Are ability scores really needed?

[Gentlegamer]

Use Castles & Crusades Prime Attribute system.

Problem solved.

 

[Piratecat]

There are lots of games I love that have no stats - GUMSHOE, for instance - but ability scores define D&D for me.

 

[Elf Witch]

I can understand the frustration. But there is no way to avoid it in a game where you have more than one player.

A lot of times to be able to do the other things you envision for your character means stepping on the toes of another player.

Say the strong wizard type who is as good with a sword as with magic. The problem with that is what about the fighter in the party. He may be as good as you at swinging sword but because he can't do magic you will outshine him most of the time.

Characters like that do better in small groups where everyone is filling more than one role.

I also think we look at stats wrong a 14 chr is above average that is a character who should shine in most social situations maybe not as bright as someone with an 18 but they are still charming persuasive people. But for a lot of people A +2 is not that impressive. I am not sure what to do about that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the take ability score idea could be really helping to make characters with 14 in many scores shine.

If the DC is 14, a character with a 13 in a score will only have a chance of 35% to succeed. even with skill training (assuming a +5 bonus to a skill, the chance will only go up to 60%.)
So with this system implemented, high ability scores and skill training do different things or you.
While training helps getting really high results, a character with a high stat can reliably succeed on many tasks.

Maybe I´ll try "take ability score" in my 4e game. In skill challenges it could really help... (at least at low levels) Especially easy tasks should be doable up to epic levels with good scores (you can go up to 28)

 

[Kzach]

I also think we look at stats wrong a 14 chr is above average that is a character who should shine in most social situations maybe not as bright as someone with an 18 but they are still charming persuasive people. But for a lot of people A +2 is not that impressive. I am not sure what to do about that.

For me it's not so much that the +2 isn't impressive, it's that it mathematically works out (at least in 4e) to result in failure only slightly less than if you had a zero modifier. It's the 'slightly' that bothers me. In essence, the character is no more charismatic than if he had a 10 in that stat.

But in saying that, I just realised that I've already solved my own problem with a previous solution to a similar issue. Scaled success and failure! Instead of having a binary solution to all rolls, having a scale of success and failure means that even a bonus as small as +1 can really make a difference and more importantly, that difference can be felt as you're playing the game.

 

[Evenglare]

OP needs to go and make his own system or something. The thing with D&D next or whatever it's called is... to my understanding... make a D&D that has a common ground in all editions of the game. So with this being the D&D next board , I assume we are talking about the new edition of D&D. If I assume we are talking about a new edition of D&D , I also assume we are trying to contribute to the stated goal of unifiying all D&D play styles. If I assume we are unifying all play styles, I assume we are using mechanics similar to every edition of the game as a starting point . If I assume similar mechanics , I must assume D&D next will have ability scores.

Now unless I have some how erred in the way of logic, i'm not sure why this post exists on the D&D next board. Can the OP please tell me how getting rid of ability scores will further the goal of unifying dungeons and dragons next? Now this post is not meant to be an post (which im sure it will be taken that way ) , I am in all honesty trying to understand why the OP and several others are trying to change the fundamental pillars of what D&D is based on, given the design goals of the new system.

 

[Umbran]

For me it's not so much that the +2 isn't impressive, it's that it mathematically works out (at least in 4e) to result in failure only slightly less than if you had a zero modifier. It's the 'slightly' that bothers me. In essence, the character is no more charismatic than if he had a 10 in that stat.

But, by that logic, the 18 stat with its +4 results in failure only slightly less than if you had the +2. The character with the 18 is no more charismatic than if he had a 14 in that stat...

If you are playing E6, I suppose in the long run the stat bonuses are an issue. But, in most other d20 variants, the level-dependent factors (skill points, or increase in skill with level) eventually swamps the stat bonus. Ultimately, (say, in 3e) your fighter isn't charismatic not because he doesn't have a charisma bonus, but because he doesn't have Diplomacy as a class skill, and his capabilities in that arena will be overshadowed by someone who does have that skill.

 

[Kzach]

But, by that logic, the 18 stat with its +4 results in failure only slightly less than if you had the +2. The character with the 18 is no more charismatic than if he had a 14 in that stat...

You know it doesn't work like that, so why bring it up?

 

[Libramarian]

Honestly Kzach I think what would work for you is the random roll method I use in my 1e campaign.

I allow the players to click refresh on this page as often as they want, without saving any numbers.

So a player gets to balance their desire for an uberpowerful character good at everything with the rest of us starting to sigh and look at our watches and tap our feet.

I actually find it elegant.

It's like rolling up a character in the Baldur's Gate PC games. You can click reroll as many times as you want, but it erases your last roll and you want to start playing eventually.

 

[Kzach]

Honestly Kzach I think what would work for you is the random roll method I use in my 1e campaign.

One of my very first house-rules, as a thirteen year-old, was to implement point-buy. I've stuck by that decision despite reviewing it many, many times.