Level based ability score increases pointless?

[JamesonCourage]

If you're striving for 100% mathematical balance at all levels, they aren't necessarily a problem, but they are restrictive, as it forces characters to advance their main attribute to keep up with the math. To this end, I'd say they're more trouble than they're worth.

If you're more simulationist in style, though, having a higher Strength makes you a stronger person, and not in a subjective way. It helps define the character in a very real and meaningful way. To this end, I'd say that they're worth the trouble.

I, personally, don't want to strive for 100% mechanical balance for most fights at all levels. As I like a more simulationist approach, if you bite off more than you can chew, sorry, you're screwed. And, if you pick a fight on someone vastly below you, well, he's boned. To this end, I much prefer the increases to no increases.

But, it's all preference. As always, play what you like

 

[Kaodi]

The way ability increases work in 3e and Pathfinder is, from a simulationist perspective, more favourable to classes that rely on physical stats I think. I mean, it is insane to think they you can spend all of your time walking around with a heavy pack, fighting for your life against deadly monsters and not get stronger and hardier. Every adventurer should gain at least a couple points of strength and constitution, and maybe one in dexterity and wisdom. Intelligence and charisma might still be corner cases in this regard. 4e may actually get it right by having two increases across the board. But then, their increases to specific stats are just insane.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think the development of the ability scores is a fairly important aspect of character development and growth. Having said that, I don't think D&D has done this very well in terms of reasonableness. 4e improved on 3e but I think I would prefer a more natural development of the ability scores.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Stormonu]

3E made ability increases a requirement for spellcasters with the "need X in ability score to cast Y level spells". If that requirement could be decoupled from spellcasting for that version of the game, ability score bloat would not have be needed so badly, and we wouldn't have some of the ridiculously high ability scores you see for high-level critters & characters.

However, the game has always needed a way for characters to improve themselves instead of scores always being static (the weakling wizard who decides to work out to increase Strength or the fighter who does the same, etc.)

Also, the skill system of 2E handled the value of odd-numbered ability scores is a most excellent way in that skill and ability checks were "roll under your ability"-type checks, so there was a difference between a 14 and a 15 for an ability score. If it had been simply reversed - roll d20 + ability score (not modifier) vs. DC, odd scores would still be valuable. The main downfall was it was so difficult to get better at a skill (or ability score).

 

[Kzach]

Mechanically I haven't really considered whether or not they're pointless or worthwhile, however on a purely preference-based opinion, I favour really, really hard to get bonuses that are granted as part of some uber quest or completely random magical effect. Anything that makes them a special, but totally unplanned and unexpected bonus and on top of that a rarity that would only total about 2-3 points over the life of a character.

 

[Umbran]

That's a legacy of stretching the game to encompass a greater number of levels, a problem in its own right.

I agree that they're called for due to stretching the game to a greater number of levels. I don't agree that stretching the game over more levels is a problem. It is just one possible design choice. Your later statement that, "There's no real need for the system to be more than ten levels...," seems to me to likely be specific to your own preferred playstyle, rather than a solid generalization.

The action of leveling up is something that may players like - it is viewed as many as a perk. If you want a campaign that runs for (real-world) years of frequent play, if you have a small number of levels, then your players don't get that pleasure very often.

Now, of course, that design choice means the game is not as good for other things. For example, it doesn't work so well for representing a meteoric rise to power over short times, as what was earlier a pleasure can become too commonplace to be entertaining.

This only goes to show that no one design can be all things to all people.

Anyway, I'm playing in a Star Wars game right now, which also has the intrinsic stat-raises with level. I find I'm looking forward to them as an additional way to represent the character's learning and development.

 

[Mark CMG]

I agree that they're called for due to stretching the game to a greater number of levels. I don't agree that stretching the game over more levels is a problem. It is just one possible design choice. Your later statement that, "There's no real need for the system to be more than ten levels...," seems to me to likely be specific to your own preferred playstyle, rather than a solid generalization.

Nope, it's about the math. (Aren't you the guy who regularly mods people not to attribute motivations to posts? ) It's not about playstyle, since I enjoy many different playstyles and types of games. I play many different games every year, and have for many years (37+), but you know this so it makes your discounting my point based on "playstyle" rather confounding. Perhaps you went that route because you didn't understand the implicit "There's no real need for the system based on the d20 to be more than ten levels...," Nope, not a playstyle thing, it's about the math.


The intrinsic problems to the current d20 system stem from it being set up as a ten-level system that was then elongated despite the original math being based on a core mechanic with a range of one to twenty. What followed as the system evolved was a myriad of redesign to shore up what gets weakened by stretching the system to 20 then 30 levels and beyond. Many of the discussions being had on the game/design blogs are about the problems that have arisen from this stretching but rather than address the root of the problem they discuss ways to patch it over, or even to obscure it by making the math less apparent to the players. The scaling of skills vs. challenge ratings, and to break them down by narrative tiers, is a good example of the later. This discussion of ability score increases is part and parcel of the overall problem.

The action of leveling up is something that may players like - it is viewed as many as a perk. If you want a campaign that runs for (real-world) years of frequent play, if you have a small number of levels, then your players don't get that pleasure very often.

Now, of course, that design choice means the game is not as good for other things. For example, it doesn't work so well for representing a meteoric rise to power over short times, as what was earlier a pleasure can become too commonplace to be entertaining.

This only goes to show that no one design can be all things to all people.

All of the same can be done without leveling as often, if the perks and features are not as tied to levels.

Anyway, I'm playing in a Star Wars game right now, which also has the intrinsic stat-raises with level. I find I'm looking forward to them as an additional way to represent the character's learning and development.

I see. You're looking forward to leveling because of what is tied to leveling. That's part of my point and I'm glad you bring it up. Now imagine if all of the "perks" as you call them were untied from leveling (not saying that's the way to go, just presenting the extreme for illustrative purposes). What if ability scores, skills, class features, etc., none of it was tied to level, essentially rendering leveling meaningless. These "perks" are just floating out there while we look into the core portion of the game and we'll get back to them at some future time. For now, just leave them aside. I'd imagine at this point that most gamers wouldn't care if that game was thirty levels or twenty or ten. So, if we take away this system dependence on leveling, just for the sake of argument, and look at the best mathematical way to set up the game based on a d20 core mechanic, what truths do you feel exist? And, to ensure this is still tied to the thread's original discussion, let's take that conjecture a step further and discuss how those truths relate to a system that also wants to include ability scores (and in ranges commensurate with the versions of the system under discussion)?

 

[billd91]

3E made ability increases a requirement for spellcasters with the "need X in ability score to cast Y level spells". If that requirement could be decoupled from spellcasting for that version of the game, ability score bloat would not have be needed so badly, and we wouldn't have some of the ridiculously high ability scores you see for high-level critters & characters.

Except that 2e also included minimum values for certain levels of wizard and cleric spells. And since the minimum value needed for the highest level spells in 3x/PF is only 19, it's not the source of a heck of a lot of bloat.

It's a particular play style that pushes the need for bloat. Adding the stat to the save DC sets up the system that rewards that level of optimization, but not all players like to play to that or feel they need to.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I think in both 3e and especially 4e ability increases are an assumed part of the system, and it would make high level's difficult if you dropped them.

It is perfectly easy to create a system where they are less important.

I'd argue though, that stat increases are fun. From the player preservative I enjoy leveling up and seeing a character grow. Ability increases are one way for that to happen.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The action of leveling up is something that many players like - it is viewed as many as a perk. If you want a campaign that runs for (real-world) years of frequent play, if you have a small number of levels, then your players don't get that pleasure very often.

I think it's worth scratching under the surface here to partially decouple the mathematics from the buzz of advancement (I prefer the more general term advancement over the mathematically focused "levelling" here). Essentially if done right, I think you can have the cake and get to eat it.

The "levelling" component by its nature has a very mathematical notion to it, and I think Mark CMG has discussed the need for mathematical contraction by reducing the number of levels. I think a mathematical cap is also needed but that's starting to veer away from the central discussion. And so imagine then reducing the number of levels but fattening each level in terms of class abilities/powers. You could fatten it to the extent that perhaps you advance several times in between mathematical levelling. In this way, your "buzz" quotient is still there but it is supported within a mathematically capped framework. I think such is the way forward for D&D.

If followed however, what this means is that there needs to be more carrots in the game than advancing a modifier by a point. It means making more things important in the development of a character than an extra bonus to accomplish something. It means having enough mechanics in your game design so that character development is as much about broadening what they can do rather than overfocusing on how well they do it.

I think ability score development is an important cog in achieving both of those things. It is important for ability modifiers but it is also important in allowing access to higher and broadened abilities/powers.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise