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

[Janx]

Yeah- since you're a black belt, I'd probably have to kick you (and the referee) in the nuts as we did the introductory bow to win.

and thus it is demonstrated how one whom the odds favor is taken out.

On the other hand, if there's a ref, there's a cup.

I had one student who got balled at 3 different events because he lost his cup and was too dumb to replace it. Luckily, that was a self correcting problem for humanity...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

and thus it is demonstrated how one whom the odds favor is taken out.

That...but even better is Snake Pliskin's trick.

I had one student who got balled at 3 different events because he lost his cup and was too dumb to replace it.

Maybe he was working on building up calluses.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Of course you'd take the pill if it was to cure a life-threatening disease. If the disease has a 90% chance to kill you and the pill only has a 17% chance to kill you, the pill is clearly the better option.

Let's say for argument's sake that immortality is something that appeals to you. This pill has an 83% chance to freeze your aging process, but a 17% chance to permanently kill you. Would you take the pill? If so, would you take it when you were 25 or would you wait til you were 50? After all, if you take the pill at 25, you have a lot more to gain (eternal health and youth) but also much more to lose (the remaining years of your life).

I never said that Limpy was favored to win. I've admitted since the beginning that the odds favor Dexter. Was I unclear about that in some way, because otherwise I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention it?

I don't think Limpy having a 1 in 5 chance of getting the draw on Dexter is sensible. Given the option, I'd much rather play Brawny against Puny, than Dexter against Limpy. I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect that Brawny has significantly better odds of success than Dexter. What I've been pointing out, using Dexterity as but an example, is that the ability score mechanic (or some equivalent thereof) has room for improvement.

If your point is that you feel that ability scores are good enough even if they aren't perfect, fair enough. (Obviously, I feel they aren't good enough.) While I'm willing to debate the matter, I'm certainly not saying that you're forbidden to believe otherwise.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Let's say for argument's sake that immortality is something that appeals to you. This pill has an 83% chance to freeze your aging process, but a 17% chance to permanently kill you.

If that were my best option? I'd take it.

I don't think Limpy having a 1 in 5 chance of getting the draw on Dexter is sensible.

Again, though, its about as good as the game gets, considering that it does not use actual percentiles. The game's mechanics are "chunky"- there isn't as smooth a curve as there could be since the D20 goes up in 5% increments, while D% goes up in 1% increments.

Given the option, I'd much rather play Brawny against Puny, than Dexter against Limpy. I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect that Brawny has significantly better odds of success than Dexter.

Nobody disagreed with that.

What people disagreed with was "There is no significant difference between a Str18 Dex18 fighter and a Str18 Dex3 fighter."

What I've been pointing out, using Dexterity as but an example, is that the ability score mechanic (or some equivalent thereof) has room for improvement.

If your point is that you feel that ability scores are good enough even if they aren't perfect, fair enough.

Given their mechanical context, I think changing the ability scores (to smooth things out, for instance) would lead to a cascade of other mechanical changes that would be necessitated by that change.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If that were my best option? I'd take it.

You missed the most important part of that question, which was "at what age would you take the pill"? Let's assume that this pill is indeed your best option for immortality, but keep in mind that it only stops the aging process. If you take it when you're young you'll be young forever, however you risk dying before you've truly lived. If you take it when you're old you'll no longer risk those experiences, but now you'll have to suffer the infermities of old age for the rest of time. It's a metric by which to measure your risk vs reward mechanism. Would you risk a lot for a big potential payoff, or play it safe for a lesser potential reward.

Again, though, its about as good as the game gets, considering that it does not use actual percentiles. The game's mechanics are "chunky"- there isn't as smooth a curve as there could be since the D20 goes up in 5% increments, while D% goes up in 1% increments.

Actually, if Limpy can only succeed on a natural 20, the odds become 1 in 40. Hence, without even considering that Dexter might win the tie if he also rolls a 20, the odds can go as low as 2.5%. I'm not generally a fan of them, but opposed rolls do add a bit more "nuance" to system probability.

Nobody disagreed with that.

What people disagreed with was "There is no significant difference between a Str18 Dex18 fighter and a Str18 Dex3 fighter."

Fair enough. Consider my previous statement rescinded; I proffer in its place that I don't think the difference between a S18 D18 fighter and a S18 D3 fighter is sufficiently significant.

Given their mechanical context, I think changing the ability scores (to smooth things out, for instance) would lead to a cascade of other mechanical changes that would be necessitated by that change.

I agree. However, if the designers are ruminating on 5e I suspect they're at least thinking about the possibility of a major overhaul of the system. I don't claim to know what level of changes they will end up making, but I think they would be remiss if they didn't at least consider the idea of a redesign. Should they move in that direction, changing ability scores would be a perfectly legitimate starting point, I think.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You missed the most important part of that question, which was "at what age would you take the pill"?

At any age between 21 and 35 it would be a no brainer for me (assuming I was otherwise healthy).

Between 35 and my current age of 44? I'd probably still take it.

Beyond that, it would depend entirely upon the state of my health. Nobody wants to live forever if they have to do dialysis 12 hours a week because of diabetes (which I don't have).

I proffer in its place that I don't think the difference between a S18 D18 fighter and a S18 D3 fighter is sufficiently significant.

Since Dex18 has an 83% chance of victory, I'd say that puts you in the class of people considered to be "extraordinarily risk averse."

And that's coming from someone who has been described as risk averse, and in some venues, a "gambling (w)ussy."*

I agree. However, if the designers are ruminating on 5e I suspect they're at least thinking about the possibility of a major overhaul of the system. I don't claim to know what level of changes they will end up making, but I think they would be remiss if they didn't at least consider the idea of a redesign. Should they move in that direction, changing ability scores would be a perfectly legitimate starting point, I think.

Stats are small fry.

You want to look at a real trap, look at the math of 4Ed skill challenges.

If you have a SC that you want to have the party have a 50% chance of succeeding at, someone who doesn't know how to calculate sequetial probabilities work would set each step of the SC at 50% of success. This will yield a much lower chance of success than the DM was aiming for.

And I'd bet most people have not had a lot of exposure to calculating sequential probabilities, or if they have, they haven't done so in a while. (I haven't had to do it myself since a 2003 stats class.)







* "w" was not the actual first letter of the word used...

 

[Stalker0]

As for the 18/18 vs 18/3 fighter argument, people are using the corner case of high level dnd, when they really shouldn't.

Sure at the highlest level, the Dex bonus might not matter, but for a good portion of the game it does.

So an 18/18 fighter gets hit less often than than an 18/3, he strikes first, and he has the same offensive. In short....he's a better fighter.

 

[LurkAway]

So is it fair to summarize that ability scores ARE intrinsic to D&D for many people, but that (when you compare across the differention editions) the clout or weight of ability scores on the ruleset can tweaked without affecting the "DnDness" of D&D?

 

[Fanaelialae]

As for the 18/18 vs 18/3 fighter argument, people are using the corner case of high level dnd, when they really shouldn't.

Sure at the highlest level, the Dex bonus might not matter, but for a good portion of the game it does.

So an 18/18 fighter gets hit less often than than an 18/3, he strikes first, and he has the same offensive. In short....he's a better fighter.

My argument does not consider low level, but that was done for simplicity's sake. At low levels, the curve of how attacks and defenses relate is changing every level, complicating the comparison quite a bit.

Defenses are largely static, while attack scales with every level (for warrior classes).

At level 1, the +1 from level is dwarfed rather severely by an 18 from Str (+4). 1:4. This first level fighter gains only 1/5th of his attack bonus from skill (if that).

By 4th level, the ratio of level bonus to Str is 1:1.

By 16th level, the ratio has flipped to roughly 4:1. So on and so forth...

Admittedly, in the above I'm disregarding feats, ability score increases, buffing spells, magic items, and other possible factors. Nonetheless, I think the point stands.

While I'm no slouch at math, I'm not a mathematician. Systems with three or more variables quickly move beyond the realm of practicality for me. Unlike Janx, I'm not very familiar with excel, so I'm stuck running the numbers in my head or on paper. Hence, I removed as many extraneous factors as I could, to keep the math manageable.

In any case, I don't agree that it's a corner case as you claim. It's not like what I'm saying only applies at level 20, or only at epic levels. We're talking about something like the latter half of the game.

Dexter is a much better fighter than Limpy at 1st level, I agree. However, every time they gain a level that gap narrows (until accuracy becomes 100% for both), and then it's no longer relevant because both fighters can hit each other on a natural 2. I think that ability scores should matter the same whether you're playing heroic newbs, or Hercules and Achilles.

On the other hand, the 1:5 odds of Limpy getting the draw on Dexter are a constant, regardless of level. Yeah, I still don't like the idea of Limpy being able to gun down Dexter almost 20% of the time in a quick draw contest. Initiative isn't some obscure subsystem that practically no one ever uses. It's a major part of the game and I don't think it should be so easy to make it produce results that I can only describe as wonky.

I don't agree with the thinking that just because an improvement might be difficult to develop, or that a change might come with it's own imperfections, designers shouldn't even bother to try to improve areas where the system is clunky. If that is true, we might as well accept the status quo and play existing editions until the end of eternity. Which is perfectly fine; I would rather, however, hold out hope for something "better".

 

[Fanaelialae]

Since Dex18 has an 83% chance of victory, I'd say that puts you in the class of people considered to be "extraordinarily risk averse."

And that's coming from someone who has been described as risk averse, and in some venues, a "gambling (w)ussy."*

It's true, I don't generally enjoy gambling. I'm not sure that I'd classify myself as extraordinarily risk averse though.

As I've stated, I'm willing to take serious risks if something is important to me. I've lost numerous characters saving other party members, for example.

However, if we're just crossing a rope bridge and the DM wants a roll, damn the heroics, my character is tying a safety line around his waist! I don't care if my acrobatics and climb checks are +100 so long as a natural 1 can result in a critical failure.

It's just how my luck works, from both my observation and that of others. I'm no less likely to crit or fumble than anyone else. However, my crits tend to be at non-critical times while my fumbles are often during life-or-death situations. I can't tell you how many crits I've wasted on minions. I also have a lot of fumble-death stories. It's uncanny.

Even our my non-superstitious, atheist engineer friend agrees that I'm unlucky, and he doesn't even believe in luck!

Stats are small fry.

You want to look at a real trap, look at the math of 4Ed skill challenges.

If you have a SC that you want to have the party have a 50% chance of succeeding at, someone who doesn't know how to calculate sequetial probabilities work would set each step of the SC at 50% of success. This will yield a much lower chance of success than the DM was aiming for.

And I'd bet most people have not had a lot of exposure to calculating sequential probabilities, or if they have, they haven't done so in a while. (I haven't had to do it myself since a 2003 stats class.)







* "w" was not the actual first letter of the word used...

I disagree. I think stats impact most subsystems (including skill challenges). If you're going to fix ability scores, you need to do so before you fix skill challenges. It won't do you any good to get the skill challenge math perfect if, afterward, you decide that ability modifiers would be better off in the -2 to +2 range rather than -5 to +5. You'd have to rework the skill challenge math to compensate for a smaller range of skill check bonuses.