This. In my opinion, it is bad enough between both 4e's choose between two ability scores for defense bonuses and some people on various forums clamoring for basic attacks keyed off the highest ability score.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Ability scores - How intrinsic are they to D&D?
- Thread starter Fanaelialae
- Start date
This. In my opinion, it is bad enough between both 4e's choose between two ability scores for defense bonuses and some people on various forums clamoring for basic attacks keyed off the highest ability score.
True...but if you're a low or mid-level wizard or cleric, you may not be. And i've played some nifty PCs that were not maxed out in their class' primary stat.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I would still like those scores to mean something though. I want there to be a real difference between an agile fighter and hulky one.
The Shaman
First Post
I never cease to be puzzled by gamers who say words to the effect of, 'D&D would be so much better if it stopped being D&D!'
Pretty much everything that gamers ask for can be found in other roleplaying games, but some gamers insist that D&D be changed to fit their vision, rather than finding a game which already suits their needs.
Bizarre, and a little sad.
Pretty much everything that gamers ask for can be found in other roleplaying games, but some gamers insist that D&D be changed to fit their vision, rather than finding a game which already suits their needs.
Bizarre, and a little sad.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
Depending on the DM's style, ability scores may be relatively unimportant in B/X D&D and OD&D. If the DM isn't calling for rolls against ability scores all the time, you might go whole sessions where your strength, intelligence or whatever score never comes up. It is entirely possible to play successful characters with sub-par ability scores if you get a few other factors going your way (good hit point rolls, and enough starting gold to buy some good armor, for example).
You could play OD&D or B/X D&D by assuming everyone had a 12 in every ability score and you wouldn't really notice a big difference in play.
Ability scores became far more important in AD&D, and then later in BECMI/RC D&D, when ability scores became the basis of the non-weapon skill system in the Gazetteer series.
You could play OD&D or B/X D&D by assuming everyone had a 12 in every ability score and you wouldn't really notice a big difference in play.
Ability scores became far more important in AD&D, and then later in BECMI/RC D&D, when ability scores became the basis of the non-weapon skill system in the Gazetteer series.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Repeating myself briefly from the 4E forum discussion, I agree with this part. This is why I advocated removing ability scores from affecting attack chance, but enhancing their effects on other aspects of the game. Damage is obvious, but it might take some creative changes to really make that pay off the way it needs to.
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 because he is a fighter who uses heavy weapons, not use free increases to buy Str because Str gives him something too good to ignore as a fighter. If he fights with a rapier most of the time, he'll get the chance to buy Dex up instead, perhaps.
That kind of cause and effect switch between ability scores and class would be a signficant departure from tradition. So that gives me pause. That mostly removes the last vestige of the original "rolled high Str randomly--so I'll be a fighter". But I'd say that with the popularity of point buy in 3E, we are pretty much there anyway.
If finessed right, it might even bring back some of that tradition. If your starting ability scores aren't so determinative of what you can effectively play, people might tolerate random rolls for them. So what that you start with a 12 Str and a 15 Int. Your fighter will get regular chances to boost Str, hit just as accurately though not quite as hard, and presumably have some niche benefits from that 15 Int that will accompany it.
Maybe it was just us. But our Basic D&D games used random roles (3d6, assign in order). Basic had relatively little determinative effect from ability scores on class. You probably wanted something on the good side of 10 in your main stat, but otherwise you could deal. And we had more varied abilities with class choices.
Of course you can play characters that aren't optimized. Is the game improved by having stats that you "should" optimize but don't?
Desdichado
Hero
I agree, although I'll hate myself in the morning for saying so. I just like the six core attributes, and I'm used to thinking of them as important qualifiers of my character. And mmadsen, I think you're wrong. A wizard who's only marginally more intelligent than the fighter, or something like that, is actually kinda fun. I know, I know, you said "high level." But still.
I do too, but is the one true way to achieve this by rolling dice at character-creation? Or can we have a Fighter (tank) class and a Ranger (skirmisher) class?
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
This last bit can definitely be true. One of the best characters ever in my campaign was a cleric with average wisdom, average str and good con. The player had a blast.
