Ability Scores - Should they increase?

[MerricB]

One of my pet hates about 3E and 4E is the inflationary pressures caused on the system by ability score increases.

It was one of the really exciting things about both systems for me when they were released, but in the last year and a bit I've become very doubtful about their usefulness. The reason for this is due to the gap caused by one score outstripping the others - most noticeable in 3E, but it still exists in 4E. With these scores feeding into defenses, you end up with your prime defence really, really high, and - unless you make certain to min/max your character - the others really low.

It might not be a problem at heroic, but it certainly is one at epic levels.

It is quite conceivable in 4E for your "prime" ability to reach 28 whilst your lesser pair of scores are at 12! Thus, a 8 difference in bonus values (which might then be exacerbated by feat choice). It's the difference between being hit 40% of the time and being hit 80% of the time - and it's just too big a gap, I believe.

I like having ability scores - they're one of the things I consider a sacred cow of D&D - but keeping them mostly in the range of 3-18 would be something I'm in favour of.

In addition, do we really need them for monsters? One of the amazing things about BECM D&D was when the Master set came out, they had this big list of Intelligence scores for monsters, who had never needed it before! Why did they need it now? Pretty much only for the Maze spell (there might be another mechanic that needs it, the identity of which escapes me at present). There's a lovely feeling of symmetry from having ability scores for monsters, but is it deserved by their use in play - and the complexity it then creates?

Cheers!

 

[Hassassin]

I think ability increasing items are a problem and should go away.

In 3e +1 every four levels hasn't been a problem. If it goes away 11 and 12 would be equal, which isn't necessarily a problem.

 

[Midknightsun]

Actually, I like ability score increases. I feel it contributes to a feeling of character growth and development within their role. I do agree that ability score enhancing magic just became too much in 3e. Honestly though I've seen no difficulties with ability score increases in 4e themselves in our games.

 

[Mercurius]

I guess I have more of a "simulationist" bent in this regard in that it makes sense for ability scores to increase over time, so I'd rather work out the details of that rather than decide based solely upon how it impacts the game play itself (which is more "gamist").

Does it make sense for a young warrior with immense strength to develop his physical power over years of combat and physical training? Does it make sense for a bright young apprentice wizard to fine-tune his intellect through study and experience? Or for a nimble rogue to develop his sense of balance, agility and manual coordination through long-term practice and focus? Or for a devout and contemplative priest to deeper their awareness and focus their will through meditation and prayer?

The answer to all of the above is "yes" so I think the question becomes, how much should ability scores increase and then work out the ramifications. Maybe we could look at 18 as representing the maximum that an untrained ability score could be in a human--it is pure natural talent. 20, then, would be natural talent with some kind of basic training equivalent to 1st level, and 28 would be the maximum possible human development. So we have:

10-11 (0) - average
12-18 (+1 to +4) - above normal range, from good to great
18 (+4) - maximum untrained human potential
20 (+5) - maximum human potential with basic training
28 (+9) - maximum human developed potential

The key in terms of game play is not the numbers themselves but the modifiers. Given the d20 range, the first three make sense: no mod for average, a range of +1 to +4 for above average, and an added +1 to +5 for basic trained ability. But then the difference is +5 to +9 -- that's an 80% increase. Does that make sense? Could Conan, for instance, increase his 18-year old strength by 80% over the course of his fighting years? Or Raistlin his intelligence?

I think so. And, again, I'd rather there be a sense of realism, that the rules somewhat simulate reality (with some degree of "fantasy embellishment", of course). And of course we're talking about the d20 system, which simply by virtue of its wide range of possibilities, has a "gamist" bent; if we really wanted something more realistic we could use a mechanic with a softer curve of possibilities, like 3d6 or FATE.

On the other hand, this might be an example of how a modular approach could provide different options. One campaign could include increasing ability scores while another could not use that option. But I would think the default should be increasing.

 

[delericho]

Ability scores in general are much too important.

I would argue for moving to a BECMI-like arrangement of bonuses: 3 or less is -3, 4-6 -2, 7-9 -1, 10-11 no mod, 12-14 +1, 15-17 +2, 18 or more +3

Then, eliminate everything that adjusts ability scores after creation. (This may or may not include racial bonuses, but in any case these should be reduced to +/-1 at most. Also, I can readily see an exception for the most powerful wish-level magic as well - thus enhancing the wonder of achieving that level of magic.)

That may well not be a popular move. It may even be attacked on grounds of 'realism'. But I'm pretty sure it's the right thing to do for the game, and especially for new players.

(For new players, it is vastly preferable to roll stats rather than grapple with the intricacies of point-buy at the outset. Unfortunately, getting the 'right' stats in both 3e and 4e is just too important to leave to chance. That's yet another barrier to new players entering the game, and that's not a good thing.)

Incidentally, the game should present 4d6-drop-lowest as the method of generation in the Starter Set, with a conservative point-buy also presented in the Core Rulebook. Crucially, the point-buy method must not generate characters more powerful than the average of the rolled method - in 3e terms, it would be of the order of the 25-point buy! Neither the 'rolled' nor 'point-buy' should be presented as the "default" - where both are presented, they should be presented side-by-side.

 

[Hassassin]

I guess I have more of a "simulationist" bent in this regard in that it makes sense for ability scores to increase over time, so I'd rather work out the details of that rather than decide based solely upon how it impacts the game play itself (which is more "gamist").

You still have to take the game into account. The core mechanic is 1d20 + stuff. If you have 8 (-1) and 28 (+9) in the same situation, that's half the range of the die roll taken by the ability bonus. I think that's too much.

 

[delericho]

I guess I have more of a "simulationist" bent in this regard in that it makes sense for ability scores to increase over time, so I'd rather work out the details of that rather than decide based solely upon how it impacts the game play itself (which is more "gamist").

When a person takes up, say, weight-lifting, does he increase in Strength, or does he instead:

- train his innate capabilities to their utmost (which a D&D character can be assumed to do)

- apply lots of ranks to his 'weight-lifting' skill, and

- gain an equipment bonus (or equivalent) from the steroids he's almost certainly taking?

The answer is almost certainly, "yes, a bit of all of the above". But, given that the game already has so many moving parts, and given that ability modifiers are so fundamental to the underlying math of the system, do we really need to be able to move all of these around?

Does it make sense for a young warrior with immense strength to develop his physical power over years of combat and physical training?

This could just as well be levels in Fighter, ranks in Athletics (and similar skills), and appropriate feats.

Does it make sense for a bright young apprentice wizard to fine-tune his intellect through study and experience?

Levels in Wizard, plus ranks in Knowledge skills.

Or for a nimble rogue to develop his sense of balance, agility and manual coordination through long-term practice and focus?

Levels in Rogue, plus ranks in Acrobatics...

Or for a devout and contemplative priest to deeper their awareness and focus their will through meditation and prayer?

And, of course, ranks in Cleric coupled with ranks in Religion/Concentration/Meditation...

I'm not saying these are the only explanations, and I'm not trying to be one-true-wayist. But if we can put together an alternative 'simulationist' explanation, can we not use that to free us from ability score increases if those are felt to be harmful from the 'gamist' perspective?

(Also, I suppose I should note - I'll readily accept that the argument that they are harmful from the 'gamist' perspective is not absolute, either. )

 

[Frostmarrow]

Ability score increases are rather pointless in my experience. But if your realism demands ability score increases then you should also see them decrease off season.

 

[Pilgrim]

Short Answer: No.

I think that the increase in stats leads to the increase of "numbers" which causes more min-maxing that just end up with players thinking they "need" a high number on the character sheet in order for their character to be good.

It's been done to death already in 3.x and 4E and it just doesn't work that well unless you want to play the numbers game.

But, if there is an increase in stats, I'd like to see it happen less often than every other level, maybe every 3rd or 4th level.

My hope would be that in Core, stats don't increase automatically, only through events or items within the game. Modular Options that add or allow stat gain automatically would be fine for those that want it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Please cut the increase.
The system of 3-18 was perfectly fine (ok, beeing able to increase them was cool, but in the end, in 4th edition it is rather a choice, what not to increase than vice versa.)
I would cut it. And I would go further and also put away with racial bonus to attributes. Racial powers are good enough to make casses unique.