An obsolete ability score system

[boar]

I think that simplifying the ability score system is a magnificent idea. There really is no purpose to the current method, which just has numbers for the sake of numbers. However, the 0-5 scale abstracts things too much. The stat bumps at 4 and 8 don't transfer, and you lose the ability to place 13s (which is useful apart from feats in a lot of cases). Also, the following chart doesn't work:

1/1
2/4
3/9
4/16

Under this system, you could get a +4, a +2, and two +1s, but in 4e if you get a +4 and a +2 you don't get anything else. Might as well be consistent: +1 should cost two points and +2 should cost 5.

 

[fireinthedust]

Qq

Wow, ummmmm


1) the 6 stats were around for 1e. Yes, it was wierd, but they worked

2) 10 is average. If you have a 10 Int, you have 100 IQ, which is average (take psych 100). If you have 18 Int, you have a 180 IQ; not that most PCs are played as such, but it could be there (just saying).
The point here is that they are representational for who the PC is, before we decide what they can do. I've toyed with Tri-stat systems, including one I fiddle with. Six stats is handy, and just wieldy enough that you get more than *only* generalizations; not perfect, but not as clunky as Palladium, or as basic as classic tri-stat.

basically, it lets me have room for a penalty rather than go into negatives. By contrast, what if you compared dumb critters the way some people compare smart ones? Like, is an OOze smarter than, say, another Ooze? Hom max Negative can a critter get than 0? Seriously. You can't do more than 0 damage,
Ergo, we have a reason for having low stats (dumb barbarian) without an INFINITELY NEGATIVE scale to dray on for badnes. ARE YOU AS DUMB AS AN OCHRE JELLY? OK, WHAT ABOUT BRITNEY?!

3) Your complaint was already dealt with in TRUE 20. Look it up. It is a good system, by the guy who did M&M (which is True 20 but more so). It's a 3e system, but fun. I approve, and I like 4e a lot more than 3e. Green Ronin. Good company.


Ultimately, I see what you're saying. Maybe you're right, but they'd still go 6 stats; just the 1, 2, 3, etc bonuses. That's what we get from the stats.

However, as someone who's played 2e back in the day, there is something to having the 6.


Having a penalty is superfluous, compared to asking "well, how much of a total bonus are we talking here?"

 

[FurryFighter]

ability scores still matter in what feats you are able to take. I think one of the major flaws, is that classes automatically give you feats, but then dont ask for a minimum.

Look at platemail. It requires a certain amount of str (does it also require con?), but I could roll some Chaladin with 10 str and still be able to put on plate because I have the feat?

Of course, this is a non-issue, because as you level, even your poorest ability scores surpass any required points to do something. Like a fighter will find it easy to auto-feat into something like the flail featthat gets a bonus against shield users, or the high-critting on all axes feat. These things do require high ability numbers, but if you rolled and built your character properly, you'll have the ability to gather these feats from level one.

In my opinion, ability scores are made far less important by this. If, instead of this, WOTC had done the good thing, and boosted up the requirements for feats that go beyond simpl wear/wield, such as feats that high crit all axes, and flails that have a bonus against shield users, by putting up the requirement to something like 24-26 str, and 22-24 dex, then all of the sudden, ability score become more important, and focusing your build becomes more important to get those feats, and this of course differentiates you from others.

basically, most feats taht have an ability requirement will be met automatically when you roll a character, as your at-wills require the same ability scores, in modifier points, to hit and damage, as those feats that require you to have a certain number of points in the ability it requires.

 

[eriktheguy]

I think that simplifying the ability score system is a magnificent idea. There really is no purpose to the current method, which just has numbers for the sake of numbers. However, the 0-5 scale abstracts things too much. The stat bumps at 4 and 8 don't transfer, and you lose the ability to place 13s (which is useful apart from feats in a lot of cases). Also, the following chart doesn't work:

1/1
2/4
3/9
4/16

Under this system, you could get a +4, a +2, and two +1s, but in 4e if you get a +4 and a +2 you don't get anything else. Might as well be consistent: +1 should cost two points and +2 should cost 5.

Edit fixed my previous entry, thanks. Foolish of me not to check the math on that one.

Wow, ummmmm


1) the 6 stats were around for 1e. Yes, it was wierd, but they worked

2) 10 is average. If you have a 10 Int, you have 100 IQ, which is average (take psych 100). If you have 18 Int, you have a 180 IQ; not that most PCs are played as such, but it could be there (just saying).
The point here is that they are representational for who the PC is, before we decide what they can do. I've toyed with Tri-stat systems, including one I fiddle with. Six stats is handy, and just wieldy enough that you get more than *only* generalizations; not perfect, but not as clunky as Palladium, or as basic as classic tri-stat.

I do like the 6 stat system and would not abandon it. IQ is not a measure of intelligence. It is a measure of intelligence relative to members of your species the same age. An above average intelligence dog would have a higher IQ than a slow human, but the human is still smarter. 100 IQ implies that you are as intelligent as an average person your age. An adult with 100IQ is vastly more intelligent than a child with as much. (I loved psych 100).

basically, it lets me have room for a penalty rather than go into negatives. By contrast, what if you compared dumb critters the way some people compare smart ones? Like, is an OOze smarter than, say, another Ooze? Hom max Negative can a critter get than 0? Seriously. You can't do more than 0 damage,
Ergo, we have a reason for having low stats (dumb barbarian) without an INFINITELY NEGATIVE scale to dray on for badnes. ARE YOU AS DUMB AS AN OCHRE JELLY? OK, WHAT ABOUT BRITNEY?!

Well I would first say that I think ability scores are unnecessary for monster manual entries. A monster description could easily include an indicator of how intelligent the monster is (automaton, animal, low, average, high). Additionally, you could role-play a barbarian with 0 Int (average) as stupid if you wanted to, that really has nothing to do with rules and more to do with fun

3) Your complaint was already dealt with in TRUE 20. Look it up. It is a good system, by the guy who did M&M (which is True 20 but more so). It's a 3e system, but fun. I approve, and I like 4e a lot more than 3e. Green Ronin. Good company.

I'll look into it.

Ultimately, I see what you're saying. Maybe you're right, but they'd still go 6 stats; just the 1, 2, 3, etc bonuses. That's what we get from the stats.

However, as someone who's played 2e back in the day, there is something to having the 6.

Agreed. I think the 6 stats work beautifully and want to keep them. Stats award you for synergy.

Having a penalty is superfluous, compared to asking "well, how much of a total bonus are we talking here?"

Moreover, having a -1 penalty to 3 or 4 skills that you very rarely use is almost pointless.

ability scores still matter in what feats you are able to take. I think one of the major flaws, is that classes automatically give you feats, but then dont ask for a minimum.

Look at platemail. It requires a certain amount of str (does it also require con?), but I could roll some Chaladin with 10 str and still be able to put on plate because I have the feat?

I disagree, some classes are designed to take this specific point in mind. Paladins have a greater degree of armor training than any class, they get plate mail prof even though they rarely have 15 CON, and I don't see any issues with this (fighters are still more powerful defenders).

Of course, this is a non-issue, because as you level, even your poorest ability scores surpass any required points to do something. Like a fighter will find it easy to auto-feat into something like the flail featthat gets a bonus against shield users, or the high-critting on all axes feat. These things do require high ability numbers, but if you rolled and built your character properly, you'll have the ability to gather these feats from level one.

But as you level you do not automatically qualify for feats such as weapon mastery, with requirements of (i think) a 21 and two 17s. Requirements remain relevant the whole game through.

In my opinion, ability scores are made far less important by this. If, instead of this, WOTC had done the good thing, and boosted up the requirements for feats that go beyond simpl wear/wield, such as feats that high crit all axes, and flails that have a bonus against shield users, by putting up the requirement to something like 24-26 str, and 22-24 dex, then all of the sudden, ability score become more important, and focusing your build becomes more important to get those feats, and this of course differentiates you from others.

basically, most feats taht have an ability requirement will be met automatically when you roll a character, as your at-wills require the same ability scores, in modifier points, to hit and damage, as those feats that require you to have a certain number of points in the ability it requires.

Ability scores are more important than they were in say 2e. In 2e only very high scores affected combat, and abilities served mostly as skill checks. They are much more important in 4e because they affect attacks. The fact that certain scores are required for certain feats isn't really an issue with changing to a lower ability score system except that I would be removing odd scores. But in any case characters do need to do a minimal amount of planning to ensure they can get weapon mastery feats. Most builds include a weapon mastery feat and probably shouldn't be excluded from it, so I think the present requirements work fine. Basically, every sword fighter should be able to take heavy blade mastery etc.