Ability damage,should it be in the game???

[Aenghus]

I'm not willing to tolerate ability damage mechanics with complex knock-on effects on PC and monster stats. This adds more of the sort of makework book-keeping that burned me out on 3.x. And simplifying the math and book-keeping is difficult to do without invalidating the entire concept.

I won't say it's a deal breaker, because it's the sort of thing I would automatically houserule away if included in core.

 

[Prickly]

It should be noted that the playtest rules' approach to ability drain (aligning with the goal of not having to add up lots of little bonuses and penalties all the time) is to simply give the victim disadvantage on all checks based on that ability score.

Hadn't noticed this.

Sounds pretty cool actually.

and you can do the reverse aswell. For instance Bull's Strength could give a flat bonus to melee damage and advantage on all strength checks.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ability damage was one of those 3e mechanics that read really well, but played incredibly poorly - because changing an ability score meant there was a cascade of changes right across the character sheet (and, worse, a 1-point reduction in the score might or might not have any effect), even very low-level effects weren't as easy to apply as they should be.

As I said, in 5e playtest rules it is already better...

5e is not really meant to be based on pre-calculation of stuff as 3e was.

For example you probably won't have to fill a long list of skills scores, but characters are just going to have one bonus or two at most to a skill, written under the "Class" and "Background" tabs. When there are no such things as ranks, synergies and other mods, then you effectively only have to sum 2 numbers (or 3 if you have a bonus to the same skill from both class and background, assuming they stack). Thus you don't pre-calculate skills, you just add ability mod + eventually your single bonus during the game.

Spells DC are always 10 + ability modifier, you don't even add spell level anymore.

IMHO, not only we don't need a skill list but there isn't even a need to have an entry for Initiative and spells DC on your character sheet anymore. In the case you have a special bonus on them, only then you mark it on your character sheet (just like you mark skill bonuses), because Init = Dex and spells DC = 10 + spellcasting ab. It's too easy to remember or calculate on the fly to even waste a line in the character sheet.

Saving throws are gone. Since they're just ability checks, all you need to know is your current ability score. Double the columns for ability scores/bonuses, one for full-health and the other for current value.

Even HP aren't that big deal because now it is the Constitution score applied once, not the Constitution bonus applied once per level, so if you're drained 5 points of Constitution, then it's -5 HP (although they could rule in 5e that HP are not even affected).

The only big problem left are attacks and damage (and to a lesser extent AC. This is indeed potentially a PITA in case you are drained in the ability you actually use, although once again the worst calculations of 3e are absent (like x1.5 Str bonus to damage).

I think that all this is far less complicated than in 3e...

But if they wanted to make it even simpler, they could just avoid ability damage/drain happen during combat. That's really when it hurts to make the calculations... But if they use ability damage/drain only for poisoned traps, disease, curses OR in case of monsters ability making the damage/drain trigger after a couple of minutes (thus presumably after the combat) then it's even easier.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not intimately familiar with various editions' character sheets, but how do you have enough space to keep a running total of a character's max hit points?

There's always room, or room can be made. (in fariness, it'd be a bit trickier once you've got into the mid-teens or higher in levels; I've never had a character get that high)

That said, I've never used the pre-printed character sheets for any edition; they never seem to put the information I need in places where I can easily find it.

But what else am I going to be using my erasers for.

Erasers are evil. Pencils are evil, for that matter, because their writings can be erased.

Some of the biggest arguments I've ever seen in games have been started by over-enthusiastic use of erasers. Pen-and-ink for the win!

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hadn't noticed this.

Sounds pretty cool actually.

and you can do the reverse aswell. For instance Bull's Strength could give a flat bonus to melee damage and advantage on all strength checks.

One advangate of Advantage/Disadvantage is that, thanks to the non-cumulative binary nature, disadvantage like this is never insurmountable, all you have to do is finagle advantage somehow, and you're back on an even keel. Of course, it's also a disadvantage of the same system that once you have both disadvantage and advantage in a persistent form, you're done, avoiding further disadvantage or seeking further advantage is pointless.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I like ability score damage, mainly because the only other damage in the game, hit points, is really boring. Unfortunately, after 30+ years, it's too late to get rid of hit points, D&D's brand identity is too much tied into it. But at least we can add something interesting even if we can't get rid of the boring stuff.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Because D&D Next is approaching everything as an ability check, ability damage should be far easier to manage. You don't have to recalculate everything on the sheet, just remember that your Dex rolls are a few points lower.

Also, ability damage feels more meaningful under this system, which appeals to me.

 

[1of3]

So, what's good about ability damage: It offers an alternate way to take out characters, offering variety. It can be used to represent impediments that are harder to cure.

What's bad: It requires instant recalculation of several game stats, which is a chore.


Now, I'd say you can have the good without the bad: A character is taken out, when an ability drops to 0, but the ability modifier is not recalculated instantly but only after 10 minutes. (Certain sources might offer different gestation periods.)

It even make sense in the fiction. Ability damage was often used for poison etc. and 3e made an extra effort represent poisons not working at once. By delaying the recalculation of modifiers you can represent the same thing in an even simpler way.

 

[Mercule]

It should be noted that the playtest rules' approach to ability drain (aligning with the goal of not having to add up lots of little bonuses and penalties all the time) is to simply give the victim disadvantage on all checks based on that ability score.

I think you may be correct. I will go on record as saying that, while I am a huge fan of the ad/disad mechanic, I find this usage to be extremely unsatisfying and a bit of a cop-out.

 

[Obryn]

I would normally say "it's okay in a module" but I had to pick "Nope" here. And here's why...

I don't like the fiddliness of ability score damage. I don't like stopping a game for 5 minutes, 20 minutes, or more to recalculate everyone's derived statistics. That goes with buffs, debuffs, polymorphs, dispels, and - yes - on-the-fly ability score changes. It may be an easier burden in Next, but I don't think ability score damage does much interesting stuff that an easier-to-track mechanism wouldn't.

I am going with "Nope" because in order for ability score damage to really work as a sub-system of the rules, the following needs to be true:

(1) It needs to be baked into monster statistics at a minimum. So a creature with poison would need to note that it does "X dex/str/whatever" damage from the outset of the system. Switching to an optional corebook for cross-referencing is probably not in the cards.

(2) Likewise, it needs to be baked into the spells, including some we'll almost certainly see early on like Feeblemind and Ray of Enfeeblement.

(3) It makes assumptions about how monsters are built that goes outside what I expect out of a simple monster-building system - namely that ability scores shouldn't directly affect a monster's stats. I don't want them built like a PC; that's an excess I've left behind.

So given all that, I don't think it works as an optional module. Maybe I'm wrong - and I hope so for all the people it's important to. But this isn't something like "fighter with powers" or "wizard with at-will spells" where a DM can easily flip a switch and allow/ban it. It needs to be a deeply-embedded part of the system, or it won't work at all.

My suggestion? I think it's easy enough, honestly. I don't need a paralytic poison to do Dex damage*. I want paralytic poison to, you know, paralyze people. And do damage, if necessary. Enfeebling effects? Change the attack/damage bonuses directly; don't bootstrap it off changing a Strength score.

I think it adds a ton of complication and doesn't give sufficient rewards for its use.

YMMV, of course.

-O


* Sidebar: And actually that makes no sense to me; dextrous people are not more resistant to poison by virtue of being dextrous.