Are ability scores really needed?

[Kzach]

I was evaluating my reasons for why I'm so dissatisfied by a certain video game and I realised that one of the reasons was ability scores. This then made me realise that one of the things that annoys me about D&D is also ability scores.

The problem is that I can never really get the character I want or envision because I have to balance between the effectiveness of the character in the system and the vision I have of the character in my head. The two rarely match up.

An intelligent, charismatic, but strong and tough warrior, for instance, that uses heavy plate and a bastard sword. Try making that without sacrificing huge amounts of system effectiveness. In, say, 4e, having a 13 in Charisma basically amounts to nothing useful. At 14, you're starting to get into the arena of usefulness, but if you want it to really mean anything, you need at least a 16, ie. a +3.

I'm not saying I want every stat to be an 18, quite the contrary, I'm saying that I want lower numbers to MEAN something. If I can only have an array of 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8, for instance, then I want those 12's to be more than just a meaningless +1 that gives me virtually no chance at success on skills or abilities or powers that use it. I want to be able to say, "He's very strong (18), and incredibly tough (16), but also more intelligent (12) and charismatic (12) than your average brute."

When thinking about this particular video game and the reasons why I was dissatisfied with it, I thought of another video game which gave me a very strong sense of satisfaction and fun, and realised that it doesn't use ability scores, despite both games being RPG's. I could simply say that the character is strong, charismatic, intelligent and tough and reflect that through game-play and how I selected skills and powers to match that ideal. It'd be nice if I could do something similar with my D&D characters.

 

[trancejeremy]

If you don't have ability scores, then how you can say that you are actually tough, smart, strong, etc, etc, etc. I mean, you could just say it , but if you actually can't back it up, well, you're really not.

And I'm not sure how you could play a game where you are smart, strong, etc, etc in play, without some sort of rules advantage over average.

Beyond that, I've always played the other way around - I roll dice, then come up with a character concept around those dice rolls. Otherwise you can get into a rut, like people who play the same characters game after game after game.

 

[Kzach]

You play a 'tough, smart, charismatic, strong' character by choosing powers and skills that reflect that. The problem with ability scores is that they end up limiting what powers and skills you can choose because they're not effective without an applicably high ability score.

For example, with a 12 Charisma there's simply no point in choosing Bluff or Diplomacy as you'll virtually never succeed on anything but the easiest of checks. If you did away with ability scores and simply allowed people to choose powers and skills based on what the player wants the character to be like, you could choose Bluff or Diplomacy as a fighter and be successful at it without being limited by a poor (relatively speaking) Charisma.

 

[Leatherhead]

You play a 'tough, smart, charismatic, strong' character by choosing powers and skills that reflect that.

Getting all high marks in all 4 of those is probobly imbalanced for a group based system such as D&D. But that aside;

Ability scores are for times when you don't have powers or skills to adjudicate what you can do. Ideally, they condense the amount of rules a character needs and allow for more open improvised gameplay (which eliminates the "you don't have a power so you can't do that!" hangup). They are also for raw talent where a full out power or skill would be a comparative waste to even acquire (who would spend powers on carrying more, when you can buy a mule or get a bag of holding?)

The problem with ability scores is that they end up limiting what powers and skills you can choose because they're not effective without an applicably high ability score.

This is a byproduct of scaling ability scores and factoring them into difficulty.
It is a problem though. Perhaps the best way to handle this is with level caps. By allowing PC's to only get so good at what they do, you eliminate problems with excessive bonus stacking.

 

[Kzach]

Getting all high marks in all 4 of those is probobly imbalanced for a group based system such as D&D.

Exactly, which is why getting rid of ability scores would be a good thing.

Ability scores are for times when you don't have powers or skills to adjudicate what you can do.

I respectfully disagree and argue that skills can be an effective and balanced replacement for ability scores entirely. Without tying skills to ability scores, the variance between skills is based entirely on aptitude, granting the character the ability to be good at anything they choose rather than limiting them to whatever ability scores in which they have a good bonus.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I use skills with no attributes in the network system. So i think you are right that skills can shoulder that burden, but i dont think that means they should in the next version of D&D. Abiity scores are pretty central to what makes D&D the game it is. We saw what happened when they tried to evolve the system into something else (lots of people left) because the D&D brand means something rather specific (and presumably those specific elements are what keep people coming back). Honestly it sounds like you might want to play a different system (like the network system) if attributes bother you that much--there are games that take this approach and there are definitely games out there better suited to realizing character concepts you may have in mind.

 

[Minigiant]

Ability scores are D&D. D&D uses (in the later editions) them for things your character's archetype is not good at (and thus has no skill at).

Ability scores are also a D&D balancing point. You have to be either lucky (rolled stats) or optimized (point buy). One major aspect of D&D is that "You can't be good at everything." That's why you bring your friends.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If there aren't six ability scores then it's not D&D!!!

 

[Kzach]

Ability scores are D&D. D&D uses (in the later editions) them for things your character's archetype is not good at (and thus has no skill at).

It's not necessary to eliminate ability scores. As I pointed out, I simply want ability scores to matter even if they're not above a certain tipping point. In 4e, for instance, the only thing a score of 14 or less is good for, is to boost a weak NAD. For skills or powers, it's practically useless.

Ability scores are also a D&D balancing point. You have to be either lucky (rolled stats) or optimized (point buy). One major aspect of D&D is that "You can't be good at everything." That's why you bring your friends.

Again, I'm not trying to be 'good at everything' or min-maxing. Simply that ability scores should be de-emphasised rather than what a character is built around. Why are there no strong wizards? Can I not work out AND study?

 

[Zustiur]

I can't XP Minigiant, so Doug gets it instead for saying the same thing.

Are ability scores really needed?
Yes.