Attribute scores don't make sense

[darkwing]

Of all the things they streamlined in 4e, why did they keep the lame attribute system?

It is the only place where new players can screw up in character creation. It is one of the few places where things can get really unbalanced. Odd attribute scores are retarded.

The only thing that matters with attribute scores really is the modifier, not the score itself. So why have the score at all? Why not have just the modifiers?

Certain (all?) classes can totally screw themselves by putting the scores in the wrong areas, such as a low STR fighter. Why add all this complexity? If a certain class depends on a primary modifier, why not just include that bonus with the class, and give *useful* secondary/tertiary modifiers depending on specialization choice?

Another thing, odd attribute scores are completely idiotic. Why would the great game designers that made this game include the extra complexity of odd scores when they do absolutely nothing (putting aside hitpoint and a handful feats, meh, you know what I'm talking about). It's just extra book keeping and another place to screw up character creation. Also it's really lame when you get +1 to an attribute, but gain no benefit. Why have "advancements" that aren't really advancements?

The attribute thing really is pointless and slows character creation down (if you want to make sure to get it right).

Anyone else feel the same way?

Btw, even though this is a rant, overall I really love playing the new system

 

[Kaffis]

Because they didn't want you to increase a full modifier point every 4 levels.

Because 4d6, drop the lowest (or, gasp, the unwritten 3d6 and live with it) rolling methods are sacred cows, even if they're trying to wean us off them.

If you're adamant about this being confusing, and the DM, change the point buy system.

Start with 0/0/0/0/0/-1, and it costs 2 points to go from -1 to 0, and then the following costs from a zero:
2 points for a +1
5 points for a +2
9 points for a +3
16 points for a +4

Replace the formula for 1st level HP with: (class HP) + 10 + 2*CON.

You lose some granularity there, of course, but if you really think that the stat system is too complex, you're not really interested in the granularity anyways.

 

[Felon]

Because they didn't want you to increase a full modifier point every 4 levels.

Well, then they could just modify the way ability scores increase, couldn't they?

Ability scores in general don't seem very necessary anymore. If your class relies on high attack bonuses, damage bonuses, defensive bonuses, high hit points, or whatever else an ability score grants a character, then the benefits can just be rolled directly into the class. Ability scores only make sense if they give some class-independent bonuses, but they don't that very often anymore.

 

[sfedi]

Totally agree with the OP.

 

[Gloombunny]

Attributes are one of my few big dislikes about 4e. Massive agreement with the OP.

 

[Victoly]

I definitely see where the OP is coming from, but I still think the attribute system has merits. It does still allow for some meaningful customization - a Paladin, for instance, has the option for a secondary stat of boosting Wisdom to affect his or her minor benefits, or boosting Strength or Charisma (whichever wasn't primary) to make alternate attack forms possible - and some feat choices are still limited by attribute placement. One could argue that the system of feat prerequisites doesn't really constitute "meaningful customization" and instead acts as only another needless level of complication in the rules, but I think the case could be made in its favour.

I do think it's largely true that the attributes are a bit of a sacred cow, but that doesn't mean that they aren't also lending something valuable to the play experience.

 

[The Sword 88]

I like the attribute system and I disagree about it taking too much time, if you just make the PCs either roll or pick an array it really doesnt slow down character creation. Plus your attributes contribute to your roleplaying a lot.

 

[Gloombunny]

Plus your attributes contribute to your roleplaying a lot.

...how?

 

[PeterWeller]

It's really just a sacred cow at this point, but it's also one I really like. 3-18ish stats scream D&D.

 

[Surgoshan]

...how?

You've never had a character with bad stats? A character with nothing but good stats is a literal paragon, a shining hero, and about as interesting as a cardboard cutout. With bad stats, it gives you a chance to explain why a character is good at some things but terrible at others. It goes into the back story and gives the character depth.

I know that's not really everyone's cuppa, but it works.