Ability Scores

[Buugipopuu]

Rolling your scores is a quintessential part of making your character. It's up to you...or more accurately, the dice...but what you roll for your character.

I guess you're always the one who rolls well, and not the one sitting out not doing anything because the dice decreed that his character will be a dead weight. I've noticed this in a few games of Traveller (which uses 2d6 rolled in order for stats) that I've played. One character will actually be good, and basically solo the adventure, and everyone else only really contributes as meat shields or pack mules (or by the starting wealth they bring along). 4d6 drop lowest, not in order, is okay, but you still get someone who's basically a dead weight because of their mediocre stats.

 

[Halivar]

I guess you're always the one who rolls well, and not the one sitting out not doing anything because the dice decreed that his character will be a dead weight. I've noticed this in a few games of Traveller (which uses 2d6 rolled in order for stats) that I've played. One character will actually be good, and basically solo the adventure, and everyone else only really contributes as meat shields or pack mules (or by the starting wealth they bring along). 4d6 drop lowest, not in order, is okay, but you still get someone who's basically a dead weight because of their mediocre stats.

My table rules have always been thus: if you do not have the stats to adequately play your character (i.e. you must put a dump in one of your primary or secondary abilities), you re-roll. If everything BUT your primary and secondary abilities is a dump, you're still good to go.

 

[Dragonblade]

I HATE rolling stats and HPs.

I want to play the PC I WANT, not the one the dice FORCED me to play. Nor do I want to play perpetually in the shadow of another player who got luckier than I did at character generation.

 

[gyor]

Personally I prefer point buy, rolling wasn't fun for me, I want the character I want.

Still like in the 4e phb point buy, arrays, and rolling should be offered.

As abilities, the classics are fine, but I see wisdom differently from everyone else, I don't see it as willpower which I see more as charisma, I see it as the ability to create oneness with things, perception, and intuition. Thier is a reason its the key stat for cleric spell casting.

I'm okay with slower ability score progression, but not a fan of an ability hardcap, especially at epic.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For certain kinds of games, where the characters are expected to start out rather wimpy but get steadily stronger, I wouldn't mind a form of rolling that is a sometimes used variant, where you reroll stats and hit points each level. I think one form is that you reroll all your hit dice, only taking the higher of your current or your old total. Then you reroll each stat, and if the new roll is higher than your current one, increase the stat by a point. For far less boosting, only allow one or two stats to be increased each time.

That provides some randomness, but stays largely within the expected ranges of the system. Naturally, if you want a game where your foolish wizards stays foolish the whole campaign, you'd be better off with one of the more traditional rolling methods (for working with what you are handed) or point buy (because you chose to be that way). However, my main objection to rolling for stats and hit points has always been that there are too few rolls for the amount of time you are stuck with the results.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I HATE rolling stats and HPs.

I want to play the PC I WANT, not the one the dice FORCED me to play. Nor do I want to play perpetually in the shadow of another player who got luckier than I did at character generation.

I tend to agree with this point of view. The whole concept of balance in the game aspect of D&D and the ability to control what PC you make are severely compromised by rolling ability scores. There are some styles of game where it works, but I tend to avoid rolling.

 

[Dragonblade]

I tend to agree with this point of view. The whole concept of balance in the game aspect of D&D and the ability to control what PC you make are severely compromised by rolling ability scores. There are some styles of game where it works, but I tend to avoid rolling.

Right. I don't really have deal breakers or hills I'm going to die on, but stat and HP rolling comes very close.

The only stat rolling method I have ever accepted was our old 1e house rule: Every player rolls a set of stats, and then any player can choose to use any of the sets of stats rolled by any other player.

That way no one is stuck with horrible stats, and no one player can enjoy a perpetual unfair advantage because they rolled better than anyone else. If one guy rolls amazing stats then everyone can use the set they rolled if they choose.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Right. I don't really have deal breakers or hills I'm going to die on, but stat and HP rolling comes very close.

Relevant transcript quote:

Greg: Speaking of ability scores, how are you guys planning on ability scores generation?

Monte: (joking) It'll be 2d6 -10.

Rob: Looking at all the iteration of D&D, the classic way of doing ability skills is rolling. So the very basic we're working from are 4d6 drop the lowest for each stat. But since we're also looking at the modularity, those core books will also have options for other ability score generation which might be point buy, point arrays and other things.

Monte: Or you can just buy your DM a pizza and get all 18s.

Seems like they're taking the 3e approach; offering several character generation methods. Hopefully they get point buy right (i.e. unweighted) and hopefully they don't emphasize rolling very strongly.

 

[Ratskinner]

First off, let me say that I think there is about zero chance that the six change.

:
From the basic list of Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, are there any that you would like out in the next edition? Are there any others you would like in?

I don't have a problem with them as a starting point for the kind of simulation D&D kinda grew into, but I'm not sure they work as the basis for all skill checks. There's overlap/confuddlement with:

Strength as the base for both raw power and Athletic tests.

Dexterity counting for Agility and Fine Motor Skills (some can be shifted to Int, I suppose.)

Wisdom also counting for Perception

My favorite little indie game out there Old School Hack uses a pretty good set for this new purpose:

Brawn - sheer size, encumbrance, physical intimidation
Cunning - sneaky stuff, trickery
Daring - buckling swashes, courage
Charm - ability to inspire or sway others to see your way, social grace
Commitment - devotion and intensity, shaking off influence
Awareness - alertness and perception, reflexes, reading between the lines

Again, I have little hope of seeing this in the core.

:
What would each of the abilities mean? What would an increase of them give to an unclassed character, for example? How would certain classes particularly benefit from certain ability scores?

Hard to say without the rest of the mechanics. I would imagine the relationships wouldn't change beyond the obvious. I think the point of ability scores is to give a quick snapshot of the character's capabilities.

I know it may sound crazy, but I'm in favor of divorcing ability scores and combat stats. Give all that to the classes, and then you don't have to worry if you've maxed out your primes. Eliminate that little balancing act.

:
How much would you want the ability scores to define your character? How much should this change over time? How much should ability scores change, if at all?

On a scale of 1 to 10, I think Ability scores should come in about a 2. Class, race, and background should do most of it, but ability scores can differentiate between two similar characters a bit.

 

[howandwhy99]

Point buy isn't too hard for a game designed for 3d6 randomly generated stats.

All players start with 0 [zero] points. They buy or sell up or down the ladder with increasing costs based upon the 3d6 curvilinear distribution. To keep these numbers as small as possible we have 10 = -1 and 11 = 1. Costs are logarithmic and 8 more pairs have their costs cancel each other out too.

If you want to keep volatility low, put a cap on the maximum total sold or bought. Perhaps an 18 = 100 (that's not right BTW), so with a 100 point volatility cap we can get all 10s and one 18.

Capping works nicely, but will result in even more uniform PCs whose scores already "always add up to zero". The variety is lessened and many players will often buy straight up to the cap, which lessens it even more. Some people like this though. They don't want to play a weaker character or have some one else be stronger, even though having even this limited amount of variety means both conditions will almost always be true. (Rather, some want everyone to have high stats and no one better or worse than anyone else)

The problem is, even the above point buy method still encourages min/maxing by the term's definition as used years ago. By choosing our class first we can min/max via stat buying to ease the ability to succeed with rolls when playing that class. This does actually make the game easier like playing in "normal" or "beginner" mode. Lower scores are actually more difficult to play, but given how difficult the game can become I understand wanting at least an average score in a prime requisite for a class one wants to play. So, if a player says "I want to play a fighter" and rolls a STR 3. I'll just have him roll everything over and generate a new PC. I should say though, I do like AD&Ds 3:1 and 2:1 lowering and raising of generated scores to accomplish a similar result.