Are ability scores really needed?

[Bedrockgames]

Again, I'm not trying to be 'good at everything' or min-maxing. Simply that ability scores should be de-emphasised rather than what a character is built around. Why are there no strong wizards? Can I not work out AND study?

. Nothing is stopping you from putting your two highhest numbers in INT and STR. But aving a high STR wont help you much with magic (and you will want to take some levels in fighter if you hope to have a decent BAB bonus). I have made several wizards with a high strength or con because it fit my character concept.

this all boils down to how you generate the atibute scores. You dont have to o attribute arrays. You can use the point buy method or roll randomly (an for the later there are all kinds of different methods.

 

[Kzach]

I have made several wizards with a high strength or con because it fit my character concept.

And you shouldn't be punished for that. Currently, you are, because your character will be far less effective at wizardly things than if he was to put ability scores where he's 'meant' to.

I'd like that not to be the case. I'd like to be able to create a character that doesn't necessarily conform to a stereotype without being punished within the mechanics of the system for doing so.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And you shouldn't be punished for that. Currently, you are, because your character will be far less effective at wizardly things than if he was to put ability scores where he's 'meant' to.

I dont see that he is all that punished. INT is the big stat for wizards. You take that and you can do wizardly things just fine. If your other high stat is STR you get somebenefit on spells requiring an actual attack. But there is also a kind of logic that different pursuits favor different abilities and you cant be everything all at once. You only have so much time to invest in these things.

I'd like that not to be the case. I'd like to be able to create a character that doesn't necessarily conform to a stereotype without being punished within the mechanics of the system for doing so.

again, i dont really see that you are being punished. Cant see how STR should help you cast spells. But nothing is stopping you from outting points into strength with a wizard character (like i said, i have done it several times).And you can always multiclass. There are other games out there that dont use abillities.

 

[Minigiant]

And you shouldn't be punished for that. Currently, you are, because your character will be far less effective at wizardly things than if he was to put ability scores where he's 'meant' to.

I'd like that not to be the case. I'd like to be able to create a character that doesn't necessarily conform to a stereotype without being punished within the mechanics of the system for doing so.

Penalized?

Str boosts melee touch spells. Shocking grasp has no saving throw in 3E. With good Str, you can hit people on a 7!

EDIT: Even in 4E it worked. Before swordsage, a friend of my mine rolled High Str on a wizard for a one shot. No one expects a wizard to have a good Melee Basic Attack nor grab several goblins and chuck them off a cliff.

 

[BobTheNob]

I especially agree with kzach in so far as how 4e treated stats. The approach made stats less of a character defining dynamic and more of A class dictate. In fact I played around with what it would take to remove stats from characters and you know something, apart from skills, they worked EXACTLY as they did before...exactly.

I think it's possible for stats to be relevant, but only if they contribute to the uniqueness of the character rather than just being that must have certain value for class feasability. If they take the 4e approach to how stats work, then I don't think they are necessary.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

And you shouldn't be punished for that. Currently, you are, because your character will be far less effective at wizardly things than if he was to put ability scores where he's 'meant' to.

I'd like that not to be the case. I'd like to be able to create a character that doesn't necessarily conform to a stereotype without being punished within the mechanics of the system for doing so.

Are you suggesting that you should be an effective spell-user without having a high intelligence, or indeed an effective fighter without a high strength?

That's fine. But then consider the player that is just a strong, tough fighter. He doesn't mind being stupid and saying nothing to NPCs. Should he as effective as your strong, tough, intelligent, charismatic fighter? Shouldn't he be more effective for focusing on one thing?

Ok, so let's make the difference between the two small - let's say ability scores don't contribute that much to fighting or magic ability. Great, but then.. we use a skill system? How does that help? You choose to take sword-swinging, armor-use, spell-casting and NPC-seducing skills. He just wants sword-swinging and armor-use. He can't become much better than you at those skills because you don't want to be ineffective. So he has to.. select other things to do in addition?

What you're asking for is to play a character who can not only do all four things, but is as good as others at all four things. You want to play a super character. If you think that you compromise your effectiveness by having 16 strength instead of 18, but that 14 intelligence is not enough for your smart fighter, then you're asking too much. Point buy is already exponentially scored so that all-rounders have more overall bonuses than those focused. Use more points. Removing ability scores doesn't solve your problem.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I disagree, that in 4e your clas dictates all stats. Only if you feel oblieged to have an 18 or more in your main attribute. Which is useful but NOT mandatory.

Having said that, i also believe, stats should have a bigger impact on skills and less impact on class effectiveness. A wizard with 16 int in ADnD has harder time learning spells, but does not suck at spellcasting.
The fighter without 18 strength has a harder time but is still useful. Actually without an 18 he is more in line with other chars at lower levels.

In 3rd edition the emphasis on high stats arose,.. In ADnD you just had tofullfill the requirements. Everything above was a real BONUS whereas in 4e everything below an 18(or 16, depending on the class) in the main stat could be seen as a PENALTY. And if you don't icrease it at evry possibility you FALL beheind. In 3rd edition I had the feeling, that I could increase different stats without sacrificing efectiveness (+1 CON, dex, or str all helped for a fighter).

So while i certainly want to retain stats, I wan´t them having a lower impact on your class abilities and more so in the skill department. And as such, I partially agree with Kzach.

 

[hemera]

If there aren't six ability scores then it's not D&D!!!

Aww, no love for Comeliness? It's ok Unearthed Arcana, I still love you.

I've liked the system since I was a kid (except %ile strength, still irrationally hate you so much), but I will admit to liking the change made at 3rd where attributes started becoming useful at 12. And in 4th where saves and ac become tied to two attributes, that was cool.

I do miss resurrection survival chance though sometimes.

 

[Mattachine]

Kzach, I see two solutions:

1. Don't focus on Str 18 as "Strong". An 18 in a stat at 1st level is amazing. In 4e, having a 16 in a stat means you are little bit less effective, but it certainly doesn't make your PC hopeless to play. When you have 16 as the high stat, you can easily have a few 14's. Heck, you can even create a stat array of mostly 14's. This let's your PC be pretty good at lots of things. Sure--you won't be the strongest fighter, but you will definitely be smarter, more agile, and more dextrous than most.

2. Ask your DM to have characters start with different, better arrays. How about 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 10? If your DM agrees, everyone at the table can use that array to make the characters they want.

 

[Umbran]

Again, I'm not trying to be 'good at everything' or min-maxing. Simply that ability scores should be de-emphasised rather than what a character is built around. Why are there no strong wizards? Can I not work out AND study?

What is the point of having the wizard be strong, if the fact that he's strong is de-emphasized, such that it doesn't have notable game-impact? Do you want to be able to say he's strong, but have him never do the things strong people do effectively? Or do you want him to do the things strong people do effectively, even though he isn't actually strong?