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

[Bedrockgames]

That is kind of an odd thing to say. The only truly 100% indespensible elements to the game of Dungeons & Dragons are dungeons and dragons. They are right there in the name. If you do not have them, then it can only be taken as an indication that someone has failed their Knowledge (Taxonomy) check.

But you could have several campaigns that have neither dungeons nor dragons, and still be playing D&D. I don't think these are an essential feature of the game. To use coca cola aggain as an example, it no longer contains spent coca leaf, but it is still coke.

 

[Kaodi]

But you could have several campaigns that have neither dungeons nor dragons, and still be playing D&D. I don't think these are an essential feature of the game. To use coca cola aggain as an example, it no longer contains spent coca leaf, but it is still coke.

I can also bring counter-examples, . You do not need be racing to be driving a race car. The essential feature of a race car is that it is a car built for racing.

Also, Coca Cola is an example that can go both ways. Your argument focuses on the " Coca " part of the name. But if you focus on the " Cola " part of the name, I can point out that if tomorrow the drink packaged as Coca Cola was clear, uncarbonated, and tasted like vinger, it would not in fact be cola.

In fact, I will say that the six attributes are the " coca " and the dungeons and dragons are the " cola " . The first is the modifier, the second is the real thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In the case of coke, kola nut isn't a primary flavor ingredient anymore. But these are just examples. Some examples will have names that reflect what they are others won't.

The point is we shouldn't confuse a thing's name with its definition. In the case of d&d i don't think the name reflects the essence of the game--- it reflects prominent features. I would argue that attributes, classes, and the fantasy setting are much more essential to D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sorry, but attributes are far more essential to D&D than dungeons or dragons. I've seen many a game without those, and not a one without attributes.

 

[Gargoyle]

I think D&D needs ability scores, but perhaps not with the granularity that we've always had.

All I really need is to know whether my character is weak, average, strong or very strong in a particular ability. I'm not familiar with systems that just use the bonuses or penalties, but I think that's all D&D needs.

-1, +0, +1, +2, +3, +4 would probably be enough instead of the 3 to 18 range which has evolved (or devolved, depending on your point of view) to the de facto 8 to 20 that exists only for the purpose of looking up the modifier.

Saying "I have a +4 Strength" might not sound as good as saying "I have a 20 Strength" but they are both just numbers, and I could get used to it.

The other issue with ability scores is that attack powers depend on them so much that they have too much weight. That's a problem because it sometimes is fun to play a smart fighter or a wizard who isn't a genius. There needs to be some ways to build those types of characters without hamstringing your group. The current implementation of ability scores impedes role playing rather than enhancing it. But I'm sure it can be fixed.

 

[The Human Target]

I think D&D needs ability scores, but perhaps not with the granularity that we've always had.

All I really need is to know whether my character is weak, average, strong or very strong in a particular ability. I'm not familiar with systems that just use the bonuses or penalties, but I think that's all D&D needs.

-1, +0, +1, +2, +3, +4 would probably be enough instead of the 3 to 18 range which has evolved (or devolved, depending on your point of view) to the de facto 8 to 20 that exists only for the purpose of looking up the modifier.

Saying "I have a +4 Strength" might not sound as good as saying "I have a 20 Strength" but they are both just numbers, and I could get used to it.

The other issue with ability scores is that attack powers depend on them so much that they have too much weight. That's a problem because it sometimes is fun to play a smart fighter or a wizard who isn't a genius. There needs to be some ways to build those types of characters without hamstringing your group. The current implementation of ability scores impedes role playing rather than enhancing it. But I'm sure it can be fixed.

I'm all for completely removing ability scores having anything to do with attack, damage, hit points, defenses, etc.

Then you can play a smart fighter whos not the strongest person in the world while having him stay totally effective at combat.

 

[Mark CMG]

The only truly 100% indespensible elements to the game of Dungeons & Dragons are dungeons and dragons. They are right there in the name. If you do not have them, then it can only be taken as an indication that someone has failed their Knowledge (Taxonomy) check.

Sorry, but attributes are far more essential to D&D than dungeons or dragons. I've seen many a game without those, and not a one without attributes.

Get some sleep, DA.

 

[Kaodi]

Sorry, but attributes are far more essential to D&D than dungeons or dragons. I've seen many a game without those, and not a one without attributes.

The same can be said for plenty of mechanics that have fallen by the wayside. I would not be surprised that if you " added up the game sessions " , you would still find that more games have used THAC0 or weapon speeds or non weapon proficiencies than have used dungeons or dragons. But dungeons and dragons survived, and those mechanics did not.

 

[Mark CMG]

The same can be said for plenty of mechanics that have fallen by the wayside. I would not be surprised that if you " added up the game sessions " , you would still find that more games have used THAC0 or weapon speeds or non weapon proficiencies than have used dungeons or dragons. But dungeons and dragons survived, and those mechanics did not.

I realize you were making a point but I believed that you were also kidding, specifically regarding "dungeons" and "dragons." Am I the one who needs sleep? How will sleep work in 5E?

 

[am181d]

My perspective is that the creators of D&D sort of stumbled into ideas that weren't originally well thought out or well formed initially. The subsequent editions have done a good job of finding the core of those ideas.

An obvious example: they didn't work out the difference between a race and a class until AD&D. This is less a rules INVENTION in AD&D than taking something that was half-formed in Basic and better realizing it. Another example: The 1d20 + mod vs. DC mechanic, which I feel has always sort of been waiting there to be found. A third: reversing AC from 10 to -10 to 10+ is an example of a change that took pre-exisitng mechanics and switched them around to make them work in a cleaner, more useful way. A fourth: replacing the arbitrary PPDM, etc. saves with F/R/W. The list goes on...

Ultimately, there's still room to grow. For instance, it seems to me like ability bonuses and F/R/W save bonuses take up more or less the same space. And ability bonuses and BAB take up more or less the same space. I'd be open to removing those concepts (F/R/W, BAB) and replacing them with straight ability bonuses or ability bonus boosts.

I'd also be open to replacing the 3 to 18 with range with straight bonuses, although I think there's something to the Star Wars approach of Wounds + Vitality that sort of hinges on a Con in the 10-20 range.

And this is my most radical thought: I'm not sure that the six ability scores are actually broken out correctly. Str/Dex/Con makes sense, but it seems like Int/Wis/Cha have too much overlap, particularly as they've been fleshed out in later editions. I'd be all for replacing those three stats with Knowledge/Observation/Personality or something like that, so that those distinctions are more clear.

I would be opposed to completely changing the central mechanics of Dungeons & Dragons, but I'm all for evolving them closer to their Platonic ideal, and I feel like we have a long way to go in that regard. To the extent that I am uncomfortable with some of the changes in 4e, it's that I feel like a lot of the changes that were made *weren't* refinements, but in fact were changing the style of play into something that was less true to the game's roots...