D&D 5E D&D Next Ability Scores

[CleverNickName]

How would you like to see the ability scores handled in D&D Next?

Fixed: you roll them up, add any racial modifiers that might apply, and they never permanently improve after that. Maybe you can enhance them later with magic items or spells, maybe not, but the score itself does not change unless the DM scripts it.

Upgrade, capped: ability scores do not automatically improve with level, but it is possible to permanently improve them through other (player-controlled) means, perhaps by selecting certain feats for your character. Even so, ability scores can only be increased to a certain maximum value (20, 25, etc.)

Upgrade, uncapped: as above, but there is no limit to how high a single ability score can be improved.

Scaled, capped: ability scores get better as the character advances in level, but can only advance to a certain maximum score (20, 25, etc.)

Scaled, uncapped: ability scores get slightly better as you advance in level, and there is no limit to how high an ability score can increase.

Dynamic, capped: A combination of Upgrade and Scaled, ability scores automatically improve with level, and can also be permanently improved through other means (possibly by selecting certain feats). Even so, there is a limit to how high they can be advanced (20, 25, etc.)

Dynamic, uncapped: As above, but there is no set limit to how high an ability score can be increased.

 

[P1NBACK]

I chose Fixed because I think it should be up to the DM how much more powerful your ability scores get and the math should focus on that by default.

If the DM is fine with increasing them regularly, he can throw in magical items or Tomes of Strength or whatever that increases your score by however many points.

If the DM wants to keep ability scores relatively stable so that the game is grim-dark or whatever, they can just leave out those types of items.

Another problem with increasing scores by level is that monsters scores will increase too... So, it's a wash and just another pointless scaling that has no real impact on the game. Leave the "Giant's Strength" to a magical item that grants it - and then it actually has meaning when you're as strong as a giant.

 

[Old_Skool]

I voted "Fixed" because it seems like the most reliable way to fix the two biggest issues I have with the newer editions of the game: (1) the player expectation of high ability scores, and (2) unbalanced math at higher levels.

Roll and be done with it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'd like mine scattered, smothered, covered, diced, capped, and topped, please.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I chose 'scaled capped'. I like to see some improvement of my char reflected in the ability scores. But I don't like being railroaded to certain feats, that would be as awful as the current weapon focus feats, IMO.

I could have chosen 'uncapped' as well because in most cases there is a hard cap due to the way you are given the ability points (e.g. 4E) even if nowhere is stated you can't have a score higher than X.

Another problem with increasing scores by level is that monsters scores will increase too... So, it's a wash and just another pointless scaling that has no real impact on the game.

I agree that this is another kind of arms race but then again pretty much every other aspect of the game is one as well. And it is not like this feature would make the game anymore complicated to play.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I chose upgrade, uncapped, but honestly this is not a big issue for me, so I'd be happy with most of the options you list.

The thing that I DON'T want is magic items that boost your ability scores.

 

[CleverNickName]

I voted "Fixed" because it seems like the most reliable way to fix the two biggest issues I have with the newer editions of the game: (1) the player expectation of high ability scores, and (2) unbalanced math at higher levels.

Roll and be done with it.

This is a bit heavy-handed, though. I don't want ability scores just increasing by themselves, but I also wouldn't mind having a few upgrade options. A feat that boosts a character's Dex wouldn't be too bad, in my opinion, because it would allow for a certain level of customization, but at the expense of other options.

I don't mind if a player absolutely MUST have a character with 22 Strength, as long as he is prepared to give something up for it.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I voted for fixed. If it exists at all, attribute improvement should be a major story element for characters that wish the pursue it. The d20 framework just doesn't have a good mechanism for that, so I'd leave that as a bit of DM advice.

 

[Minigiant]

Upgrade Uncapped

I believe that your ability scores should be able to increase or decrease but it shouldn't be automatic nor should it be hindered. But there should be threshold cost that a character must pay behold getting to certain scores... each with a hard diminishing return or limit. There isn't a hard cap but a soft cap that is nearly impossible or extremely expensive to overcome.

For example a character could get a +1 to a score from extensive training, but doing so bumps you up an age category (young to middle aged to old to venerable to dead dead forever dead you dead sucker!) AND you could only do it once per 5 levels.

EDIT: Another thing that included my choice is one (well two) of my beliefs.

"A high Strength human fighter should eventually be as strong as an ogre."

"An ogre is stronger than a normal human will be."

Basically a normal 1st level human anything with 18 strength (before racials) could never match an ogre's strength without a magical item or boon. But via training, experience, and/or magical items, that same human could one day match the gore's strength. That is why the low strength of the ogre and minotaur in the playtest annoys be so much.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I voted for Dynamic, Capped. I'm all for options, so give the GM as many options as possible, but without allowing things to go too far. After all, the GM can always not use any options s/he doesn't like.

 

[SKyOdin]

I chose the "do not want to participate" option. Right now, there are so many endemic problems with the ability score system that it needs some rather significant over-hauling from the ground up. In light of that, an issue with how ability scores scale seems rather inconsequential.

Heck, the idea that you roll for ability scores randomly is something that should be seriously questioned.

Maybe, "something else" would have also sufficed for my opinion.

 

[Stormonu]

I would like for characters to be able to improve a score, but I don't want it to be automatic and I want it capped (say, at 19).

Just about every other RPG I've played allows for primary attributes to be raised, albeit very slowly and at much cost.

I'd also rather not see the return of the madness of 3E with items that boost ability scores, but I'd still like to see Gauntlets of Ogre Power and other items - but not "required" like they became in 3E. In other words, if you got one, that was something very special and unique, not SOP.

 

[Mengu]

I don't understand the difference between scaled and dynamic so I haven't voted yet.

I'm fine with what 4e is doing. Whichever that is, that's what I'm voting. Maybe scaled uncapped? I don't want items/spells/rituals/magic potatoes to do anything to stats. I'm happy with it being part of character advancement. Not in favor of it being part of the feat system, as that sounds very much like a feat tax. How the advancement happens is immaterial otherwise. Maybe it's a choice, maybe it's fixed, maybe it depends on class and/or race, or whatever other deterministic method.

And I wouldn't object to fixed stats either. It's easy peasy.

I'd be fine with an overhaul of the stat system too, but overhaul of *anything* is unlikely in DDN... They are pointedly determined to stay in the rut.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I'm somewhere between fixed (which I voted for) and Upgrade Capped.

I think ability scores should be able to go up. Wish, relic (like a manual of XX), a draw in a Deck of many things. But I don't think that Ability scores should ever go up by an out of gameplay choice of a player. No feats, no ability increase in themes or such - the only way they can go up is a big event within the game.

 

[mlund]

My preferences are based around the fact that I don't want the game's default assumption to be that my character's ability scores are scaling at a fixed rate over levels like 4E does, but I still want the ability to alter scores over time. I also want to respect the bell-curve and the point-buy scaling. The boost from 10 to 11 is vastly different than the bump from 18 to 19 in a stat.

I wanted upgrades because they are by definition optional and require some sort of effort to achieve. This effort or cost should be proportional to the bell-curve value of the stat bump.

A single Feat could give you +1 or +2 to a stat, to a maximum of 14 - reflecting effort and study in improving one's self in that attribute as opposed to getting more specialized in how you cleave with an ax,render healing poultices, or achieving rudimentary fluency in Dwarven. Cue the training montage where someone is hitting the gym or the library.

Moving along the 15-17 range would require some sort of limited expression magic or technique - maybe a ritual involving the hearts-blood of an adult dragon, imprisoning the spirits of 7 times 7 fiends, filching a golden apple from the orchard of Melora under the nose of her guardians, or just the old-fashion "wish" as a ritual.

Pushing the 18-20 category is the domain of major plot-based transformations like a great quest boon of a divine, fey, or fiendish patron; ripping the wings off an angel or consuming the essence of an elder elemental; inheriting the final secret of your ancient school from the dying master; taking up the Silver Arm Ergoth; etc.

Anything over 20 is demi-god territory. You'd need to complete tasks that already required Epic levels. If you manage to strike down orcus and consume his soul you can have your super-stats. You'll need them!

- Marty Lund

 

[lutecius]

Right now, there are so many endemic problems with the ability score system that it needs some rather significant over-hauling from the ground up. In light of that, an issue with how ability scores scale seems rather inconsequential.

Heck, the idea that you roll for ability scores randomly is something that should be seriously questioned.

same here. I guess I'd rather they not improve automatically but to me there are far more important issues with abilty scores.

and they certainly should NOT be rolled at least not in my games.

 

[Croesus]

I would like for characters to be able to improve a score, but I don't want it to be automatic and I want it capped (say, at 19).

Just about every other RPG I've played allows for primary attributes to be raised, albeit very slowly and at much cost.

I'd also rather not see the return of the madness of 3E with items that boost ability scores, but I'd still like to see Gauntlets of Ogre Power and other items - but not "required" like they became in 3E. In other words, if you got one, that was something very special and unique, not SOP.

Pretty much matches my hopes.

I chose Upgrade/Capped, but I don't want feats or other player options for increasing ability scores. Giving players such options simply encourages the arms race.

However, allowing magic items such as the traditional librams to permanently increase a score seems okay, since a GM can control their availability. Likewise, allowing items such as Gauntlets of Ogre Power is fine, for the same reason. I would be inclined to change such items to give a fixed score, ala 1E, rather than a +x boost, ala 3.x.

I'm a bit more dubious of spells that raise stats, but only because of my 3.x experiences. I'm open to the idea of such spells, but I want to see more limits on them, so we don't have parties constantly buffed to the gills.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't understand the difference between scaled and dynamic so I haven't voted yet.

I added some more text to help clear up any confusion.

I'd be fine with an overhaul of the stat system too, but overhaul of *anything* is unlikely in DDN... They are pointedly determined to stay in the rut.

True enough. Although where you see a rut that they are intent upon staying in, I see traditional play styles that they are intent on supporting.

 

[Mengu]

True enough. Although where you see a rut that they are intent upon staying in, I see traditional play styles that they are intent on supporting.

Sorry, in my world, ability scores have nothing to do with style, they are just numbers on a paper. Stuff like rolling a d20 or rolling 2d6 or rolling percentile for resolution, having ability scores based on 3d6 vs 0-5, vs 1-100, rolling d4's for daggers, d8's for longswords, and the like, don't determine play style. They are merely artifacts of a rule system.

Their rut does not originate from their wish to support traditional play styles. It originates from the fact that they are closed to changing rules to entertain a wider range of play styles.

 

[Lanefan]

I think ability scores should be able to go up. Wish, relic (like a manual of XX), a draw in a Deck of many things. But I don't think that Ability scores should ever go up by an out of gameplay choice of a player. No feats, no ability increase in themes or such - the only way they can go up is a big event within the game.

Same here, but if upgrades are to be very rare then take the cap off...if you're lucky enough to get multiple wishes and burn 'em all into upgrading stats then let it go to 11 - er, 21.

The only other stat increase method I don't mind - in fact, I use it now - is the percentile increment system first seen on the 1e Cavalier (in UA). This is easily applied to all classes: their primary attribute and one other (chosen by player before rolling) advance a few % each level via a dice roll and might eventually tick over into another full integer. Be very cautious with this, however, if you're planning on a game going beyond about 15 levels.

Hence, I voted "something else".

Sorry, in my world, ability scores have nothing to do with style, they are just numbers on a paper. Stuff like rolling a d20 or rolling 2d6 or rolling percentile for resolution, having ability scores based on 3d6 vs 0-5, vs 1-100, rolling d4's for daggers, d8's for longswords, and the like, don't determine play style. They are merely artifacts of a rule system.

Their rut does not originate from their wish to support traditional play styles. It originates from the fact that they are closed to changing rules to entertain a wider range of play styles.

Changing basic rules like that won't entertain a wider range of playstyles, just a different range; as for every new playstyle the game takes in it'll leave one (or more) behind.

What would be the point?

Lanefan