Ability Scores - Should they increase?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, they may increase, but maybe the bonuses they bring are wrong? Maybe they should only give small bonuses (say, +1 at 14, +2 at 18, +3 at 22, and then never again?), and instead be used as prerequisites for other stuff?

Another approach to me would be to have ability scores more dynamic in character development, and allow people to "retrain" them. But never increase them. All the time spend building up your muscles - you had to make trade-offs somewhere else. (That doesn't help your math problem with the 8 points of difference)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would prefer not to have ability score increases at all. Of all the various ways that they can be done, I don't see enough benefits to cancel out the problems.

But if they are to increase at all, they should increase consistent with how they are generated. That means that if point buy is used, with staggered costs such that higher ability scores cost more per point, then increasing them should work the same way. That way, you remove at one fell swoop the tendency to only increase the two scores that are already most important. Bob the Barbarian increasing his Cha from 8 to 10 over a few levels really doesn't bother me--or even his Int from 12 to 14.

And of course, if you do that, then it does get rather complicated to track, because now you may need to put more than one "increase" into raising a higher stat. I suppose that you can simply save the "increases" off somewhere until ready to buy.

However, at that point the wisdom becomes evident of the narrow range of score in the original method, though you'd like to tweak it a bit so that each plus on the modifier requires more and more range in the stat. Plus, that makes actually having an ability score instead of just a modifier useful. It is the "track" that determines how close you are to the next bump in the modifier, and also the game mechanic used when you want to emphasize simulation versus game play. (And the modifier is used vice versa.)

So if you are with me that far, the next step would be to eliminate the negative modifiers altogether, adjust the math to compensate, and make a regular progression out of the increases, so that they are easy to remember. Something like:

Ability Score(Modifier)
1 (+0)
2-3 (+1)
4-6 (+2)
7-10 (+3)
11-15 (+4)
16-21 (+5)

And so forth. Now, giants and dragons can have huge Str score increases (that can directly affect lifting ability, encumbrance, etc.) without game-breaking combat modifiers. Point buy and various die rolling methods are now more in sync at generation, and point buy is very straight-forward for players. Buy one ability score point per point in point buy, but the more you spend in a single ability, the less modifier you get.

 

[DonTadow]

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!

WOw, didn't know 4e had scores as high as the upper 20s. I'd say stick to 3 to 18.

I also would prefer that the actual method to rolling abilities cores be either an array or a point buy system (prefer array). I've found that ability score min/maxing doesn't really do as much as folks think.

I also am a fan of only having ability scores, no actual skills. This gives ability scores and mods a bigger meaning. You gain your ranks in skills from special abilities you choose. Ability scores are a sacred cow in dnd, and they should have more of a meaning. The skill method created a problem where ability scores needed to feed heavily and overtly into other methods of character creation for sheer balance.

 

[Storminator]

I would like to see far fewer bonuses than 4e gives, and I really like that 4e has no items or spells that directly affect abilities. The idea that the spell or item directly addresses what it changes (instead of indirectly thru ability scores) is fundamentally sound.

If I got to add +1 to a single score at Paragon tier and another +1 at epic, I'd be fine with that.

PS

 

[delericho]

Another approach to me would be to have ability scores more dynamic in character development, and allow people to "retrain" them. But never increase them. All the time spend building up your muscles - you had to make trade-offs somewhere else. (That doesn't help your math problem with the 8 points of difference)

That's a pretty solid idea, actually.

What you could do, it have the character's race and class combo determine their scores at 1st level (perhaps with a handful of discretionary points to spend) - but no rolling, and no point buy.

Then, at each level, or after each adventure, let them re-assign one point (or a small number) from one stat to another. Put minimum and maximum caps on any individual stat for each tier. And, at key levels, instead of 'retraining' a stat they get to just increase one for free.

That way, a player who assigns his stats in the 'wrong' places gets to fix his character over time, it prevents the issue of one player rolling well and one badly, and it means that the ability to optimise a character is limited, since the game enforces a minimum level of competence.

The big issue with it, of course, is that it does absolutely nothing to prevent people from having a 'dump stat'. In fact, it makes that much more beneficial and so much more likely. YMMV on whether that is a problem or not.

(You could even combine this with a rolling method. Give each player a 'reserve' of ability points - say 75 points. Have them roll 4d6-drop-lowest, and assign the result to one of their stats. Reduce the reserve by that amount. Repeat for the remaining stats. However, if the reserve runs out, stop rolling - the remaining stats are set to '3'. If, once it's done, points are left over in the reserve, the character starts play with low stats. However, for the first several times they get to 'retrain', they get to assign those points from their reserve rather than lowering an existing score.)

 

[TerraDave]

I think there are a few issues.

One is "what is an ability score?" Are they raw talent and hence something that won't change much, or are they something that can be honed in parallel with other things that add to the character.

This leads right to "what should the be?" I havealso found myself moving to the position that other level based benefits should represent gains from experience, and ability scores should probably not change much...

But there is still the detail of "what exactly is there use in the game?" Which is really the key issue. If the point is define archetypes together with class, they don't really need to change. Your wizard is smart. He may have a 16, or 18 or 25 intelligence, but, depending, any of those can be smart. Maybe he is also pretty charismatic also (and hence this is not just lined up with and redundant with class). Again, this could be 14 or 16 or 22 depending on the system.

In 4E, the problem is that system is one where definitely one and maybe two scores (and gods help you if you have 3) are closely tied to class, and you must increase them to be effective. So the archetype is maintained, but in a redundant way that actually causes other problems in char building, as Merric has noted, and are not really a choice. The fact that you get an otherwise flat bonus from level means that this is very hard wired into the system: your ability scores remain a critical point of differentiation at all levels. Of course, this has also led to various patches to then mitigate the impact of the system...

In 3E (and earlier) there are two issues. One is that magical boosts to ability scores where also implicitly built into the math (just not as transparently). This I see as inferior to 4E, though I guess it is more "simulationist". The other is that scores were mostly rolled for, so you could get a low score that you might want to comp for (and honestly, in 4E all my players have had some low scores they just wanted to patch over).

So, where I am going with this. If abilities are rolled for, then I might favor a cap (say 20) with some boosts for lower scores. If its point buy, you could do the same, or just leave them be.

The girdles of giant strength....these I think need to just be different then in past incarnations.

 

[DonTadow]

That's a pretty solid idea, actually.

What you could do, it have the character's race and class combo determine their scores at 1st level (perhaps with a handful of discretionary points to spend) - but no rolling, and no point buy.

Then, at each level, or after each adventure, let them re-assign one point (or a small number) from one stat to another. Put minimum and maximum caps on any individual stat for each tier. And, at key levels, instead of 'retraining' a stat they get to just increase one for free.

That way, a player who assigns his stats in the 'wrong' places gets to fix his character over time, it prevents the issue of one player rolling well and one badly, and it means that the ability to optimise a character is limited, since the game enforces a minimum level of competence.

The big issue with it, of course, is that it does absolutely nothing to prevent people from having a 'dump stat'. In fact, it makes that much more beneficial and so much more likely. YMMV on whether that is a problem or not.

(You could even combine this with a rolling method. Give each player a 'reserve' of ability points - say 75 points. Have them roll 4d6-drop-lowest, and assign the result to one of their stats. Reduce the reserve by that amount. Repeat for the remaining stats. However, if the reserve runs out, stop rolling - the remaining stats are set to '3'. If, once it's done, points are left over in the reserve, the character starts play with low stats. However, for the first several times they get to 'retrain', they get to assign those points from their reserve rather than lowering an existing score.)

Like it, but there's no real solution for the dump stat except for a DM to make sure that no ability score can be misused like this.

Sure the system could make sure that every ability score has a function for every character, but if a DM doesn't create encounters that take advantage of the shortcomings of min/maxing, the character will still dump the ability the dm rarely uses.

I think a modified form of the skill challenge ( a 1 round and then consequences) formula can realy help with these. Thus, something like a diplomacy roll, in order to be truly effective, would involve all players making some roll.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To go along with what TerraDave said (which I think is pretty spot on) is that one of the current reasons why ability score increase (in addition to the half-level increase) was built into the system was to give you something to get every time you leveled up. It was a reward for leveling so that there would be less "dead levels" as they say.

But as everyone points out... this proliferation of number increases (from ability scores, adding in half-levels, bonuses from feats and equipment) brings in two problems. One, that the split between your highest of the high scores and lowest of the low score in things like attack bonuses, defenses, & skills becomes so great that most characters end up lopsided in some fashion. And two-- it becomes much harder for DMs to guesstimate the numbers he needs to set up for encounters because they are just so big that it's hard to visualize. Most of us all know instinctually that at 1st level, ACs of 15 or 16 are average, an AC of 20 is really good, and a monster with an AC of 22 is a beast. But what are those numbers for level 15? Anyone know? I sure as heck don't (without pulling out the books and doing a lot of the math to get there.)

Say what you will about the very early editions... but we KNEW that Full Plate Mail was an AC of 1 and was something to desperately try and find or buy. And even when you got fairly strong magical armor, you still weren't getting much lower than like AC -3 or so (unless you were very lucky, VERY high level or had a very generous DM)... and that was known, expected, and accepted.

*****

So the question really comes down to what is more important... more stuff to "gain" as you go up a level, or keeping numbers low so that it's easier for us to comprehend them instinctually? I don't know what is the right answer... although I do know my preference. Personally, I'd like to see ability bumps and half-level gains go away and keep all numbers fairly rigid... and just rely on new class abilities, exploits/spells/prayers, & talents/feats for things to "gain" as I level. I think it would be much easier to keep the game balanced, and more comprehensible to more players.

 

[Ahnehnois]

A lot of the basic balance issues in D&D come from "nature" (ability scores) not mattering as much as ("nurture"). Thus the demand for E6 and similar power curve changes. The fix is largely cutting down on level-based bonuses, but it is very important to maintain some flexibility of ability scores. It's also important to model reality. Olympic weightlifters aren't born with amazing strength, they're born with the potential of amazing strength and they have to train up to it. If anything I'd like to see a little bit more flexibility in ability scores.

The ubiquitous belts of strength though, I could do without.

 

[delericho]

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.

Just a thought: how about 0-2 -3, 3-5 -2, 6-8 -1, 9-11 no mod, 12-14 +1, 15-17 +2, 18+ +3 ?

This gets the linearity of the modifiers back. And, in fact, the formula is actually very slightly easier to remember than in 3e/4e: (Score/2)-5 becomes (Score/3)-3.

It does mean that the range isn't symmetrical around 10/11, but I'm actually not sure that's a bad thing - it means that characters are just a bit more likely to have a 'good' score than a 'bad' one.

Thoughts on this?