Ability Scores - Should they increase?

[Li Shenron]

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

...

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.

Yours is a legitimate concern. There is no amount of training that could ever make a human being stronger than an elephant or faster than a cheetah. Humans compensate these "inferiornesses" with technology, which in a traditional D&D setting would probably mean "magic".

Unfortunately that's not what many (most?) gamers want. They want to play superheroes who go well beyond human limits. And it seems to me that a certain cultural idea that "humans are limitless" has become quite widespread in the past 20 years, and not only related to RPG...

If D&D wants to supports both, what do you think it would be best? To allow superhuman attributes since the start and make it up to the DM to ignore/ban the possibility, or to make them as an option instead? (Yes, it is a rhethorical question)

In addition, do we really need them for monsters?

I think we do, although exact numbers could be replaced by a range. In a monster's case it is better to have this sort of indication written in the book rather than let the DM make it up, although it is very hard to imagine what an Int higher than 20 really means, and how 20 is different from 30. If no mechanics needs to know the Int score explicitly, then I suppose the book could just provide a category for whether the creature is repetitive as a bug, animal-like, dumb but human-like, average human-like, clever or beyond humans. But I would not let this information totally blank, I think it really is an essential defining characteristic for the DM to use a monster in the game.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Possibly, as per a feat selection or the equivalent. Regardless, attributes should definitely exist on a lower scale as they did in AD&D. Number bloat has been a big problem since 3rd ed. If folks still like these mechanics, they can play pathfinder.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

This part I don't like so much... for a couple of reasons.

First, having a linear relationship between scores and bonuses makes instant math easy, otherwise you end up with the need for consulting tables. That's clearly not an issue for the players, since the range is so small that everyone can remember these bonuses, but for monsters beyond the 3-18 range it needs an ad-hoc score-to-bonus conversion table; it's just so much simpler to make it linear (at which point although you may argue that we don't need both a score and a bonus).

Second, what is the real purpose of a non-linearity here? Maybe you have some others in mind, but the only purpose I know is to make bonuses "less than linear" which means to have the higher the bonus above the racial average (or the lower the penalty below the racial average), the smaller the probability. However you already get that from rolling 3 dice instead of 1, ending up with a concave distribution curve.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Yes, I do like them - it reflects the adventurer become better at his trade beyond that which is based on mere skill. It allows the wizard or the cleric to grow in his skills until he can master his spells and become more accustomed to his role in the world; allows the fighter the ability to shatter the enemy, the trappings of the dungeon, and the furniture at the pub; and allows the rogue to, hey where'd he go? And where's my wallet?!

I never had a problem with it in 3, 3.5, or Pathfinder; I do not know enough about 4e to comment in this regard.

But if 5e resembles the 3.X architecture the loss of those ability increases would a mark against the new iteration, in my estimate.

The Auld Grump

 

[billd91]

Gonna be the oddball here. The problem isn't ability score increases. Even an item giving you +6 to a score only nets a +3 to checks and rolls. It's nice but not game breaking. Plus, being able to increase them over leveling or with items allows a PC with weaknesses to improve. I LIKE that.

The problem, as I see it, is more of a play style issue. Min-maxing to extremes red-lines any game system in which choices can be made. I don't want D&D to continually be hosed because some yahoos can't keep their tendency toward insane combat characters under control.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to an upper cap on PC stats. Perhaps about 25-26, like 1st edition's upper limit.

 

[scruffygrognard]

I have mixed feelings about them. I like the concept but not the implementation.

Maybe have a max of 18(+/- racial mods) would help avoid ability score escalation and encourage more well-rounded advancement.
Additionally, like delericho, I favor BECMI's arrangement of ability modifiers.

 

[delericho]

First, having a linear relationship between scores and bonuses makes instant math easy, otherwise you end up with the need for consulting tables. That's clearly not an issue for the players, since the range is so small that everyone can remember these bonuses, but for monsters beyond the 3-18 range it needs an ad-hoc score-to-bonus conversion table; it's just so much simpler to make it linear (at which point although you may argue that we don't need both a score and a bonus).

Ah, yes. I forgot the other part of my imaginary system that makes this work.

Since said imaginary system is almost certainly too much of a change for D&D, and since the "Legends & Lore" articles seemed to be going in the opposite direction, I guess this is best withdrawn.

(The synopsis, in case you're interested: drop ability checks entirely, rolling them under skill use. Then there's no need to NPCs to even have ability scores... As I said, though, I don't think that's something I'd advocate for D&D at this time.)

Second, what is the real purpose of a non-linearity here?

The purpose wasn't to break linearity, but rather to reduce the magnitude of the modifiers (and, thus, the importance of the stats themselves). Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to do that while retaining linearity.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It would not bother me if there were set at the beginning but I don't think that changing them is too bad either.

Allowing an increase with an absolute cap could be a reasonable compromise.

 

[Gilladian]

I'm in favor of stat increases being optional. I also like the idea of keeping stats for humans as close to the 3-18 range as possible.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yes, I do like them - it reflects the adventurer become better at his trade beyond that which is based on mere skill. It allows the wizard or the cleric to grow in his skills until he can master his spells and become more accustomed to his role in the world; allows the fighter the ability to shatter the enemy, the trappings of the dungeon, and the furniture at the pub; and allows the rogue to, hey where'd he go? And where's my wallet?!

I never had a problem with them either, but I can't seem to follow you...

All your examples are (or can) be implemented with something other than ability scores. The 3ed fighter improved in BAB and number of attacks, the rogue increased his skill ranks, the wizard and cleric reach higher spell level (and many spells have effects tied to class levels).

In 3ed there were effects due to the base ability bonus, important but generally smaller compared to "learned skills", why?

The thing is, ability scores were there originally to reflect birth differences and of course racial differences. It's a known fact that you can increase your strength by going to the gym or your intelligence by actually using/challenging it on a daily basis.

The points here are however:

(1) how much can you really sort out if you're a good engineer/scientist today because you've "improved your Int" or just because you improved your skills/experience? Strength looks like it really works this way, that you can separate the static, physical strength from skills, but even strength is ambiguous... and the others definitely more.

(2) should there be a natural limit, that can be overcome only by magic (or unlocked only when playing a superhero campaign)?