Ability scores - How intrinsic are they to D&D?

[dangerous jack]

I think I need the 6 ability scores for it to feel like D&D. But I totally support divorcing the potential to cause damage from a single high stat.

I can easily make an argument that hitting and causing damage in combat depends on my strength, agility, endurance, knowledge of tactics, perception of openings, and deception. Yet we accept that a fighter with 18 strength and 3 in everything else is more effective than a fighter with 14 in every stat (yes, a gross exaggeration). Personally, I want my D'Artagnan to be just as capable of dealing damage as my Conan.

But the ability scores still have obvious places to shine in the game:
Bending Bars? Strength. Conan should have an easier time than D'Artagnan.
Balancing on a tightrope? Dexterity. D'Artagnan should have an easier time than Conan.

 

[mmadsen]

I never cease to be puzzled by gamers who say words to the effect of, 'D&D would be so much better if it stopped being D&D!'

Pretty much everything that gamers ask for can be found in other roleplaying games, but some gamers insist that D&D be changed to fit their vision, rather than finding a game which already suits their needs.

Bizarre, and a little sad.

It's also bizarre and a little sad to go in the other direction and to take any suggestion for the next edition as an attack. "Go play GURPS!" or "Go play Rolemaster!" isn't productive either, especially since any game is a combination of so many different ideas and not any one rule.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I do too, but is the one true way to achieve this by rolling dice at character-creation? Or can we have a Fighter (tank) class and a Ranger (skirmisher) class?

There are endless ways to achieve. Personakly i find having core attributes seperate from your class allows for greater flexibility. But the key issue is, if you need to take out the core mechanics of D&D to enjoy it, should it be a different game. At a certain point the brand loses its meaning when you keep removing these components (even if tge end product is a solid game). I also suspect if you move further and further in this direction you will slowly whittle down your core audience to folks who just never cared much for D&D to begin with. It seems like we may be entering a cycle where the new edition is designed for people who had serious problems with the previous one.

 

[mmadsen]

Personally, I want my D'Artagnan to be just as capable of dealing damage as my Conan.

But the ability scores still have obvious places to shine in the game: Bending Bars? Strength. Conan should have an easier time than D'Artagnan. Balancing on a tightrope? Dexterity. D'Artagnan should have an easier time than Conan.

Bad example, because Conan is awesome at everything. He's strong as a bull and nimble as a mountain cat, with the stamina of a hungry wolf on the hunt, etc. Women want him, and men want to be him.

His player rolled all 18s, at home, when the DM wasn't around.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

This. Without Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con and Cha, it might be a great fantasy RPG, but it would not be Dungeons & Dragons.

+1

IIRC ability scores were the first thing I read in the first D&D book I read (Basic c. 1980) Nothing is more fundamental to the game.

They serve an important purpose too, as a kind of meta-skill, giving a hint as to how good you are at things the skill set doesn't explicitly cover.

My preference in a generic RPG is to skip the ability scores and just work with modifiers, e.g. Strength goes from -9 to 9 in my homebrew game system and is simply added to a roll without an intermediate step. But my preference in D&D will always be the original six ability scores..

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course you can play characters that aren't optimized. Is the game improved by having stats that you "should" optimize but don't?

IMHO, yes, because D&D is a roleplaying game, not a wargame. The ability to play a PC who is not a genius but who is still a Wizard is a fascinating role to play. Not everyone thinks so, clearly, but I also know from seeing the PCs of other players that I'm not alone in this.

Like I said upthread, I found those PCs to be very interesting. And they contributed to the party as much as anyone else, just not in expected ways.

 

[billd91]

Of course you can play characters that aren't optimized. Is the game improved by having stats that you "should" optimize but don't?

Yes. And I think putting the quotes around the "should" is important since it indicates that the imperative to optimize is really a question of taste. Really, it should be could.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've posted the poll I'd intended to start this thread with:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ll-ability-scores-how-intrinsic-they-d-d.html

I've requested that these two threads be merged.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes. And I think putting the quotes around the "should" is important since it indicates that the imperative to optimize is really a question of taste. Really, it should be could.

Yup!

mmadsen, if it helps, think of having the option of playing non-optimized PCs as being akin to having different modes of play in a computer game: God-mode is a different experience from Easy which is different from Normal which is different from Hard. All have their merits; all have their downsides. A game that has ONLY a Hard mode will be of limited appeal...just as one that is too easy.

 

[Greg K]

The ability to play a PC who is not a genius but who is still a Wizard is a fascinating role to play.

For example, Galen Bradwarden, the wizard's apprentice and protagonist, in Dragonslayer?