Are ability scores really needed?

[Umbran]

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

I bring it up because, from where I sit, it does work like that. The system is linear - the difference between 10 and 14 is exactly the same as the difference between 14 and 18. If the first difference is small, then so is the second. In games with exploding dice, or dice pools, you can get some funny spots in the math where you see a sudden increase or decrease in effectiveness. But D&D's math doesn't have any magical phase transitions or discontinuities, unless your GM is doing something odd when setting DCs.

And, as I said, if you're playing across the gamut of levels, in the long run the stat bonus gets left behind (barring magical enhancement, which also tends to make the stat you started with less relevant).

Anyhow, there are sometimes other ways of getting to much the same point, at least with a good group.

I'm playing in a Star Wars Saga Edition campaign, in which every character has at least some levels of Jedi. "Use the Force" is a Charisma-based skill. So, as you can imagine, everyone's taken pretty solid Charisma scores.

Except me. I chose to take a Charisma of 10. No bonus whatsoever. You'd figure, then, that I might as well just keep my mouth shut during social scenes, because everyone but me has Charisma bonuses, and some of the others also have training in social skills, while I do not.

I still manage to be persuasive in social scenes. How?

By having higher Intelligence and Wisdom scores than the other characters, and being trained in knowledge and perception skills. My character is better at reading people than the other characters, and is more likely to know relevant information. The end result is that when he opens his mouth, he impresses with what he says, not with how he says it.

 

[Arlough]

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.

The new D&D is supposed to be modular, and one to be what you want it to be, whoever you are and whatever you want.
Of course, we know that those goals are too broad, but if there is a way to divorce ability scores as an option, why not have it to make one more person happy.

I bring it up because, from where I sit, it does work like that. The system is linear - the difference between 10 and 14 is exactly the same as the difference between 14 and 18. If the first difference is small, then so is the second. In games with exploding dice, or dice pools, you can get some funny spots in the math where you see a sudden increase or decrease in effectiveness. But D&D's math doesn't have any magical phase transitions or discontinuities, unless your GM is doing something odd when setting DCs.

And, as I said, if you're playing across the gamut of levels, in the long run the stat bonus gets left behind (barring magical enhancement, which also tends to make the stat you started with less relevant).

If the difference between high scores and low scores is fairly inconsequential, then it should be easy to make them an option.

Anyhow, there are sometimes other ways of getting to much the same point, at least with a good group.

I'm playing in a Star Wars Saga Edition campaign, in which every character has at least some levels of Jedi. "Use the Force" is a Charisma-based skill. So, as you can imagine, everyone's taken pretty solid Charisma scores.

Except me. I chose to take a Charisma of 10. No bonus whatsoever. You'd figure, then, that I might as well just keep my mouth shut during social scenes, because everyone but me has Charisma bonuses, and some of the others also have training in social skills, while I do not.

I still manage to be persuasive in social scenes. How?

By having higher Intelligence and Wisdom scores than the other characters, and being trained in knowledge and perception skills. My character is better at reading people than the other characters, and is more likely to know relevant information. The end result is that when he opens his mouth, he impresses with what he says, not with how he says it.

This is an honest question.
How much of that is your character actually having what it takes vs. you the player having a strong personality to effect how the GM will rule in a challenge?

And finally, as for the people who say things like "6 stats are D&D" Just think in the terms almost exactly like that you have encountered before.

• Without vancian magic it just isn't D&D.
• Non-magical healing just isn't D&D.
• Point buy just isn't D&D.
• Paladins and rangers without stat restrictions just isn't D&D.
• I'm sorry, but without THAC0 it just isn't D&D.
• No percentile dice on Strength just isn't D&D.
• Races and classes. They're the same thing!!! This just isn't D&D.
• etc.

If this new D&D is supposed to be the revival they are talking about, the designers can't only look back, they are going to have to look forward as well. Maybe they will go down a path you disapprove of, but not everybody is playing your adventure. And if they make it modular enough, maybe you can be just as satisfied as the person who has done away with stats.

 

[YRUSirius]

I'm sorry, but abilities ARE D&D.

-YRUSirius

 

[triqui]

I'm not sure about the question.

Are you asking "are the abilities needed for a RPG"? Then the answer is not. Song of Fire and Ice RPG is a good example.

Ability scores are needed for D&D though. They are part of this game. Actually, i'll go as far as saying you need 6 ability scores ranging from 3-18 base and having STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS and CHA. As much as I would like to substitute Wisdom for Intuition and probably Charisma for Spirit or something like that, D&D has some base foundation that is core. This is one of them.

So... can you make a sport without a ball? Sure. Judo is a sport. Can you make football without a ball? Not really.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'm sorry, but abilities ARE D&D.

Yes, and it looks like Ability Scores will be more focused on than ever (I'm seeing AC, HP, and Ability Scores as the very core of the rules).

 

[BobTheNob]

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.

Ya know, I remember a player proposing to me doing random stats when we were creating our 4e characters. I said to him that we would never go back to that bad decision again.

Now...

Attributes are meant to define your character. The problem with point buying is that there is such things as optimal patterns, and with point buy you can guarantee one of those regardless of which game or edition your talking about.

So players generally end up taking some optimal pattern. When I look at our 4e party, they all had the same stat pattern (in different stats yes, but the same general pattern). Under this, I find the idea that stats "define" a character to be a very thin truth. So given that truth has weakened, I can understand preferring no stats to stat allocation.

Funny thing is, I had a look at DCC and the way it does stats = Roll em all random, roll 4 characters and pick one of them as the one you want to play. Funny thing, you end up with a really good result. Not optimal characters, not cooky cut characters, just distinct feasible characters.

Have a look at this
Dungeon Crawl Cassics 0-Level Party Generator

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The meaning of attributes/abilities has changed over the editions, imho.

In 1e and 2e, they broadly defined the capabilities of your character and could be translated into analog real world descriptions.

3e started to change this aspect into a tool for bonus generation. These bonuses started to have an impact on a wide variety of in-game actions.

4e emphasizes this even more and allows you to increase the values on a fairly regular basis.

I think we are at a point where the abilities are more like talents for groups of activities than descriptors for inborn capabilities.

One could embrace this change and completely decouple the character description from these attributes. Give your fighter a high strength but describe him as a lean, agile guy like an olympic fencer. His combat abilities don't rely on the mass of his muscles but on his ability of timing, reading an opponents moves and anticipating the actions.

Of course this model breaks somewhat if you make a strength check to lift a heavy rock...

 

[Dornam]

Ability scores are just like classes - they make sure that you can't be good with everything, that you have to make choices.

In a system where you can choose skills there will probably some rule that prevents the use of one skill if you have already chosen another which would in effect be the same thing as having a low chr and a high str.

 

[Zireael]

What if we didn't have skills, but had only ability scores? Then the ability scores would really be necessary.

Or, could it be done the other way around? Remove ability scores, leave skills?

 

[variant]

My group's 2e campaigns eventually evolved over time in how we rolled our stats. We went from rerolling 1s and rolling 4d6, dropping the lowest die, to that plus rolling an extra score and dropping the lowest. Finally we had all that plus the ability to raise a stat by 1 by reducing another by 2.

It was all a way to rectify the times players ended up with really bad rolls which no one enjoyed. We never bothered rolling for stats for 3e.