eriktheguy
First Post
Hello all. I want to ask the community today what they think about D&D's ability score system, which parts are needed, and which are not. The point I am trying to make here is that in our current system there is no need to track ability scores below 10, and that a system which started at 0 would be more intuitive. The following blurb is a little history lesson dating from 2nd edition to the present on how ability scores were first used in the game, and how they got where they are today. Feel free to skip it over if you already know this stuff.
---Blurb begins---
Since 2nd edition, dungeons and dragons has used the same 6 ability scores we use today, Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha. Originally every ability score your character had was a number ranging from 3-18. You determined each score by rolling 3d6 (or 4d6 and dropping the lowest die). This resulted in far more varied characters than our present edition, but was less effective in terms of balance (opinion). When you tried to do something difficult, ability checks were used instead of skills. If you tried to climb a rope, that was based off dexterity, so you made a dexterity check. You would roll a d20 and hope to roll your dexterity score or lower. With racial modifiers (+/-1) your score would range from 2 to 19, so you could always fail on a 20 or succeed on a 1.
Rather than ability modifiers (i. e. 14 Str is a +2 Str modifier) there was a reference chart for each ability score. If you had 18 Str, you looked it up on the chart, and saw that you gained +1 to hit with melee attacks, and +2 damage. Dex improved AC and ranged attacks, Wis gave clerics bonus spells, Cha determined your maximum number of followers etc. Bear in mind the reason that ability scores were distributed from 2 to 19 was so that they would work with the d20 mechanic.
3rd edition came out in 2000 (about 11 years after 2nd) and completely revolutionized the system. Many numbers were more intuitive now. Third edition was the first to use an attack bonus score and armor class score that counted up instead of down. It was also scrapped 2nd editions messy saving throw system in favor of a more intuitive Fort, Ref, Will system. This was the first edition with ability score modifiers. 14 Str carried a +2 modifier, and granted +2 to all Str related rolls. Attack rolls, saving throws and the new skill checks used the super new universal mechanic. Roll a d20, add your bonus, try to reach a target score. You applied your Con mod to Fort, your Dex mod to Ref, and your Wis mod to Will. 3rd edition used ability score rolling (roll 4d6, take the best 3) as the default character creation method, but also introduced a rudimentary optional point buy system. Many characters still had ability scores below 10, but having scores range from 2-19 was no longer necessary because of the new mechanic.
While 3rd edition managed to simplify the game greatly (say "THAC0" in a room of gaming veterans if you want to see what I mean), it was nothing compared to the massive overhaul that was 4e in 2008. 4th edition boiled away almost all the unnecessary fat, simplifying character creation, combat, and skills to a level that made the game far more accessible to new players and improved balance drastically (opinion). Now the default method for character creation was point buy, and players were warned to check with the DM before rolling stats, since many DMs would not allow it. This made for less variance in player ability scores, so that you would not be starting the campaign with three 18's or three 5's. Every ability score started at 10 (no modifier) and could be increased. No more than one ability score could be below 10, you could lower it to 9 or 8 to get a few more points. Additionally, Fort, Ref, Will (which are now defenses instead of saving throws, but work about the same way) can get boosted by one of two stats: Fort by Str or Con, Ref by Dex or Int, Will by Wis or Cha. This system allowed players whose main stats were not Str, Dex or Wis to have decent defense scores. Finally, every class now used its main ability score for its attacks instead of a secondary one. (Rogues in 2e and 3e for example, attacked with Str).
---Blurb Ends---
The important difference here is that there are effectively no more negative ability modifiers in D&D. You can have one stat with a negative ability modifier, but it does not affect your defenses, because you have another ability with a neutral or positive modifier to boost that defense, and it does not effect attacks, because the scores you use to attack are all high. The only thing a negative modifier applies to are a handful of skills that you rarely use compared to your good skills. You no longer get ability score penalties from enemy attacks that drain energy like you did in 2e and 3e, so there are really very few opportunities to see a -1 added to your checks.
There are very few negatives in 4e at all for that matter. For example, in older editions you got penalties for attack with non-proficient weapons. Today you get no modifier for attacking with non-proficient weapons, and a bonus if you are proficient. This new system works, and it is simpler.
So what is the point of allowing the characters to take an 8 to increase their other scores slightly. It is an option that every optimized build uses (lower a score that affects nothing, to increase one that affects something). We may as well just give them the extra points but keep every skill at 10. Get rid of negative numbers that confuse new players and are almost never used.
And since no skills go lower than 10, what is the point of starting at 10? A system that starts at 0 would be easier to learn. Since we no longer roll a d20 for 'dexterity checks', the old system where 10 is average is not necessary. The entire skeleton of the current ability score system is built to support a play mechanic that is not even used anymore. It's entirely vestigial.
One place where ability scores do go below 10 is in the monster manual, where monsters ability scores are listed. My opinion is that ability scores are unimportant for monsters. All vital information can be gained from their combat statistics and their descriptions, and maybe a mention of how intelligent they are ('animal', 'low', 'normal', or 'high' would be enough).
So what do you think? When 5e (internet only) edition comes out (and we are all living in magic technodomes on the moon), should we scrap our legacy ability score system in favor of one that starts at 0?
---Blurb begins---
Since 2nd edition, dungeons and dragons has used the same 6 ability scores we use today, Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha. Originally every ability score your character had was a number ranging from 3-18. You determined each score by rolling 3d6 (or 4d6 and dropping the lowest die). This resulted in far more varied characters than our present edition, but was less effective in terms of balance (opinion). When you tried to do something difficult, ability checks were used instead of skills. If you tried to climb a rope, that was based off dexterity, so you made a dexterity check. You would roll a d20 and hope to roll your dexterity score or lower. With racial modifiers (+/-1) your score would range from 2 to 19, so you could always fail on a 20 or succeed on a 1.
Rather than ability modifiers (i. e. 14 Str is a +2 Str modifier) there was a reference chart for each ability score. If you had 18 Str, you looked it up on the chart, and saw that you gained +1 to hit with melee attacks, and +2 damage. Dex improved AC and ranged attacks, Wis gave clerics bonus spells, Cha determined your maximum number of followers etc. Bear in mind the reason that ability scores were distributed from 2 to 19 was so that they would work with the d20 mechanic.
3rd edition came out in 2000 (about 11 years after 2nd) and completely revolutionized the system. Many numbers were more intuitive now. Third edition was the first to use an attack bonus score and armor class score that counted up instead of down. It was also scrapped 2nd editions messy saving throw system in favor of a more intuitive Fort, Ref, Will system. This was the first edition with ability score modifiers. 14 Str carried a +2 modifier, and granted +2 to all Str related rolls. Attack rolls, saving throws and the new skill checks used the super new universal mechanic. Roll a d20, add your bonus, try to reach a target score. You applied your Con mod to Fort, your Dex mod to Ref, and your Wis mod to Will. 3rd edition used ability score rolling (roll 4d6, take the best 3) as the default character creation method, but also introduced a rudimentary optional point buy system. Many characters still had ability scores below 10, but having scores range from 2-19 was no longer necessary because of the new mechanic.
While 3rd edition managed to simplify the game greatly (say "THAC0" in a room of gaming veterans if you want to see what I mean), it was nothing compared to the massive overhaul that was 4e in 2008. 4th edition boiled away almost all the unnecessary fat, simplifying character creation, combat, and skills to a level that made the game far more accessible to new players and improved balance drastically (opinion). Now the default method for character creation was point buy, and players were warned to check with the DM before rolling stats, since many DMs would not allow it. This made for less variance in player ability scores, so that you would not be starting the campaign with three 18's or three 5's. Every ability score started at 10 (no modifier) and could be increased. No more than one ability score could be below 10, you could lower it to 9 or 8 to get a few more points. Additionally, Fort, Ref, Will (which are now defenses instead of saving throws, but work about the same way) can get boosted by one of two stats: Fort by Str or Con, Ref by Dex or Int, Will by Wis or Cha. This system allowed players whose main stats were not Str, Dex or Wis to have decent defense scores. Finally, every class now used its main ability score for its attacks instead of a secondary one. (Rogues in 2e and 3e for example, attacked with Str).
---Blurb Ends---
The important difference here is that there are effectively no more negative ability modifiers in D&D. You can have one stat with a negative ability modifier, but it does not affect your defenses, because you have another ability with a neutral or positive modifier to boost that defense, and it does not effect attacks, because the scores you use to attack are all high. The only thing a negative modifier applies to are a handful of skills that you rarely use compared to your good skills. You no longer get ability score penalties from enemy attacks that drain energy like you did in 2e and 3e, so there are really very few opportunities to see a -1 added to your checks.
There are very few negatives in 4e at all for that matter. For example, in older editions you got penalties for attack with non-proficient weapons. Today you get no modifier for attacking with non-proficient weapons, and a bonus if you are proficient. This new system works, and it is simpler.
So what is the point of allowing the characters to take an 8 to increase their other scores slightly. It is an option that every optimized build uses (lower a score that affects nothing, to increase one that affects something). We may as well just give them the extra points but keep every skill at 10. Get rid of negative numbers that confuse new players and are almost never used.
And since no skills go lower than 10, what is the point of starting at 10? A system that starts at 0 would be easier to learn. Since we no longer roll a d20 for 'dexterity checks', the old system where 10 is average is not necessary. The entire skeleton of the current ability score system is built to support a play mechanic that is not even used anymore. It's entirely vestigial.
One place where ability scores do go below 10 is in the monster manual, where monsters ability scores are listed. My opinion is that ability scores are unimportant for monsters. All vital information can be gained from their combat statistics and their descriptions, and maybe a mention of how intelligent they are ('animal', 'low', 'normal', or 'high' would be enough).
So what do you think? When 5e (internet only) edition comes out (and we are all living in magic technodomes on the moon), should we scrap our legacy ability score system in favor of one that starts at 0?
