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

[Fanaelialae]

The thread "What needs to be fixed in 5E?", drifted onto the topic of ability scores at one point. I'm a bit curious to see just how important everyone feels that Strength, Dexterity, and all the rest are to D&D (irrespective of edition).

Are ability score of significant importance to D&D and, if so, how deeply rooted should they be in the mechanics? Or are they a sacred cow awaiting slaughter?

Apologies if I overlooked any important options; I've listed as many distinct choices as I can think of.

 

[Gryph]

The thread "What needs to be fixed in 5E?", drifted onto the topic of ability scores at one point. I'm a bit curious to see just how important everyone feels that Strength, Dexterity, and all the rest are to D&D (irrespective of edition).

Are ability score of significant importance to D&D and, if so, how deeply rooted should they be in the mechanics? Or are they a sacred cow awaiting slaughter?

Apologies if I overlooked any important options; I've listed as many distinct choices as I can think of.

Personally, I don't think I could consider a game to be D&D if it didn't have the core 6 ability scores. Reworking the modifiers and how they interact with the skill/power mechanics would be fine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am happy to play games W/0 ability scores but they are pretty central to D&D. They can keep removing the sacred cows if they want. I just wonder why they don't make an entirely different game. At a certain point it will be D&D in name only ( it may even be a great game but why keep the label if you remove the core elements).

 

[mmadsen]

The six abilities definitely have history, and many people consider them central to the game, but I don't really see why. If anything, the stats seem like they should be subsumed into class and level. If you're a high-level wizard, obviously you're intelligent. If you're a high-level cleric, obviously you're wise.

What I really think ability scores are good for is disguising how much better the PCs are than NPCs and monsters of the same level, so that they tend to win "fair" contests.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The six abilities definitely have history, and many people consider them central to the game, but I don't really see why. If anything, the stats seem like they should be subsumed into class and level. If you're a high-level wizard, obviously you're intelligent. If you're a high-level cleric, obviously you're wise.

What I really think ability scores are good for is disguising how much better the PCs are than NPCs and monsters of the same level, so that they tend to win "fair" contests.

Except you have the other ability scores to think of. I could have an 18th level wizard who is strong or weak, charismatic or not, unwise or wor wise, etc. Plus I have plenty of players who don't want a wizard with 18 int or fighter with 18 str. Wouldn't subsuming ability scores in this way limit my character options?

 

[the Jester]

Personally, I don't think I could consider a game to be D&D if it didn't have the core 6 ability scores. Reworking the modifiers and how they interact with the skill/power mechanics would be fine.

This. Without Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con and Cha, it might be a great fantasy RPG, but it would not be Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[delericho]

The thread "What needs to be fixed in 5E?", drifted onto the topic of ability scores at one point. I'm a bit curious to see just how important everyone feels that Strength, Dexterity, and all the rest are to D&D (irrespective of edition).

Are ability score of significant importance to D&D and, if so, how deeply rooted should they be in the mechanics? Or are they a sacred cow awaiting slaughter?

While I am fine with games that don't have ability scores, for D&D they really are a sacred cow - remove them and it isn't D&D any more. You might get away with removing the scores and just having the modifiers... but probably not. Certainly, that would be a move I would oppose.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think you need them, and something very close if not exact to the six canonical ones. Taking them out sounds like a bridge too far, to me (same as with taking out classes and levels).

How much you can mangle the mechanics and use of those abilities before going too far, is another question. I think there is a lot of slack there, though not infinite.

 

[slwoyach]

Tackling - How intrinsic is it to football?

 

[mmadsen]

Wouldn't subsuming ability scores in this way limit my character options?

How does it limit your character options? You can define your character however you want if there's no game-stat contradicting your character concept. In fact, without, say, damage being so dependent on Str, you're more free to have a Fighter, Monk, etc. that isn't crippled by his concept of agile-and-athletic rather than hulking.