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!
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!