D&D (2024) Sacred Cows: Ability Scores

[Scribe]

I honestly never did understand 3E (and 5E) rolling for stats mechanism. Like, I can see rolling down the line and wondering, "who is this one gonna be?", but rolling and then distributing them anyway feels weird.

Winning the lotto has an appeal. Get that sweet hit of dopamine.

 

[Professor Murder]

MMmm... so...

For 6e? I dearly wish they'd step -back- a few editions.

5e having strength determine your jumping distance is pretty nice... but what about Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma?

Keep the ability scores and have the different quantities apply different exploration and social traits -alongside- skill-use.

Strength determines your jumping distance. Intelligence divided by 3 is your automatic languages at level 1, before class or background grants more, Wisdom gives you a sight-range for perception checks by determining how easily distracted you are, overall.

Not sure what to do with Charisma and Dexterity, but Constitution already determines how long you hold your breath, just make it 1 round per point of Constitution.

Heck... make stuff like this -baseline- to every skill, where your attribute score determines some aspect of the exploration or social pillar, and then your skill proficiency and bonus determine the result.

How about Persuasion can be done on a number of people equal to your charisma score divided by 2 at a given time, early on, and later on it's score x2 or x3. Allowing you to start out persuading a handful of guards or many a small crowd of legbreakers, but once you've got a few levels under your belt you can persuade a mob the side of a city block to stop a lynching, like Emperor Norton the 1st, Ruler of the United States.

Meanwhile you can Perform for a crowd equal to your Charisma Score at level 1, and that number grows as you gain levels at a similar rate...

And you can only Deceive a fraction of as many people at the start of leveling.

That'd certainly make things interesting.

I can understand the appeal, but such would increase rule complexity and dilute the base d20 rule mechanics.

 

[Bolares]

Winning the lotto has an appeal. Get that sweet hit of dopamine.

Yeah. It was basically a minigame when I started playing (3e). I found out they were rolled in sequence almost a decade later and was shocked with how "punishing" it was. Rolling stats was just a fun way to start the game, and try to win big.

 

[loverdrive]

Yeah. It was basically a minigame when I started playing (3e). I found out they were rolled in sequence almost a decade later and was shocked with how "punishing" it was. Rolling stats was just a fun way to start the game, and try to win big.

Wait. They were rolled in sequence in 3E?

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't know how many people would actually remember these rules. I've personaly seen people using Str to determine jump length (or is it height?) approximately twice, and most of the time it was down to an ability check. Oh, and also there was a guy with a hilarious luchador build who grappled people, jumped 11' and dropped them to knock them prone, but that's it.

You're not wrong. There's plenty of rules people ignore, and rules people put into their own games.

But if it were core? If there was more use to attributes than just determining bonuses, they might feel more important, and important to remember.

I can understand the appeal, but such would increase rule complexity and dilute the base d20 rule mechanics.

Oh, it would -absolutely- increase complexity.

I disagree that it would have any effect on the base d20 Rule Mechanics.

You'd still roll 1d20+Proficiency/skill/whatever+Attribute modifier. You just can't jump farther than your strength score, or deceive 20 people at level 1 with one check. You'd still be making the check, normally.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'd also point out that, fundamentally, this is more a cosmetic change than a systemic change. Systemic would be to remove or fundamentally alter a system entirely, like changing what the six ability scores are while cosmetic would be changing the names but not removing any of the functions. If we eliminated Ability scores of 1 to 20 and instead listed the translated bonus only, the way the bonuses interact with the rules does not actually change in any meaningful way. Except for specific corner cases, such as tie breaks, or for more granular record keeping, the change doesn't change how the game is played.

I guess my last post came in a minute too late.

Anyway, if you openly admit that your changes aren't "meaningful in any way", then I just don't see any purpose. At that point, you're just attacking sacred cows for the sake of attacking sacred cows.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

you get +1 in your modifier directly?

That is twice as powerful. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but point increases might have to be spread out more.

 

[Oofta]

I guess my last post came in a minute too late.

Anyway, if you openly admit that your changes aren't "meaningful in any way", then I just don't see any purpose. At that point, you're just attacking sacred cows for the sake of attacking sacred cows.

Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with sacred cows or tradition.

 

[Bolares]

That is twice as powerful.

In the current system sure... But I assume a new system would adjust this to an adequate power level.

 

[Professor Murder]

I guess my last post came in a minute too late.

Anyway, if you openly admit that your changes aren't "meaningful in any way", then I just don't see any purpose. At that point, you're just attacking sacred cows for the sake of attacking sacred cows.

I feel this is a misinterpretation. You are omitting my clarifying systemic vs cosmetic changes. It's only reasonable that a cosmetic change may have little to no systemic impact, such as changing the term "Strength" to "Might" for example. The systems still work the same. Changing from a Stat that leads to a bonus to just a bonus is mostly cosmetic. It's removing a step. Pruning unneeded elements can lead to a tighter game. The advantage to a tighter core game is that you can later add more elements onto it. If your core system already has unneeded bloat, when you add more systems, you increase system bloat faster.

Furthermore, while I am advocating for discussing this, you are mistaken in your assumption that this change would be my goal. I am just examining.

Finally, if we only keep a system because it is a sacred cow, yeah, cut it. Edition changes should be reevaluations.