Ability Scores As Core

[Mercurius]

I haven't been able to keep up with all of the threads here, so I don't know if this has been discussed, but Mike Mearls dropped a pretty big hint about the new core of 5E way back in July of last year in Legends & Lore in which he discussed Abilities as "The Mechanical Core of D&D." Here is a relevant quote:

I’m going to make a crazy supposition here: If you go back to 1974 and look at the basic rules of D&D at that time, all of the basic, administrative stuff in the game had been solved via ability scores. Take those, add in 3E’s and 4E’s unified bonus progression, and your entire game engine has its foundation. Lots and lots of stuff that we take for granted—stuff that has been in the game since the beginning—does the same exact work as an ability score. The abilities are sitting on the bench, ready to shoulder the load, but we've never asked them to. The underlying reason is simple. Until D&D had its universal task resolution system, the game couldn’t use the abilities in this way.

"…and your entire game engine has its foundation." There you have it: Mike Mearls proclaiming what the mechanical core of 5E will be, the ability scores themselves.

And think about it for a moment. Let's say that ability scores aren't simply raw attributes, as they are often understood to be, but capacity in different areas of activity and ability (thus "abilities" rather than "attributes"). So, for example, Strength is not a measure of raw strength (that is, physical power) but how good a character is at doing strength-related tasks, that is raw strength in a specific context of activity. Some game designers through their systems have argued that attributes are useless statistics in and of themselves; there is no "strength" in a vacuum, only strength relative to related tasks.

One could argue, then, that ability scores could be done away with altogether, but that is only if they are raw attributes which I don't think they need to be. What if, instead, they were general categories that described different areas of activity or ability? They could then form the basis for everything a character can do, from skills to combat to magic to defenses. And they could also form a simple core from which more detail could be unpacked. For instance, the "Complexity Dial" could be turned to different settings:

- Ability Score (e.g. Strength)
- Skill Group (e.g. Athletics, Melee/Blades, Melee/Axes, etc)
- Skill Specialty (e.g. Climb Walls, longsword, great axe, etc)

This gives three basic complexity degrees. The second and third degrees are derived from taking the first degree and "unpacking it", which further modifications possible through modular options like "skill talents", "skill ranks," feats, and other special traits.

If one wanted to "dial it up" from the simple core game in which all skills and character capacities are reduced to the six ability scores, there could be a standard modifier (to that ability) that is traded in for modular options. In other words, when creating and developing a character, the player can either take the "default mod"--sort of like the standard deduction in taxes--or they can customize their characters through feats, talents, etc.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

In a way, this has been the case for the entire life of the d20 system, we've just never looked at it that way. The mechanics talk about:

Ability Checks: d20 + Ability Modifier
Skill Checks: d20 + Ranks + Ability Modifier
Attacks: d20 + BAB + Ability Modifier
Saves: d20 + Save Bonus + Ability Modifer

But, the math is identical if you look at all of them as:

d20 + Ability Modifier + Proficiency

But the character sheet never looked that way. That is, until D&D Essentials. Take a look at the Essentials Character Sheet.

The only real change Mearls discusses is the idea that an ability check can function directly as a saving throw, and that the ability score can function as a defense DC. It's the best of both the Third and Fourth edition concepts, but instead of three saves and defenses, there are six, and they don't need special names.

It's brilliantly simple, and I'm surprised it took this long to see it.

 

[WheresMyD20]

The only real chance Mearls discusses is the idea that an ability check can function directly as a saving throw, and that the ability score can function as a defense DC. It's the best of both the Third and Fourth edition concepts, but instead of three saves and defenses, there are six, and they don't need special names.

It's brilliantly simple, and I'm surprised it took this long to see it.

I think this idea originated in Castles & Crusades. In that system, you roll Ability Score Mod + Level for all of your saving throws and the types of throws are the six ability scores (Str Save, Int Save, etc.)

 

[howandwhy99]

This has been mentioned a few times in this forum before. I agree. I believe the simple core game will be using Ability scores as a mixed skill check / defense rating system and then AC & HP will provide more of a light, attrition-based combat system.

To play devil's advocate here for a moment for this model. Why have 6 ability scores at all? Why tie together a 3-18 defense score to what amounts to a vary separate ability: the ability modifier?

This is the TWERPS test really. I get the d20 system is d20 +/- a modifier vs. a static defense number. But, if the question is why have the previous version of the game not done this before, why have they had divided systems, then we need to answer the same question for "Why have 6 separate scores" as well as "Why tie these scores, one derivative or the other, to each other?"

I think separate system allowed greater variety in terms of results and less uniformity during game play. Is that what the core game needs? I don't think so, but if the suppositions of the previous posters are accurate, then will "advanced", greater complexity add-ons simply be growing modifier types onto these rolls as Essentials demonstrates is possible?

I hope not. I hope there are add-on systems intact in their own right to allow for greater customization when players opt for greater complexity. The drawback is, of course, that playing varying complexities at the same game table becomes unbalanced, not to mention unwieldy.

That aspiration is pretty awesome, that fundamentally different play styles of different player's desires can be satisfied by a single game at a single table in a single campaign. A potential problem may be though that they are losing customization for campaign-level changes due to this uniformity. I guess we'll see what they are aiming at in the end.

I liked reading the systems theory design blog entry posted here a few days ago. Can't remember the link, but I have a feeling Wizards will be going a definite different route, that hey already have their design in place and playtesting won't be changing that core.

 

[SlyDoubt]

I skimmed your post but didn't you basically describe the alternity system.

 

[TerraDave]

I think we have gotten plenty of hints that this is the direction things are going...though, on the whole raw talent thing...they can still be that if there is a standard level based bonus.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think you can do this, and frankly, don't need six scores -- three will do. But then, a lot of game systems already do this, and the six attributes are one of D&D's core identities.

 

[DonTadow]

This has been mentioned a few times in this forum before. I agree. I believe the simple core game will be using Ability scores as a mixed skill check / defense rating system and then AC & HP will provide more of a light, attrition-based combat system.

To play devil's advocate here for a moment for this model. Why have 6 ability scores at all? Why tie together a 3-18 defense score to what amounts to a vary separate ability: the ability modifier?

This is the TWERPS test really. I get the d20 system is d20 +/- a modifier vs. a static defense number. But, if the question is why have the previous version of the game not done this before, why have they had divided systems, then we need to answer the same question for "Why have 6 separate scores" as well as "Why tie these scores, one derivative or the other, to each other?"

I think separate system allowed greater variety in terms of results and less uniformity during game play. Is that what the core game needs? I don't think so, but if the suppositions of the previous posters are accurate, then will "advanced", greater complexity add-ons simply be growing modifier types onto these rolls as Essentials demonstrates is possible?

I hope not. I hope there are add-on systems intact in their own right to allow for greater customization when players opt for greater complexity. The drawback is, of course, that playing varying complexities at the same game table becomes unbalanced, not to mention unwieldy.

That aspiration is pretty awesome, that fundamentally different play styles of different player's desires can be satisfied by a single game at a single table in a single campaign. A potential problem may be though that they are losing customization for campaign-level changes due to this uniformity. I guess we'll see what they are aiming at in the end.

I liked reading the systems theory design blog entry posted here a few days ago. Can't remember the link, but I have a feeling Wizards will be going a definite different route, that hey already have their design in place and playtesting won't be changing that core.

Because I think less than 6 pours the game too far into simluation terrortary, far more than it is. Even the simplist systems I know have at least 4.
I think it would be cool if they add a 7th, if only to add a new WTF for us to talk about.

 

[Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn]

Because I think less than 6 pours the game too far into simluation terrortary, far more than it is. Even the simplist systems I know have at least 4.
I think it would be cool if they add a 7th, if only to add a new WTF for us to talk about.

I'm all for splitting Charisma again and bringing back Comeliness.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What purpose should comeliness serve?
Why should someone assign attributes just to be handsome? This will only bring back very ugly fighters and mages.

Charisma now in 4e actually does enough to be considered when creating a character. Even in 3rd edition it was no stat to dump as a fighter:
want to be intimidating: be charismatic.
Don´t want to be being bullied around with "charm person", a level 1 spell: be charismatic!