true even if they were pared down just to modifiers.

Honestly it's not an inherently bad thing as long as it's understood on a basic level. 'For archetype Y focus on attributes A, B, and C' is pretty standard game design. But I think it might work better for games without classes.

Now there are class based games with much stronger limits on distributing your attributes/skills/personality traits, and they can work really well. They do make playing against archetype much harder, but honestly if you're twisting the archetype enough you might just want another archetype or another game.

[Lord Raziere]

Honestly it's not an inherently bad thing as long as it's understood on a basic level. 'For archetype Y focus on attributes A, B, and C' is pretty standard game design. But I think it might work better for games without classes.

Now there are class based games with much stronger limits on distributing your attributes/skills/personality traits, and they can work really well. They do make playing against archetype much harder, but honestly if you're twisting the archetype enough you might just want another archetype or another game.

I mean your right.

But in my experience, this only exchanges one problem for another which is "can I even find anyone who plays this game that DOES allow to play against archetypes, as well?"

which is an entirely separate problem sure, but y'know.

if no one is going to see your archetype defying character because they all want to play popular archetype-holding game and dislike going against archetypes and think its negative to do so, it still sucks.

[Nifft]

But in my experience, this only exchanges one problem for another which is "can I even find anyone who plays this game that DOES allow to play against archetypes, as well?"

which is an entirely separate problem sure, but y'know.

if no one is going to see your archetype defying character because they all want to play popular archetype-holding game and dislike going against archetypes and think its negative to do so, it still sucks.

If your character can pull enough weight to be a net asset rather than a drag, there shouldn't be a problem.

IMHO the only character concepts which are bad are the ones which sabotage your ability to contribute to the party's success.


But without a class & ability score system, you might not need to "play against type" to get the character you want. You could hopefully just play into the actual type you want to play.

[DwarfFighter]

I remember from 3.x that there was a preference for even value bonuses to ability scores, since this very readily translated to an increase in modifiers. E.g, +4 Wis bonus meant your modifier mproved by 2, regardless of initial value.

An odd valued bonus like +3 would in some cases increase the modifier by 1, or 2 of applied to an odd valued ability score. That is less easy, less perfect.

I recall the Bioware video game, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, had lots of combat drugs that boosted stats by +3, which I felt was a neat way to make odd valued ability scores have meaning. I made sure that my custom 3.5 magical items featured odd valued ability score modifiers.

-DF

[Elves]

I recall the Bioware video game, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, had lots of combat drugs that boosted stats by +3, which I felt was a neat way to make odd valued ability scores have meaning. I made sure that my custom 3.5 magical items featured odd valued ability score modifiers.

1) You can find ways to make odd scores meaningful, but should you have to? Is there any actual value to the articulation?

2) Even if the answer is yes, it's more efficiently achieved with .5 score values than by splitting abilities into two values, score and modifier.

[Willie the Duck]

1) You can find ways to make odd scores meaningful, but should you have to? Is there any actual value to the articulation?

I feel like there's some value in the finding-ways to get an even score to an odd. The +3 potions are a good example. Half-feats in 5e are another good example. Tough decisions between putting a +2 in your even primary stat, evening up two odd non-primary stats, or taking this one half-feat which will even off an odd stat along with a desired smaller perk (or even picking a half-feat even though it adds to an already-even stat simply because you really want the side-benefit) -- those help make the character creation/advancement part of the game interesting and challenging.

[MoiMagnus]

those help make the character creation/advancement part of the game interesting and challenging.

Especially with 5e mindset, this is not necessarily considered a good thing. Arguably, character creation should be a mean (a) as simple, easy and quick as possible (b) to obtain a character as near as possible as the idea you have in mind (c) and also as interesting as possible to play. The point being that the character creation/advancement is "not the actual game", so the less challenge exist before you can start "playing the actual game" the better, and any complexity in it must proves its worth by significantly improving (b) or (c).

This opinion is much more extreme than my own, and obviously is far from universal even in the 5e player base, if not almost heresy for anyone who enjoy D&D 3.X.

[Willie the Duck]

Especially with 5e mindset, this is not necessarily considered a good thing. Arguably, character creation should be a mean (a) as simple, easy and quick as possible (b) to obtain a character as near as possible as the idea you have in mind (c) and also as interesting as possible to play. The point being that the character creation/advancement is "not the actual game", so the less challenge exist before you can start "playing the actual game" the better, and any complexity in it must proves its worth by significantly improving (b) or (c).

This opinion is much more extreme than my own, and obviously is far from universal even in the 5e player base, if not almost heresy for anyone who enjoy D&D 3.X.

Honestly, I'm not interested in re-fielding that argument one more time (not least of which because I agree with both sides*). Elves' question was whether there was any actual value to the articulation of odd ability scores, and my position is that there is. Whether it is a positive or negative value is outside of scope for me. Suffice to say, people should be aware of the value that odd stats might give to the character creation/advancement gameplay for the people that like (or times when a person with multiple preferred styles is in the mood for) that style of play.
*Personally, I come from a B/X background and love me some 'Quit dithering about in the character creation section and let's go!' style gaming; and I come from a GURPS/Champions background (don't forget Traveller and the career tables) and love me some of that too.

[noob]

Especially with 5e mindset, this is not necessarily considered a good thing. Arguably, character creation should be a mean (a) as simple, easy and quick as possible (b) to obtain a character as near as possible as the idea you have in mind (c) and also as interesting as possible to play. The point being that the character creation/advancement is "not the actual game", so the less challenge exist before you can start "playing the actual game" the better, and any complexity in it must proves its worth by significantly improving (b) or (c).

This opinion is much more extreme than my own, and obviously is far from universal even in the 5e player base, if not almost heresy for anyone who enjoy D&D 3.X.

I think dnd 3.5 should have given some options to make a competent character without reading 50 books or thinking for 3 hours which spells to pick in the player manual.

[Xervous]

I think dnd 3.5 should have given some options to make a competent character without reading 50 books or thinking for 3 hours which spells to pick in the player manual.

Care to define competence in such a manner that allows us to measure or at the very least gauge it?

[noob]

Care to define competence in such a manner that allows us to measure or at the very least gauge it?

Can at least tie in all encounters against equal cred monsters.
Even in the core monster manual there is monsters that are ridiculous (ex: a lot of the outsiders)

[neceros]

The 3-18 scale will likely continue to exist because it's been around forever, and for a lot of people the fact that D&D has always done something is a good reason for it to continue doing so going forwards.

Agreed. It's integral to the system.

[False God]

Agreed. It's integral to the system.

Is it?

D&D doesn't actually use a 3-18(or 0-20) system.

It uses a -5 to +5 system.

We don't add +16 to our d20 rolls, we add +3.
We don't add +18 to our skills, we add +4.

We even ignore every other number! 3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17...all basically don't even exist except for the occasional corner case where the system checks if you're capable of sentient thought or not.

[noob]

Is it?

D&D doesn't actually use a 3-18(or 0-20) system.

It uses a -5 to +5 system.

We don't add +16 to our d20 rolls, we add +3.
We don't add +18 to our skills, we add +4.

We even ignore every other number! 3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17...all basically don't even exist except for the occasional corner case where the system checks if you're capable of sentient thought or not.

In fact in much older dnd editions stats did not grant any bonus at all when below 15.(and I forgot if they did have stat caused penalties)
And even the highest stats you could get at char gen did not get you a +3.
You played mostly 3e, 4e and 5e(possibly 5e only if you are a new to dnd player which means that you never had to deal with giant piles of rules but instead had to deal with unclear rules) which have different stat systems than the previous editions where stats most of the time did not matter nearly as much as class or non weapon proficiencies or what you decided to carry in your backpack and on your mule this morning or the mercenaries you recruited this morning.

[Mastikator]

Is it?

D&D doesn't actually use a 3-18(or 0-20) system.

It uses a -5 to +5 system.

We don't add +16 to our d20 rolls, we add +3.
We don't add +18 to our skills, we add +4.

We even ignore every other number! 3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17...all basically don't even exist except for the occasional corner case where the system checks if you're capable of sentient thought or not.

5e checks for 13 when you multiclass. 3.5e also checked odd ability scores for various feats.

HOWEVER that doesn't mean that it should or that it's a good thing. I've played with systems that don't do ability scores, and systems that do direct abilites. I think that modifiers are unnecessary, scores are not.

Here's an idea, a craaaazy idea, instead of doing 3-18 ability scores you just have 1-10 ability scores, and ability score = ability modifier. All the DC for every thing? raise it by 5 points to keep it the same. No more odd ability score weirdness. A +1 to strength is a +1 to strength, period.

[False God]

5e checks for 13 when you multiclass. 3.5e also checked odd ability scores for various feats.

HOWEVER that doesn't mean that it should or that it's a good thing. I've played with systems that don't do ability scores, and systems that do direct abilites. I think that modifiers are unnecessary, scores are not.

Here's an idea, a craaaazy idea, instead of doing 3-18 ability scores you just have 1-10 ability scores, and ability score = ability modifier. All the DC for every thing? raise it by 5 points to keep it the same. No more odd ability score weirdness. A +1 to strength is a +1 to strength, period.

Right, we basically use a 1-10 system, where 1-5 are subtracted from your score, and 6-10 are added. I know a lot of systems use positive-only ability score systems, and even then D&D could run -5 to +5 and we'd have the same end result. Alternatively, the game could just apply a -5 modifier to everything, and the scores you're good at would be a 6 or a 7 or 8, giving you a +1,2,3 modifier.

The game would still be rather random-heavy on the d20 through, only real downside to "low numbers" games. Could be balanced out by using a 2d10 resulting in more average rolls, or even a 1d10 system, but now we're getting really crazy and killing whole herds of sacred cows!

[OldTrees1]

Right, we basically use a 1-10 system, where 1-5 are subtracted from your score, and 6-10 are added. I know a lot of systems use positive-only ability score systems, and even then D&D could run -5 to +5 and we'd have the same end result. Alternatively, the game could just apply a -5 modifier to everything, and the scores you're good at would be a 6 or a 7 or 8, giving you a +1,2,3 modifier.

The game would still be rather random-heavy on the d20 through, only real downside to "low numbers" games. Could be balanced out by using a 2d10 resulting in more average rolls, or even a 1d10 system, but now we're getting really crazy and killing whole herds of sacred cows!

We use a 1-12 system in 5E (Don't forget having a 0 or a 10-11). The 0 matters for ability damage and the +0 matters in general. However 5E sets an ability cap which is rather weird.

We could replace the current ability score / ability modifier scaling with a 1:1 scaling. Rolling 3d4 for ability scores would give a modifier of 3-12 (apply a +7 DC) which could work well.