Ability Scores - Should they increase?

[Kingreaper]

There nees to be some incentive to spread out ability score growth if there is to be ability score growth.

In 4e you can't have an epic level "jack of all trades" with all ability scores being reasonably high, because you increase two ability scores by anywhere from +6 to +10 AFTER you do the point-buy process.

Is there any reason why putting ability scores up can't use the same technique as buying them in the first place?

I propose two techniques:
1) for people playing with pointbuy abilities, when your abilities go up you get more pointbuy points, which you can then spend, either to increase your highest stat, or round out your stats.
2) For people rolling for stats, when your abilities go up you have a "roll over your stat to increase it" mechanic, and you choose which stats to try and increase. Increasing your highest stats is hard, increasing your lowest is easy.

 

[darkwing]

Eventually, all fighters will have an 18 strength. I'd like the fighters in the group to have a little disparity.

Two problems with this. The lesser is there shouldn't be two fighters in the same group. There should be enough classes and synergies that everyone wants to play (and benefits from playing) something different. The greater problem is conflating "disparity" with "different attribute scores." Attribute scores are just numbers that affect other numbers... that's not disparity that's just making sure one guy hits less often for less damage. Real disparity should come from different powers, weapon styles, feats, skill training etc...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Players (at least in my experience, and including myself) like levelling up when it's an uncommon occurrence. When it happens all the time it becomes a chore, which cheapens the experience.

I prefer level-bumping to be merely a side effect of play rather than the reason for it. My current 1e-variant game is almost 4 years in and the leading PCs have just got to 7th (not continuously played, they are constantly cycling characters in and out) - I've heard no complaints yet about slow advancement.

My experience is that what players prefer is relatively frequent small bumps, with an occasional bigger bump. But nothing says that the only bumps need to be levels. Getting a good magic item is fun, too. Getting a favor or an action point for in-game activities counts.

If there are lots of levels, then I'd prefer relatively fast advancement, with every level having something, but a few key levels having more. The something on those small levels should definitely avoid the "chore" aspect as much as possible--so fiddly increases in chance to hit are bad if they make you rework your whole combat section, but ok if you change one or two numbers and move on. If there are few levels, though, I'd prefer slow advancement, and each level having some serious oomph to it. Either way, I want to leaven the in-between stuff with minor and major finds that aren't tied to leveling at all.

 

[darkwing]

The something on those small levels should definitely avoid the "chore" aspect as much as possible--so fiddly increases in chance to hit are bad if they make you rework your whole combat section, but ok if you change one or two numbers and move on.

For the record, I'd like to state that every level should allow you to do something new that you couldn't do before. Levels (or even magic items) should not just make you slightly better at something you can already do (that inflation cancels out because the monsters are also getting slightly better at what they can already do).

 

[billd91]

Two problems with this. The lesser is there shouldn't be two fighters in the same group. There should be enough classes and synergies that everyone wants to play (and benefits from playing) something different.

I'd prefer to leave that up to my players. If they want to have two (or more) of any particular character class in the group, I don't have a problem with that. We can work with that just fine.

That said, I don't have a problem with all of the fighters (or fighter types) improving their strength to be 18 (or a bit more). They'll still be pretty different.

 

[Tallifer]

I think Ability Scores should only increases because of fantastic quests: find a Fountain of Youth, please the Gods (or Fiends), be kissed by an Angel, drink the blood of an ancient Wyrm, survive the Far Realm, find and wield Excalibur or the One Ring.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'd prefer to leave that up to my players. If they want to have two (or more) of any particular character class in the group, I don't have a problem with that. We can work with that just fine.

Yeah, especially since there are currently 8 players in our group.

 

[Aldarc]

Just slow down the rate: +1 Ability of Choice per 10 levels. This works out to +2 at level 20 (Cf. +5 at level 20 in 3-4e). It allows players to feel improvement over their characters' abilities, round-out scores - especially if they decide to change career paths - while also not pushing ability score inflation.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm really surprised at the opposition to rising ability scores here. I thought that was one of the best changes in 3.X and 4e D&D from their predecessors.

 

[enrious]

I'm really surprised at the opposition to rising ability scores here. I thought that was one of the best changes in 3.X and 4e D&D from their predecessors.

Me too - it allowed for a more hollistic form of stat growth without relying on items or random drinks handed out by a strange sycamore.