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

[The Human Target]

But that introduces a further disconnect between out of combat and in combat. If you've got a character who's tripping over his feet and can barely lift his sword and armor, he shouldn't be totally effective at combat.

True enough.

But you can always say that your fighter is a bit clumsy (lower than average STR and DEx ability scores), but through pluck or luck can still get the job done when it counts (average combat ability.)

To be fair, I've always hated the "I wanna play a Wizard with a 10 INT!" kind of characters. D&D characters who aren't proficient at combat shouldn't be played. Its an action/adventure game after all.

 

[Jhaelen]

Are ability score of significant importance to D&D and, if so, how deeply rooted should they be in the mechanics? Or are they a sacred cow awaiting slaughter?

My vote is for the sacred cow. Over time their importance has dwindled to a point where they're really no longer relevant for anything except describing your character's appearance and mannerism.

It's definitely not something that defines D&D for me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But that introduces a further disconnect between out of combat and in combat. If you've got a character who's tripping over his feet and can barely lift his sword and armor, he shouldn't be totally effective at combat.

IMO, part of the problem is that ability scores don't do a great job of simulating reality as is. An 18 STR / 3 DEX fighter is just as good offensively as an 18 STR / 18 DEX fighter. If both fighters have virtually no chance to miss each other (as tend to be the case in high level 3.x IME), then those stat differences become meaningless. As an other example, there's very little effective difference between an 18 STR /18 DEX and 18 STR / 10 DEX fighter in 4e (because you don't get your Dex mod to AC if you wear heavy armor).

For this reason, if they divest ability scores from combat ability I'll consider it a wash. I have no issue saying that the strong fighter relies primarily on his brutishness whereas a less talented fighter had to train harder to reach the same effectiveness. One is stronger, the other is more skilled. Level becomes not a measure of skill, but rather overall effectiveness (which it really did start to become once level adjustments were introduced). Seems both fair and more balanced to me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

An 18 STR / 3 DEX fighter is just as good offensively as an 18 STR / 18 DEX fighter.

That's not entirely accurate.

The latter may or may not have a better AC, depending on how he's kitted, but he will definitely have an advantage over his bumbling counterpart with regards to initiative and the ability to soften up foes with ranged attacks before engaging. This could be especially important if the enemy in question plans never to close to melee range at all.

And if we're talking fights on certain kinds of difficult terrain where it's difficult to remain upright...

 

[Bedrockgames]

In 3e there were plenty of options for dex based fighters (including ways for dex to modify attack rolls). Personally I think strength being the big stat for attack and damage makes sense in most cases. But I can also see dex factoring into the to hit roll. Not a huge fan though of just letting any attribute be used ( using CHR to modify your attacks doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO). I can sort of see intelligence but I think that would impact tactics and not translate well into actual hitting power or precision. Can see something like wisdom factoring into dex as well.

Part of the problem with funneling two stats into a score is in most cases I feel you should be dependant on both, not one or the other. If the designers decide that both dex and str matter for to hit rolls, then having a low score in one should hold you back. I say average them or add both together. If you want an approach that factors in multiple attributes for a given action or score.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In 3e there were plenty of options for dex based fighters (including ways for dex to modify attack rolls).

... but only rarely damage rolls.

And, additionally, the weapons which allowed you to use your Dex bonus to attack were sub-par vs. the Str-based ones, including the realm of Power Attack effectiveness.

No, 3E (and PF) do not do Dex-based melee combatants well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

... but only rarely damage rolls.

And, additionally, the weapons which allowed you to use your Dex bonus to attack were sub-par vs. the Str-based ones, including the realm of Power Attack effectiveness.

No, 3E (and PF) do not do Dex-based melee combatants well.

Sure, but personally I find this restricted approach more believable so it satisfied me.

 

[Jhaelen]

No, 3E (and PF) do not do Dex-based melee combatants well.

I don'T know PF well enough but I disagree for 3e. The Tome of Battle included everything you needed to buid a Dex-based melee combatant that was just as effective as a Str-based one.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's not entirely accurate.

The latter may or may not have a better AC, depending on how he's kitted, but he will definitely have an advantage over his bumbling counterpart with regards to initiative and the ability to soften up foes with ranged attacks before engaging. This could be especially important if the enemy in question plans never to close to melee range at all.

And if we're talking fights on certain kinds of difficult terrain where it's difficult to remain upright...

That's all situational though. In a bog standard fight, there's little to no difference and that runs counter to my experience.

I've studied martial arts. I've sparred opponents who were on par with me strength-wise, but significantly faster than me (higher Dexterity). IME, it's a huge advantage, even leaving out defense. Someone with both speed and coordination can come at you with such a flurry of attacks that you're hard pressed to defend, much less counterattack.

It doesn't require being able to throw the first blow. It doesn't require a ranged weapon. It certainly doesn't require unusual terrain. It's simply a matter of having greater physical capabilities.

What it comes down to is that ability scores are not a good simulation of reality. They're a sim aspect of the game, but they're a poor one.

Wisdom covers willpower, common sense, and perception (among other things). Have you never met someone in the real world who had no common sense but was stubborn as an ox? Or who had good common sense but would walk into walls? Clearly then Wisdom is a gathering of traits that are, at best, loosely related.

I don't have an issue with you liking ability scores from a game play, traditionalist, or other perspective. Let's be realistic though; ability scores aren't realistic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's all situational though. In a bog standard fight, there's little to no difference and that runs counter to my experience.

Your experience and mine vary wildly, then.

In a bog standard fight, my high Dex characters will have better initiative, on average. That's just mechanics. And that translates into hitting more foes first, which means doing damage first, which means fewer foes to face doing damage to you & yours. IOW, you will be more effective at killing foes before they can hurt you or your allies than the low-Dex guy. That may only mean 1-3 rounds of combat duration's worth of difference, but it does matter.

In a bog standard fight, I will be using my PC's abilities as best I can, and for a Dex-based martial PC, that will include some form of ranged attack to gain an advantage in HP, battlefield control, or both. Why? Because playing a Str18 Dex18 guy the same way as a Str18 Dex3 guy doesn't make sense.