Are ability scores really needed?

[UngeheuerLich]

Str 13 is fairly strong. As 13 int is fairly intelligent. It is fairly easy to have a 13 in a stat you like. Does it pay off much? maybe not. Can you do things, other wizards can? Yes: multiclassing to mayn classes is possible. 13 Usually is the magic point where feats become available that tie to a stat. (Which does not mean i want to have feats in 5e).

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think you can approach (if not completely attain) this by simply removing attack bonuses from ability scores (which, based on a few of the designer comments, I think is a real possibility for DDN).

Attack bonus is (IMO) the make-or-break factor, because it is all-or-nothing. If one fighter deals one more point of damage than another, that's a fairly minor difference. The first fighter is clearly better (from a numeric standpoint) but it's unlikely that the second fighter will ever feel overshadowed by the difference.

However, attack rolls are all-or-nothing. Whenever you miss by one point, there's a very significant difference. The first fighter made a difference this round, while the second did not. It might not occur all that often, but from a psychological standpoint, I think there's a very clear distinction. In this situation, while the first fighter might still not be all that much more effective than the second, it's my opinion that he will feel significantly more effective.

As such, I think removing attack bonuses from ability scores would be a major step in the right direction in this regard.


While I expect you'll never see this for DDN, something I've been tinkering with for a homebrew system is treating ability scores as a specialized type of feat. You'd have six different groups of attributes. One might give +1 to Str checks, while another grants +1 to initiative checks, and a third doubles your carrying capacity.

I find it an interesting alternative, because being menu based, you can build character types not possible under the classical system, such as someone with great reflexes but poor manual dexterity (since those aspects have traditionally been lumped together as Dexterity).

My own design has the feats restricted by tiers, meaning you can get bigger bonuses as you advance through the tiers. This also limits the size of the bonus a character can acquire within a given tier.

If you want a numeric representation for the sake of comparison, you could simply add up the number of attributes a character has in each category. Hence, someone with 3 Strength attributes is stronger than someone with only 2.

 

[Mengu]

You can certainly make a gaming system without stats, so no, they're not a necessity.

They are just sort of a starting point, a sacred cow, a mechanical focus, a concept ingrained into the neural pathways of all gamers, so much so that when they read a fantasy book, they will immediately assign strength, constitution, and dexterity scores to the main heroes. As such, they are used in most systems, in some way or another.

You could easily tweak some rules, flatten some numbers, and get rid of stats. But you would have the whole world cry that you killed their D&D, even more so than omg healing surges attack powers wthbbq.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the OP, but what I think he is saying is that the effect of ability scores should go away... not necessarily that ability scores itself should go away.

I think what happened is as the game evolved from OD&D through 1e/2e into 3e and 4e, the effect of ability score modifiers have increased.

For example, in 1e, the to hit bonus of an 18 strength was +1. In 4e, it's +4. In instances like that, the differences between say a 14 and an 18 are minimal in 1e, but huge in 4e... especially if the "math" is built around an optimal attack score.

How did the earlier editions reflect the difference in strength? In things that accurately reflect strength, namely things like carrying capacity, the ability to bend bars.... things that are cool and somewhat important, but not game breakingly important.

Same thing with intelligence. Higher intelligence meant the ability to learn more languages and affected magic users ability to learn spells.

Again, in game benefits, but the need for really high scores were lessened when the ability score modifiers were flatter.

Maybe that's what the OP meant?

 

[Kzach]

Maybe that's what the OP meant?

Sort-of. I'm not saying that ability scores are, or should be, irrelevant. I'm only providing examples of why and how they can be de-emphasised because they don't HAVE to be the central focus of a character.

I've always felt that D&D focused a little bit too much on ability scores. Or at least, maybe, I did. I found that I didn't do that as much in other systems so I've always attributed the blame to D&D itself.

That's fine. But then consider the player that is just a strong, tough fighter. He doesn't mind being stupid and saying nothing to NPCs. Should he as effective as your strong, tough, intelligent, charismatic fighter? Shouldn't he be more effective for focusing on one thing?

And that should be a viable option too.

As an example to highlight this particular aspect, consider a system where-by balance is maintained through a core table that every character uses regardless of race or class. This table has on it... I don't know... you start off with something like 5 feats and get 1 feat per level or something. Again, this isn't a system, just trying to explain part of a concept.

So a player can then choose whatever they want from a pool of balanced feats. Maybe there are feat-chains so that people can specialise and each successive feat up the chain is more powerful than the one before it. But just as effective, a person can also choose to branch out and not be boxed into a certain class stereotype, ie. the intelligent fighter or the strong wizard.

A 'strong' character could simply choose "Power Attack" as one of their feats. There's no requirement for it, you simply choose it and by doing so you're saying, "My character is pretty darn strong!" And maybe you take "Super Power Attack" which requires having "Power Attack" and that means you're really strong!

But then you also choose "Charm Her Pants Off!" because you want to be a dapper warrior who charms the ladies, and has a reputation as a womaniser (hey, I'm making this stuff up as I go here!).

In D&D I simply couldn't do that because I'm essentially forced by my class into a very specific set of ability scores. Wizards are smart but unfit, warriors are strong but dumb, etc.

Ability scores could still be relevant to the character, but not the central focus around which a character is built and then pigeon-holed into his role. I feel this would open up the floor to more variety in character creation without penalising the player for making non-optimal mechanical choices.

 

[Grazzt]

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."

Your PC would be more intelligent and charismatic even with 12s if the average is 10-11.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Easiest way to make lower ability scores have meaning is to limit the highest score a PC can start with.

A 12 being "just a +1" is no longer "just", if the max a PC can start with is a 14 (or +2). If most scores are -1 or +0 modifiers, that +1 now becomes something important.

It's the same thing as "flattening the math". A +1 magical weapon means a whole heck of a lot more if a PC only gains a +1 bonus to attack every 3 or 4 levels for example. That +1 magic weapon or +1 to a specific score might very well DOUBLE the bonus you otherwise might've had. Thus, it now has more import.

 

[Mattachine]

There are game systems where the statistics are things like "vitality, presence, might, and power". In those games, you can make your PC as strong, charismatic, and smart as you like.

D&D isn't that game.

 

[Sunseeker]

I have to say, the 6-stats are pretty core to D&D, and many RPGs everywhere. I would reasonably argue that whatever you're playing without ability scores isn't D&D.

 

[RHGreen]

"An intelligent, charismatic, but strong and tough warrior... "

"I could simply say that the character is strong, charismatic, intelligent and tough.."

The problem is you want your character to be good at everything (cake, and eat it, and some more cake, and a nice big pot of tea as well).

This is fine when your playing a single player game, but when you are playing as part of a group where does that leave everybody else.

A character that is good at everything isn't a character. At best it's a narcissistic Mary Sue fantasy. Which, as I said, is fine when you're practicing onanism. Not so great whipping it out in front of a group of people. (Self Reminder: Never drink whiskey)