Ability Scores As Core

[Zaukrie]

I hope so, because that makes it more likely that people won't dump as much, and that there will be reasons to have reasonable scores in all areas. Of course, there is no logical reason for me to want this, I just do.

 

[Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn]

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!

I think of charisma as simply personal magnetism. Now beauty as a concept is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent but there's a lot of commonality in what many people consider beautiful or handsome (take a look at the magazine rack; many magazines focusing on the body wouldn't be around if there weren't some general 'rules' about what is what is not beautiful).

Take, for example, your average successful populist politician or motivational speaker. They may not be handsome or beautiful but their way with words, their rhetoric or even intensity can influence successfully thousands even millions of people. Good looks might help and certainly cannot hurt but they are not essential. That's the power of personal magnetism--charisma. There have been plenty, plenty of ugly dictators who somehow manage to secure power and enthrall masses to support them and their regimes.

Comeliness is simply the degree to which one is handsome or beautiful. It acts to bolster Charisma much in the same way Wisdom does Intelligence or Constitution (and perhaps Dexterity) do Strength. But it's a different creature altogether from personal magnetism. You can be beautiful but have all the charisma of a burst of flatulence (Megan Fox comes to mind; gorgeous but uninspiring to say the least, save simply in the visually stimulating sense).

I find Comeliness particularly useful when considering Bards or tricky variants of Rogues (diplomats or swashbuckers, perhaps).

It's not going to happen, I know, but I instinctively understood what Gygax was doing when he dropped it into Unearthed Arcana. It made perfect sense to me.

 

[Umbran]

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.

You could just have Physical, Mental, Spiritual, yes. But, there are reasons not to.

As you mention, is the sacred cow aspect of having six. it is more than just aesthetics this time around, though - while you can probably do an acceptable OD&D variant with 3 stats, I think you'll find it harder to emulate the granularity that folks want out of a 3e or 4e style with only 3 stats. And I think number of stats is one thing you probably don't want to vary with system modules.

I addition, while they probably want to simplify the core, there's a sort of... minimum level of complexity. It comes down to combinatorics, really. The number of different "shapes" you get out of 6 stats is much greater than what you can see 3 stats. There just so many more ways to hook things together with six than with three.

 

[Aramax]

At its core -Why do we need a level modifier? DCs just stay the same,why this endless more mods higher DC merry-go-round?

 

[Frostmarrow]

I like to have three offensive scores

Str
Int
Cha

And three defensive ones

Con
Dex
Wis

 

[trancejeremy]

I just don't think 3 or really even 6 can really sum up a person that well.

For instance, I have great reflexes but terrible manual dexterity. I have little stamina (and get sick easily) but am tough physically. I'm good at puzzling things out but have a terrible memory.

Comeliness is another great example - physical beauty compared to personality.

That's one of the things I actually liked about 2e's Skills & Powers - it basically had 12 stats. That's more like it, though I didn't like how they split them up. Star Frontiers probably had the best list of ability scores.

 

[Bobbum Man]

I just don't think 3 or really even 6 can really sum up a person that well.

For instance, I have great reflexes but terrible manual dexterity. I have little stamina (and get sick easily) but am tough physically. I'm good at puzzling things out but have a terrible memory.

If characters in D&D Next are defined primarily by race, class and ability scores, then I would agree that the classic 6, while not comprehensive, is probably the minimum that the game needs.

More than 6 however, and the game starts to feel a little bit cumbersome and overburdened, IMO.

Comeliness is another great example - physical beauty compared to personality.

Yeah...but what does comeliness actually DO? In what circumstances would you roll comeliness as opposed to charisma? Does a characters level of physical attractiveness really need to be quantified mechanically?

I could see a far stronger argument for Perception and Subterfuge being added to the list of base ability scores (in lieu of an actual skill system in core).

 

[Bobbum Man]

In regards to the ability scores as core idea, I have one major problem with the idea that Mearls posted on this blog:

So what he proposes is that ones ability score act as both modifier AND defense target number.

Okay...so in this scenario you have two Giants (STR 24) getting into a shoving match. In order for one Giant to successfully bull rush the other, he needs to roll against the target's STR score: 24.

The ability modifier for 24 is +7. This means that in order for the giant to bullrush a target of equivalent size and strength, it needs to roll a 17 or better, meaning that it only has a 20% chance of succeeding.

Of course, this problem could be solved by changing the way ability scores work...by either getting rid of the 3-18 scale and expressing abilities as straight numeric bonuses (ala true 20 and Dragon Age) OR by granting +1 for every point above 10 (16 STR = +6 ability bbonus).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe granting +1 for every point above ten seems like a good idea... but this would make characters very unbalanced ability wise..

it may be better to make a passive and an active score:

attack: d20+modifier agains 10+modifier

and the modifier should not be +1/2 levels, but rather like the srength score in ADnD

Going up slightly in the normal human reachable range of 3-18. And then going up faster.
Or just make Giants really strong:

Str 24 would be quite lousy for a giant IMHO when humans can reach 18 easily.
It was ok in ADnD, because usually humans didn´t roll an 18, and when they did, they stil did not usually roll a really high number on the extraorsinary strength table. So while it was possible to have a human that was near giant strength, it was a 1 in 21600 chance to get 18/00, if you rolled 3d6 top to bottom.

If DnDn uses 3.5 style modfiers, i hope, that you don´t go over 18 and Giants have scores of 30+ at least. This way, you have a quite good relationship between stats and plausibility.

 

[Bobbum Man]

it may be better to make a passive and an active score:

attack: d20+modifier agains 10+modifier

and the modifier should not be +1/2 levels, but rather like the srength score in ADnD

Going up slightly in the normal human reachable range of 3-18. And then going up faster.
Or just make Giants really strong:

Str 24 would be quite lousy for a giant IMHO when humans can reach 18 easily.
It was ok in ADnD, because usually humans didn´t roll an 18, and when they did, they stil did not usually roll a really high number on the extraorsinary strength table. So while it was possible to have a human that was near giant strength, it was a 1 in 21600 chance to get 18/00, if you rolled 3d6 top to bottom.

If DnDn uses 3.5 style modfiers, i hope, that you don´t go over 18 and Giants have scores of 30+ at least. This way, you have a quite good relationship between stats and plausibility.

You know...try as I might...I just can't seem to find any problem with an epic level fighter being as strong as a giant. I really can't.

That said, I think that the best way top differentiate between humans and giants is in the size rules rather than in STR progression, 3rd edition style.