Clumsiness of ability scores

[JoeBlank]

If you have D&D attributes go from 3:18 to -4:+4 you will trigger Ragnarok and I will side with the gods on the field of endless battle and pick you out of the giant army so as to challenge you to single combat.

Just letting you know the consquences of your actions.

I got yer back, BG.

As others have pointed out, the stat increases every 4 levels and the spellcasting level requirements still make use of odd-numbered stats.

Some sacred cows have to be sacrificed for the greater good, but ability scores of 3-18 practically define D&D.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If you drop the stat and go with just the modifier, diaglo wouldn't be able to roll 3d6 in order and his head would explode.

Oh, you were looking for the down side?

3-18 stats is just one of the things that makes D&D. Aside from the other issues, it's worth keeping just for that touchstone. Moooo.

 

[Humanophile]

3-18 stats are quite central to D&D, even if from an actual game mechanics standpoint they're redundant and possibly easy to houserule into oblivion. Just like starting at first level and a tendency towards Tolkienesque races. These things are fundamental to D&D, and it wouldn't feel the same for either grognards or new blood if those weren't the case. (I'm well aware that new blood wouldn't know of the 3-18 spread if they joined up after the fact. Except for the it's wormed its way into pop culture. That, and I happen to like the bell curve still.)

The only place I do agree with you is that expecting us to have the stat table memorized is expecting a little much. Character sheets have a space for the stat modifier listed. Stat blocks should have the mod places in parenthesis after the stat. Just to have the information that much easier to get at.

 

[Campbell]

I don't really see an issue with trying to figure out bonuses. Maybe it's my inner math geeek speaking but Bonus= (Score-10)/2 doesn't even register with me consciously. Besides negative ability scores don't really jive that well with me.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If they did "fix" it, it would probably go along the lines of 0-10 in a stats, where the stat is your modifier. Then they'd have to increase HD by one category, decrease weapons by one category, and do who knows what with spells! And the starting point buy would begin at 3 and you'd have a 10 point buy to raise your stats. Because negative stats make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Or something just as drastic.

 

[RangerWickett]

As logical as simply bonus and penalties for stats are, consider how silly it'd be making a character:

"Okay, Strength. Roll (3d6 - 10) mod 2."

 

[S'mon]

It's difficult to generate scores of -4 to +4 at chargen using a dice-rolling system that simulates a bell curve. If 4th ed goes to a standard point buy system instead of dice rolling for ability generation, then using ability modifiers only would be more feasible.

That's functionally identical to having scores from 1 to 9, though, you get nearly the same effect with 2d6-1 (which Traveller New era used). I definitely agree that iit would make far more sense to use die+stat rather thann die+ figure derived from stat. My personal preference would be to keep the 3-18 range and do it with base stat + d20 for checks, although my homebrew system uses a 1-5 range for starting PCs ('average' stat being 3) & a d10.

 

[BryonD]

Absolutely. I was a bit miffed when I saw people nitpicking on very specific things when I was adressing the general phenomenon. It's a no brainer to drop a Stat req from 13 to +1 or allow a stat of +4 or +5 to cast 9th level spells.

I think you are really missing some significance.

Having two characters with a +1 DEX mod, but one qualifies for Dodge and the other does not is not a nitpick.
And I think it is a no-brainer that requiring that push up to 19 in a stat to cast 9th level spells adds flavor to the game that would be notably lost under your proposed system.

 

[Umbran]

Anyone who's followed the game from the beginning can confirm that the current incarnation of the game, while it has bought the D&D name, bears only passing resemblance to the original game.

In the future, you might try not speaking for thousands of people with only your one voice. Speak for yourself, please. You feel it bears only passing resemblance, which is fine. But don't put words in the mouths of others.

Back to the topic...

There's a simple reason to keep the actual attributes - resolution. It is not an accident that modifiers change when you move up to an even stat, but feats generally go by the odd stat, and you gain one stat point every four levels. This is making use of the greater resolution, and has notable impact upon how characters develop over the course of 20 levels.

 

[CarlZog]

I don't know why the designers allowed raw attributes to lose their significance. A far more elegant approach is offered by Alternity.
Alternity uses the value of the relevant attribute as the basis for all skill checks. (The attribute range for humans is 4-14, but other races' min/max's vary.)

To succeed in a skill, you roll less than the attribute+your skill ranks on a d20. There is no DC or other modifiers. Circumstances affecting your ability to perform the skill are cumulatively reflected in an additional die (d4,d6,d8, etc.) that's either added or subtracted from the d20.

Many of the ideas from Alternity made their way into 3e, but unfortunately this core mechanic was not one of them.