Ability Scores

[Scars Unseen]

I posted this on the WotC forums, but I thought I'd put it here too and see what sort of reaction it gets from different communities.

My biggest complaint about the playtest so far is the ability score bonuses. I can't speak for the earlier editions, but in 2nd Edition, ability score bonuses were designed around the probability curve of a 3d6 generation method. This ensured that, assuming that method was used, exceptional ability scores - and the bonuses that came with them - were the exception. For those that fell in the majority scores, your ability wasn't important enough to overshadow skill(though the differences did still matter for ability checks). Additionally, since it was very difficult to raise abilities above 18(the girdles of giant strength being the most common exception), even those with exceptional ability had only a minor advantage over his companions.

In 3E, this all changed. Rather than the elegance of a probability curve, WotC decided to go with the simplicity of linear growth. Anything beyond the two numbers surrounding the mathematical average on a 3d6 got a modifier, for better or worse. What was once the domain of the truly exceptional was now in the hands of the slightly above average. Worse, because of the incredibly simplistic math employed, the exceptional score's modest bonus had been inflated to what was previously beyond the capability of men(and other playable humanoids). Even worse than that, the system allowed for easy advancement beyond what was previously possible, inflating those numbers even further.

With linear growth, the difference between the bonus for a 12 and a 14 may only be 5% on a d20, but take the difference between a 7(-2) and an 18(+4). That's a a difference of 30% chance of success on a d20. Is there any wonder that people don't want random stat gen in the newer games? In 2nd Edition, the same difference in ability scores only creates a difference of 5% chance of success. That's right: 3E and onward inflated the numbers so badly that the difference between 7 and 18 became the difference between 10 and 12.

Now some might call out exceptional strength. Well in order to get a +2 to hit, you would need an 18/51. You have a 0.23% chance of getting that or better. That's 1 in 400(compare to 1 in 200 for a straight 18). To get a +3 to hit, you need an 18/00. You have a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting that. I don't think that probability is even worth considering.

Linear growth is bad design(my opinion). Over time, it turns into a bonus point arms race, which WotC seems to be trying to avoid in other areas of the game. Moreover, it creates a large numerical difference between a character with a 12(which should be considered to be a decent if not great score) and an 18. This puts a lot of system generated pressure on the player(when less random methods are used) to get a high score in the class's relevant ability, which leads to less interesting cookie cutter character builds.

So how about the rest of you? Do you feel that there was a benefit to the WotC method? It is certainly simpler, I'll give it that. I had to look up all the values I've mentioned for 2nd Edition in my PHB. 3E I don't even have to memorize. But I feel that what was lost due to ability inflation far outweighs any benefit its simplicity may have granted it.

 

[the Jester]

I'm of a mixed mind; I'd rather flatten the bonuses from ability scores, but the elegance of the 3e-style bonus is very attractive.

So far it looks like 5e has made it work, but we'll see.

 

[slobster]

If you use dice to generate scores, in any edition, you'll get a curve in the distribution of numbers generated, centered on the 10 and 11 scores. Getting a completely even distribution would only be possible if you rolled a 1d16+2 to generate scores, which hasn't been the case in any game I've ever played in.

Point buy even approximates this prevalence of middling scores by charging more for an ability score the further it increases away from the 10-11 middle zone.

As for going back to lower ability score modifiers, what then would be the point of having a 15 over an 11, much less a 14 over a 13? It already bothers me that increasing from an even to an odd score is essentially meaningless. I think that tramping the benefit of higher scores completely flat would lead to characters that, despite having different numbers listed after the words Strength, Dexterity, and so on, were all functionally the same.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wonder if the 1e cavalier, way would help.. Roll d100 for each stat and when it adds up to 100 you boost it by 1

 

[Scars Unseen]

If you use dice to generate scores, in any edition, you'll get a curve in the distribution of numbers generated, centered on the 10 and 11 scores. Getting a completely even distribution would only be possible if you rolled a 1d16+2 to generate scores, which hasn't been the case in any game I've ever played in.

Point buy even approximates this prevalence of middling scores by charging more for an ability score the further it increases away from the 10-11 middle zone.

As for going back to lower ability score modifiers, what then would be the point of having a 15 over an 11, much less a 14 over a 13? It already bothers me that increasing from an even to an odd score is essentially meaningless. I think that tramping the benefit of higher scores completely flat would lead to characters that, despite having different numbers listed after the words Strength, Dexterity, and so on, were all functionally the same.

First point: I'm not talking about stat generation itself, I'm talking about the bonuses. I don't want to force "the one true ability generation method" on anyone. The bonuses are most certainly not distributed on a curve in WotC's math.

Second point: the difference is in ability checks. Because in 2nd edition, checks were made against ability scores rather than bonuses, having a 1 point difference in 2E was the same as having a 2 point difference in 3E, but only in matters best determined by the ability in question. Essentially, while having truly exception(and I mean mathematically exceptional) ability could influence combat and other specific features, for most people, your ability score was only important when performing actions directly related to that score rather than having a massive effect on all derivative activities like 3E onward does.

Effectively, a fighter with a high charisma and average strength is just as competent at his job as a fighter with above average strength and a below average wisdom. And even the brutishly strong have merely a moderate advantage in the area of combat. Boy can he lift a rock, though.

 

[Skyscraper]

I prefer a more important mechanical difference between a 7 and an 18 as per 3E/4E than a trivial difference in AD&D. Take STR for example: if you've ever arm-wrestled with friends, you know that the stronger one pretty much always win. A difference between any two persons, even if they both are in the 8-14 range, only makes sense. In AD&D, the mechanical difference in attack bonuses and damage only appeared as of 16 - to me it's less representative of what I think should occur, i.e. a more finely graduated STR evolution.

All other stats can be the same.

Plus... the infinitely improbable 18/00 STR in AD&D was, honestly, just irritating. Fighter players want such a nice score for their PC, being unable to obtain it in however many adventurers you roll up is just frustrating. In our case the end result is that DMs often hand-waved the roll and told players who wanted a relevant stat to just roll the percentile dice. Or, if they were really generous, they'd outright give away the 18/00.

The 1/20000 odds make no sense. Simply don't give that kind of carrot if you're not going to allow 19999 players to have it for each that gets it. This is a game, intended to be fun.

This being said, I agree that the 3-18 scale should be more represented in PCs. I think that the 10-18 range seen in recent editions (3E, 4E) is abused and I hope that we see more weaknesses (3-9 ability scores) in the future. I note that the monsters in the playtest seem to have lower ability scores than what we saw in 4E.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The bell curve is already in place with the base score; it doesn't need to be applied again to the bonus. It just looks linear when put in tabular form. The +4 bonus is low probability already simply by being associated with an 18 score. Unless you defeat the distribution with point buy, of course, but if you do that you'll defeat the bonus distribution you propose as well.

 

[keterys]

I think what I'd really like to see is hit rate divorced from stats - no matter how much of a bonus it is, as long as your chance to hit is involved people will game for the higher bonus. Take that off the table and other options open up.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I prefer a more important mechanical difference between a 7 and an 18 as per 3E/4E than a trivial difference in AD&D. Take STR for example: if you've ever arm-wrestled with friends, you know that the stronger one pretty much always win. A difference between any two persons, even if they both are in the 8-14 range, only makes sense. In AD&D, the mechanical difference in attack bonuses and damage only appeared as of 16 - to me it's less representative of what I think should occur, i.e. a more finely graduated STR evolution.

All other stats can be the same.

Plus... the infinitely improbable 18/00 STR in AD&D was, honestly, just irritating. Fighter players want such a nice score for their PC, being unable to obtain it in however many adventurers you roll up is just frustrating. In our case the end result is that DMs often hand-waved the roll and told players who wanted a relevant stat to just roll the percentile dice. Or, if they were really generous, they'd outright give away the 18/00.

The 1/20000 odds make no sense. Simply don't give that kind of carrot if you're not going to allow 19999 players to have it for each that gets it. This is a game, intended to be fun.

This being said, I agree that the 3-18 scale should be more represented in PCs. I think that the 10-18 range seen in recent editions (3E, 4E) is abused and I hope that we see more weaknesses (3-9 ability scores) in the future. I note that the monsters in the playtest seem to have lower ability scores than what we saw in 4E.

Why would you use attack rolls for arm wrestling? No attack is necessary; just do a contested strength check(and suddenly there is a difference, even in the 7-14 range). My point is that if you take away the importance of an ability score in relation to class features, you take away the drive for players to min max their characters scores towards class optimization, while also removing the current stigma that random ability generation has(can't say I blame people when a bad roll could leave you with 40% less chance of success than another character of the same level that got a good roll).

As far as carrots... Do you similarly get upset that your chances of rolling all 18s is about 1 in 100 trillion? Granted, I agree that the whole percentile thing was garbage, but not because of the probabilities; I just thought that it interrupted the flow of the chart. Exceptional in AD&D was meant to be the exception, not the norm. It was designed around a style of play meant more to resemble Band of Brothers than the Justice League(although magic, of course ruins that analogy). You were good at your job because you trained in it, and if you happened to be in the top 10% of your species, physically(or mentally, depending on the stat), you were a little bit better. The key being "a little bit."

What I would personally like to see is less common class effectiveness related bonuses and more granular ability related bonuses. For example: for class abilities, bonuses/penalties are:

3       ->   -2
4-5     ->   -1
6-15    ->   +0
16-17   ->   +1
18      ->   +2

The next step depends on how far you want to go in order to separate raw ability from skill. If you want raw ability checks(i.e. saving throws, the above arm wrestling example, breaking down a door, etc) to be on the same level as skill checks, you could just use the normal WotC bonus progression. Conversely, if you wanted every single point in an ability to matter for the purposes of raw checks(i.e. a tangible difference between having a 12 and a 13), you could leave skill checks as they are, but have raw ability checks simply be d20 + ability score.

With that system, and assuming that point buy systems make players pay a lot to get an 18 in an ability, you would have players less worried about getting every last bit of optimization for their class because the value just isn't there. Instead, the importance would be placed on what you wanted to be skilled at, and whether it is more important to you that your fighter be able to lift up a rock or to discern a pattern on the mythical Puzzle Stone.

And that, for me, is a win.

 

[Doug McCrae]

2e's bonuses/penalties for high/low attributes can be the same as, or even in many cases more extreme than, those in d20 D&D.

18 dexterity grants a +4 bonus to AC in both systems. 18 wisdom grants +4 to saving throws in both. A 2e cleric with 18 wisdom gets 6 bonus spells. A d20 cleric gets 4. 18 constitution grants +4 hit points in both systems. In 2e, 18 con allows a 99% chance to survive system shock, 7 con is only 55%, a 44% variation. 18 intelligence grants 7 bonus languages in 2e, only 4 in d20. Wizards in 2e get a lot more for high intelligence than they do in d20, for example an 18 int means an 85% chance to know spells, but it's just 35% for a 9 int, a 50% swing. The bonuses for high charisma are also massive, for example +7 reaction adjustment for an 18 charisma versus +0 at 12.