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

[delericho]

I think that both classes AND ability scores are central to the core of D&D. A fine game might be written without either or both of these but it wouldn't seem like D&D.

And levels!

Ability scores, classes and levels are the three main elements intrinsic to D&D (on the player's side).

(Also, fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.)

 

[delericho]

But on the other side, I think that ability scores ought to be relatively modest at start (showing raw talent) and then improved only in relation to what the characters are. That is, a melee fighter should get occasional boosts to Str...

Actually, I would go the other way - a character's ability scores are generated at character creation, they are maybe modified by race and initial class choice, and after that they don't change. The ability scores represent the character's aptitudes for various things, and don't vary with time - everything else comes with boosting attack bonuses, skills, and so on when levelling.

Under this model, Batman didn't gain in Str, Dex etc through all that training - he gained lots of levels which boosted his many skills. (Plus, he rolled really well as a starting character.

I would also reduce eliminate ability drain and damage (as 4e has done), any item/spell/effect that increases or decreases stats, and even ability checks - everything that was an ability check now becomes a skill check of some sort.

Finally, I would reduce the magnitude of bonuses for ability scores: -3 at 3 or less, -2 at 4-6, -1 at 7-9, 0 at 10-11, +1 at 12-14, +2 at 15-17, and +3 at 18+.

This last makes ability scores much less important in the game, and (coupled with removing the various stat-boosters) reduces the difference between a character with just-above-average stats and one with super-high stats (at least in key areas). This means it matters much less that you get the stats just right.

The net effect of all of this is that the game can safely move to "roll 4d6 drop lowest (maybe in order)" as the default mechanism for creating new characters, which is a major advantage for new players. As things stand, ability scores are just too important to leave to chance, but point-buy systems are really horrible for new players to grasp.

(For new players, the ideal char-gen is probably "roll ability scores, choose race & class (or, perhaps, archetype), customise equipment, play". Experienced players will probably want much more control - there's an argument that the game should include several archetypes for new players, and then an in-depth point-buy system for the experienced players to get exactly the character they want.)

 

[prosfilaes]

It's also bizarre and a little sad to go in the other direction and to take any suggestion for the next edition as an attack. "Go play GURPS!" or "Go play Rolemaster!" isn't productive either, especially since any game is a combination of so many different ideas and not any one rule.

"Hey, I want to change the game you like in a massive way you completely dislike." "Err, why don't you play a game that works that way, then?" doesn't seem bizarre or sad. A lot of people play computer RPGs; they've managed to stop themselves from calling up Id Software and telling them the next Quake should be an RPG.

 

[Bluenose]

It's not the weapons themselves that are silly; it's the environment in which they're used. The rapier was a weapon for gentlemen dueling other gentlemen, not cutting down armored men in battle.

And yet it was used against armoured men in battle as late as the Napoleonic wars. Against gothic plate you'd want a specialised blade design, but that's true for any sword. It's not as if the estoc's blade is so unlike that of some rapiers, and that's a specialised armour-piercing weapon.

 

[howandwhy99]

Ability scores are nexuses of more abilities tied to them. They are like creatures with multiple stats in this way. By rolling an A.S. a number of connected powers are conveniently also determined. But even then I find rolling one is best done simply at the table or in preparation when those powers are being explored or are likely to be. PCs roll 'em right away of course, but most other creatures, objects, or locations with them can typically wait for some to all.

As to D&D I think ability scores can be changed and through different iterations have changed even radically. But as far as the six names themselves I doubt the fanbase would largely agree to their alteration or loss.

 

[mmadsen]

"Hey, I want to change the game you like in a massive way you completely dislike." "Err, why don't you play a game that works that way, then?" doesn't seem bizarre or sad. A lot of people play computer RPGs; they've managed to stop themselves from calling up Id Software and telling them the next Quake should be an RPG.

Any discussion of how to improve the game is going to involve suggested changes, because you can't improve the game without changing it, and any suggested change is going to have arguments for it and arguments against it.

It's mean-spirited and petty to malign the motives of anyone on the other side of the argument. No one in favor of a particular change is trying to ruin "your" game, and no one against any particular change is trying to keep the game from improving. (Or do you think a legion of anti-fans phoned up Wizards of the Coast and requested that the fourth edition of D&D be a tactical war game, just to screw with fans of the third edition?)

As I said before, the defensive cries of "Why don't you just play GURPS then?" or "Why don't you just play Rolemaster then?" aren't helpful, because they're not an attempt to discuss the pros and cons of the change under discussion, and the change under discussion is never a wholesale replacement of the entire current game system with another existing game.

There are many, many meta mechanics worth stealing from various games, for instance, but introducing extra fate points for less powerful characters wouldn't turn D&D into Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

 

[mmadsen]

Doesn't that depend on what your goals are? If you want to be an archer, then maximizing strength at the expense of everything else isn't optimal. Same with any number of other choices.

But if you wanted to hit hard as your goal, why shouldn't investing in strength promote optimization? What else would make sense?

You're still thinking inside the box and assuming that the current mechanics remain. Certainly if you have the choice between strength and dexterity, you would choose whichever one is better for what you want to do.

If the game did not have explicit strength and dexterity stats though, you would be choosing between, say, melee combat and ranged combat stats. And if you put your bonuses into melee combat, any number of descriptions could go with the bonus -- not just physical strength, but agility, timing, technical skill, whatever.

With no explicit strength or dexterity stats, I can easily see power attack and defensive expertise conveying the characters concepts of hulking versus agile.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

the defensive cries of "Why don't you just play GURPS then?" or "Why don't you just play Rolemaster then?" aren't helpful, because they're not an attempt to discuss the pros and cons of the change under discussion, and the change under discussion is never a wholesale replacement of the entire current game system with another existing game.

1) That response is not inherently "defensive"- it can be a genuine attempt to direct someone to a game that better suits their desires. As such, it is an entirely natural response to the initial query about change.

2) Not a wholesale change? Some people feel that is exactly what they got with 4Ed. (Not an exchange with an old non-D&D game, but a new one, never before seen.)

 

[prosfilaes]

Any discussion of how to improve the game is going to involve suggested changes, because you can't improve the game without changing it, and any suggested change is going to have arguments for it and arguments against it.

And some are inherently bad. Quake is not an RPG. It would not be better to make a new game, an RPG, and call it Quake. "If you want PL/I, you know where to find it."

It's mean-spirited and petty to malign the motives of anyone on the other side of the argument.

This is the only example of people maligning the motives of others here.

As I said before, the defensive cries of "Why don't you just play GURPS then?" or "Why don't you just play Rolemaster then?" aren't helpful, because they're not an attempt to discuss the pros and cons of the change under discussion,

It does discuss the change under question; it says it's too extreme to be an appropriate part of D&D.

and the change under discussion is never a wholesale replacement of the entire current game system with another existing game.

So? Go play GURPS or Rolemaster and offer your mods to that gaming community.

This is one of my biggest frustrations with the gaming community. Nobody ever says "Coke would be so much better if it were lime-flavored". Nobody seriously talks about a Hummer that gets 40 MPG. But somehow D&D, instead of just being D&D, has to be the game you want; if you like realistic lethality, D&D suddenly has to have realistic lethality, even though it's inconsistent with what the game has been for the last 30 years. That's what "go play GURPS" means; if you want a lime-flavored soda, don't change Coke, and if you want a fuel-efficient car, don't look at a Hummer.

 

[Kaodi]

If I were forced to strip every other element from the game: classes, levels, hit points, armor class, dungeons, dragons...

The six ability scores are the thing I would let go last. They are absolutely core.

That is kind of an odd thing to say. The only truly 100% indespensible elements to the game of Dungeons & Dragons are dungeons and dragons. They are right there in the name. If you do not have them, then it can only be taken as an indication that someone has failed their Knowledge (Taxonomy) check.