Ability Scores

[Oni]

Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Ability scores, every edition of D&D has them, and it's highly unlikely they're going anywhere. So what should we do with them?

Should we roll them, point buy them, or just have everyone start with the same array? Should they be 3-18, or should we strip away the extra step and get to what they're all about, the modifier? How important should they be? Should every fighter have to be super strong and every wizard super smart? Should they dictate whether your character shouldn't bother with a class or not? What should they do for your character? What shouldn't they do for your character?

------------------------------------------------

To answer my own question, one thing that has, IMHO, become an ever increasing problem since the time of AD&D is the increasing importance of ability scores. The stat mods were so important in 3e that you'd see just about every character decked out with those incredibly boring stat increasing items. And in 4e nearly every character is running around with an 18 or 20 in their primary stat, because that's just what you had to do to be able to hit properly.

The more important stats and mods are, the more potentially unbalancing rolling for stats is, and the more certain stats are required to be certain values to make a functional character the more the same all the characters begin to look under point buy. I'd love to bring back the thrill of rolling characters, but in order to really make that happen we've got to step back to the why this worked in early days of the game, and it wasn't because gamers were more hardcore or less entitled, it was because the mods weren't that big a deal. Used to be a good roll might get you a +1, then it became a +2, or maybe a +3 if you rolled an 18, and it's ballooned form there, not only the mods, but the importance of the mods.

I think the importance, especially on combat capability, of stats needs to be dialed back in the next edition, so that people can feel free to roll, or to sculpt characters more closely match what's in their head without sacrificing the ability to be functional. But there needs to be some difference between a character with a high strength and a high charisma, so to that end I think it each stat needs to bring some unique advantage to a character, but at the same time it shouldn't dole out some huge numerical advantage.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm a fan of point-buy myself; however, I know a lot of posters here like rolling so both systems work for me.

I'm not sure if the score will be abandoned and the modifier just kept. I like having the scores as my sacred cow and wouldn't like it if they just kept modifiers.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the importance, especially on combat capability, of stats needs to be dialed back in the next edition, so that people can feel free to roll, or to sculpt characters more closely match what's in their head without sacrificing the ability to be functional.

I think the importance of ability scores relative to trained bonuses should be increased for a variety of balance and common sense reasons.

However, I do think it's important to encourage diverse characters and reward the exercise of choice. I think this is best done by making all the ability scores more balanced with each other.

My solutions included wisdom-based initiative and charisma-based action points, as well as splitting up ability dependencies so each casting class has two casting stats.

Should we roll them, point buy them, or just have everyone start with the same array? Should they be 3-18, or should we strip away the extra step and get to what they're all about, the modifier? How important should they be? Should every fighter have to be super strong and every wizard super smart? Should they dictate whether your character shouldn't bother with a class or not? What should they do for your character? What shouldn't they do for your character?

Rolls and allocation systems are both valid options and should both be encouraged.

I think the 3-18 just needs to stay to keep the language the same, even if modifiers are more meaningful now.

 

[The Human Target]

I say only use the modifier.

I say have options for several styles of generation, but assume arrays as basic.

I say to severely limit (or completely remove) their use in formulating combat statistics.

I'd like to see them step up and be integral to the skill system.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I have a feeling they are gonna be both more important for things like skills checks and less important for attacks.

 

[Gadget]

Good point on dice rolling being less fair the more important ability scores are.

If they would set a cap on ability scores, perhaps increased slightly by tier (if they still have something like tiers), it would eliminated the constant, open-ended "arms race" to raise your stats. That way, you could still have some stat increases without the keeping ahead of the jones feel that is in the current rendition. That way, a bad stat role could be mitigated through taking advantage of stat, while those who rolled well or min/maxed have less incentive to do the same and increase the gap.

 

[Oni]

Though going straight to modifiers like M&M 3e did makes a great deal of sense from a practical standpoint, I fear that such a change would not be well received at the cost of the traditional 3-18 ability range, if for no other reason that it precludes rolling characters with a handful of d6's in the time honored fashion of D&D. On the other hand, unless some new scheme to put them to use can be thought up the ability scores themselves seem more or less vestigial, their only real use seeming to be feat prerequisites in the last couple iterations of the game. That use however feeds into one of my primary issues with stats, that being inflation and the need to have high stats, and in particular places, to make the character you want.

 

[Szatany]

I have a feeling they are gonna be both more important for things like skills checks and less important for attacks.

I really hope that is the case with 5e.
- For skill checks (or just noncombat checks) abilities will add half your ability score.
- For combat (attacks, damage, abilities that depend on ability scores) abilities will have a separate way to determine modifier. Something like
0-3 = -2
4-8 = -1
9-12 = +0
13-16 = +1
17-20 = +2
21-24 = +3
etc.

That way, a truly strong character (S17) has very good bonus for climbing, swimming, draging objects (+8). At the same time, his bonus in combat is mere +2.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like having the traditional 3-18 score system.

Personally I find the rolling-for-stats more fun and interesting, since it often forces you to cope with unexpected distributions of scores. But it's understandable that point-buy is more popular, because it is more fair (and you cannot blame the dice if you didn't make a good PC).

The only change I would like is if scored became more "human-like" again, so that an 18 would be still moderately rare, and even a high level character wouldn't have any score much higher than 20. I believe to expect such change in D&D is however impossible.

 

[Mark CMG]

Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Ability scores, every edition of D&D has them, and it's highly unlikely they're going anywhere. So what should we do with them?

My convolution? Combine them into three scores: Strengsterity, Wistelligence, and Consturisma.

Spoiler

maybe not