D&D 5E D&D Q&A 12/13: Racial Ability Scores, Cleric Options & Monsters

[dkyle]

I disagree, I like the stats of my character to influence their abilities. When you take stats out of it, it just makes everything too cookie-cutter and as I already pointed out, begs the question of needing stats at all. Why not just have each class give a fixed array of stats in that case?

Why would it be cookie cutter if you have races, classes, specializations, and feats all allowing character to differentiate themselves in combat? What does 6 ability scores really add there?

If anything, ability scores make things more cookie cutter, because if you want to be a good Fighter you need good Strength, which means you can only really be good at Strength based skills. If you don't tie ability scores to class features, then you could be a great Fighter, yet also be really good at diplomacy, or researching in books, or anything. You gain more freedom to build whatever character you want, not less.

In addition, if you can just, say, "cast spells" by being a Wizard, instead of also needing to have good intelligence, which conflicts with other classes' ability requirements, it makes it easier to have, say, Fighter/Wizards that are actually passably good at fighting and casting. Again, easier to avoid cookie-cutter builds.

As for why have ability scores? Like I said, for skills. Skills for non-combat tasks are necessarily more freeform than combat abilities, because combat is so much easier to mechanize (as every edition of D&D has borne out). Having 6 generic "base skills", as ability scores would essentially be (and are in D&D:Next), to work from is a decent way to do it.

I don't know why you'd think that any of that suggests having a fixed array of stats. That would limit precisely the creativity I'm trying to encourage.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why would it be cookie cutter if you have races, classes, specializations, and feats all allowing character to differentiate themselves in combat? What does 6 ability scores really add there?

Minor variations to power, style, flavor and the ability to numerically represent the character you made.

If anything, ability scores make things more cookie cutter, because if you want to be a good Fighter you need good Strength, which means you can only really be good at Strength based skills. If you don't tie ability scores to class features, then you could be a great Fighter, yet also be really good at diplomacy, or researching in books, or anything. You gain more freedom to build whatever character you want, not less.

I like diversity, and diversity is not achieved by allowing a player to be great at everything. You could get more variety by giving people more choice. Instead of saying A,B,C,D,E,F are class skills, give players X,Y,Z and two of their choice. I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation that certain aspects of the game, such as dealing physical damage, a tied to how strong you are. I liked some of the flexibility provided by 4e, but when you have physical classes dealing physical damage based on how charismatic they are, it's a little odd(at least with Paladin's you can rationalize that the damage is sourced from their divine empowerment, represented by their charisma score).

In addition, if you can just, say, "cast spells" by being a Wizard, instead of also needing to have good intelligence, which conflicts with other classes' ability requirements, it makes it easier to have, say, Fighter/Wizards that are actually passably good at fighting and casting. Again, easier to avoid cookie-cutter builds.

But also INCREDIBLY easier to build super-characters who can do everything. SAD is just as dangerous as MAD.

As for why have ability scores? Like I said, for skills. Skills for non-combat tasks are necessarily more freeform than combat abilities, because combat is so much easier to mechanize (as every edition of D&D has borne out). Having 6 generic "base skills", as ability scores would essentially be (and are in D&D:Next), to work from is a decent way to do it.

I don't really see the point. Skill lists are getting shorter, not longer as game development progresses. The days of having 30+ skills are gone(and happily so!)

I don't know why you'd think that any of that suggests having a fixed array of stats. That would limit precisely the creativity I'm trying to encourage.

Yes, you're trying to let everyone do anything with everything.

 

[dkyle]

Minor variations to power, style, flavor and the ability to numerically represent the character you made.

All of which can be done without ability scores. They add nothing new.

I like diversity, and diversity is not achieved by allowing a player to be great at everything. You could get more variety by giving people more choice. Instead of saying A,B,C,D,E,F are class skills, give players X,Y,Z and two of their choice.

OK, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps you're misunderstanding my position. What I'm advocating for is to by able to say "I'm a great Fighter" or "I'm a great Wizard" or even "I'm a hybrid of Fighter and Wizard", and then to, independently, also say "I'm great at breaking down doors" or "I'm great at persuading people" or "I'm great at reading books and finding information". Not to be all those things at the same time. Just to have greater flexibility in choosing what things you want your character to be good at.

I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation that certain aspects of the game, such as dealing physical damage, a tied to how strong you are. I liked some of the flexibility provided by 4e, but when you have physical classes dealing physical damage based on how charismatic they are, it's a little odd(at least with Paladin's you can rationalize that the damage is sourced from their divine empowerment, represented by their charisma score).

I would make how much damage you do be based on what class you are, what weapon you are using, and what other build options you took. Not any ability score at all, so there's no "physical damage based on how charismatic they are".

And sure, it makes sense for strength to improve dealing physical damage. You as a player could certainly say that your fighter is good at dealing damage because he has a lot of muscle. But that doesn't mean damage has to actually be tied to the ability score called Strength. Just because you are strong doesn't mean you are good at using a weapon effectively to deal damage.

And this is nothing new to D&D. In the very first edition of D&D, Strength had absolutely nothing to do with dealing more damage with weapons. It was your class that made you better or worse at fighting things with weapons.

But also INCREDIBLY easier to build super-characters who can do everything. SAD is just as dangerous as MAD.

SAD is only dangerous when some classes are SAD, and some MAD. If noone is dependent on ability scores for combat abilities, then "SAD" and "MAD" are simply nonissues.

And if you localize mechanics to doing specific things, instead of having Ability scores that do all sorts of things all over the place, it becomes easier to balance the game. It's harder to "do everything" when each and every "thing" requires a different feat, or class feature, or whatever.

I don't really see the point. Skill lists are getting shorter, not longer as game development progresses. The days of having 30+ skills are gone(and happily so!)

Huh? What don't you really see the point of? I don't get what this has to do with what you quoted.

 

[Ratskinner]

He didn't say to not have skills be based on ability scores, but that class abilities should be independent of ability scores. I think the mention of Rogues was to suggest that making their skill-based design independent of ability scores is tricky precisely because skills would still be based on ability scores.

Correct. Although getting rid of them and making everything a racial, background, class, or theme ability would make a bit of sense to me as well.

Assuming that interpretation, I agree. Ability scores should just be used for skills. Let classes/feats/specialties/whatever work with any ability score allocation. In particular, there's very little reason to forcibly tie combat mechanics with skill mechanics through ability scores.

Really, Gygax got this mostly right in the very original D&D. Ability scores had very limited mechanical impact, and where there more for inspiration and to help resolve actions not specifically addressed by the rules, things which are now codified into skills.

Definitely. Having the six GeneralWaysToDoSomething makes some sense, but I think weaving them into every other aspect of the character mechanics so tightly has generally been a mistake.

 

[Sunseeker]

All of which can be done without ability scores. They add nothing new.

I'm not saying they do. I'm saying they're a good starting base.

OK, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps you're misunderstanding my position. What I'm advocating for is to by able to say "I'm a great Fighter" or "I'm a great Wizard" or even "I'm a hybrid of Fighter and Wizard", and then to, independently, also say "I'm great at breaking down doors" or "I'm great at persuading people" or "I'm great at reading books and finding information". Not to be all those things at the same time. Just to have greater flexibility in choosing what things you want your character to be good at.

There must of course be some tie-in to each other. But lets throw out skills for a moment, I'm fine with players choosing what skills they want to be good in. Everyone picks say, 3 skills and gets X value in them to start with and then gets Y points to invest as they choose in those or other skills. Sort of a hybrid 4e and 3.X system.

But I'm still not sure that class, on it's own, should contain everything. How do we resolve the greataxe-weilding fighter-wizard? How do we position him against the straight fighter-type and the straight-wizard type. Is he half as good as either because he's evenly split? That doesn't really resolve the issue of players being stuck with one specific score, now they need to stick with one class to be good at it. Does the fighter class and the wizard class get the same BAB? If they do, then a 5-5 fighter-wizard can hit just as well as the 10-0 fighter-only. He may only know half the spells of the wizard, but that still makes him basically 10-5 out of a possible 10. The fighter-wizard is better than both the fighter, and the wizard on their own!

I would make how much damage you do be based on what class you are,

So, BAB basically, applied to damage as well.

what weapon you are using,

we've got weapon damage types.

and what other build options you took. Not any ability score at all, so there's no "physical damage based on how charismatic they are".

But that's where it gets tricky. Take above. The fighter gets say, one "build option" per level, while the wizard gets one every other level.
So the wizard-fighter gets 7 choices. How many "build options" do we really need to be better with a greatsword? Two? Maybe three? All the while he's still gaining 5 spells(lets just say one per level for simplicity). The wizard-fighter can cast as a 5th-level, and hit as a 7th level. That still makes our fighter-wizard a 12/10. We're closer, but he's still sitting on more power individually than the straight fighter or the straight wizard.

And sure, it makes sense for strength to improve dealing physical damage. You as a player could certainly say that your fighter is good at dealing damage because he has a lot of muscle. But that doesn't mean damage has to actually be tied to the ability score called Strength. Just because you are strong doesn't mean you are good at using a weapon effectively to deal damage.

Effectively dealing damage and the amount of damage you do are often two different scores(which I'm fine with). Dex-to-hit, str-for-damage.

SAD is only dangerous when some classes are SAD, and some MAD. If noone is dependent on ability scores for combat abilities, then "SAD" and "MAD" are simply nonissues.

Sure, but we still retain the linear-fighter, quadratic-caster problem. Wizards get better at hitting, and also get better things to hit with, in addition to new option on how to hit. The fighter gets better at hitting, and new options, but never anything better to hit with, and if they do, they have to pay out the wazoo for it.

And if you localize mechanics to doing specific things, instead of having Ability scores that do all sorts of things all over the place, it becomes easier to balance the game. It's harder to "do everything" when each and every "thing" requires a different feat, or class feature, or whatever.

4e did that to an extent and you can see how well that was received(though don't get me wrong, I liked a lot of things about 4e).

I understand what you're getting at, but to balance things out we'd have to take a 4e "powers" approach to martial combat. Basically so every class would gain the options of:
Better to-hit/damage(through your BAB variant)
Better things to hit with(4e powers)
Build Options(the new feats, limited only by class or power choice)
X number of Skills to train in.

Sure, you don't need ability scores for that type of a setup, but I'm not really sure that says D&D to me. It sounds like a fine basis for a game and pretty easy to balance, but I'm just not really seeing "D&D" in that.

 

[Ratskinner]

But I'm still not sure that class, on it's own, should contain everything. How do we resolve the greataxe-weilding fighter-wizard? How do we position him against the straight fighter-type and the straight-wizard type. Is he half as good as either because he's evenly split? That doesn't really resolve the issue of players being stuck with one specific score, now they need to stick with one class to be good at it. Does the fighter class and the wizard class get the same BAB? If they do, then a 5-5 fighter-wizard can hit just as well as the 10-0 fighter-only. He may only know half the spells of the wizard, but that still makes him basically 10-5 out of a possible 10. The fighter-wizard is better than both the fighter, and the wizard on their own!

I'm not sure what ability scores have to do with any of this. If they were wrapped into Race, Background, Class, maybe even Theme; then the multiclassing rules would certainly need to address this somehow.

4e did that to an extent and you can see how well that was received(though don't get me wrong, I liked a lot of things about 4e).

I understand what you're getting at, but to balance things out we'd have to take a 4e "powers" approach to martial combat. Basically so every class would gain the options of:
Better to-hit/damage(through your BAB variant)
Better things to hit with(4e powers)
Build Options(the new feats, limited only by class or power choice)
X number of Skills to train in.

Sure, you don't need ability scores for that type of a setup, but I'm not really sure that says D&D to me. It sounds like a fine basis for a game and pretty easy to balance, but I'm just not really seeing "D&D" in that.

Well, I think you're right. I fair certain I could make a game like that which feels very D&D (check out DungeonWorld or Old School Hack for old-school feel with new-school mechanics.) However, a great deal of folks wouldn't play it as unrecognizable. I do think it would eliminate a layer of confuddlement in the game's architecture, though.

 

[dkyle]

But I'm still not sure that class, on it's own, should contain everything.

I'm not saying it should. I did say "feats", too.

How do we resolve the greataxe-weilding fighter-wizard? How do we position him against the straight fighter-type and the straight-wizard type. Is he half as good as either because he's evenly split? That doesn't really resolve the issue of players being stuck with one specific score, now they need to stick with one class to be good at it. Does the fighter class and the wizard class get the same BAB? If they do, then a 5-5 fighter-wizard can hit just as well as the 10-0 fighter-only. He may only know half the spells of the wizard, but that still makes him basically 10-5 out of a possible 10. The fighter-wizard is better than both the fighter, and the wizard on their own!

Well, I think BAB is a bad mechanic to begin with. Scaling to-hit makes things really hard to balance, and there's a pretty small "sweet spot" on to-hit rates, so you might as well just set it there, and stick with it, more or less.

I would make it more about specific abilities you get as you level in a class, or take a feat. The Fighter would get various abilities to use with his axe, the Wizard would get more spells. The half and half hybrid would have as many abilities as the pure build, but of lower level. The tradeoff would be raw power based on the level of the ability, for versatility of broader application.

For HP and damage, I'd probably have a baseline for all characters, and then specific classes would modify from there. Fighters would get a bit more HP and damage with weapons, Wizards would get a bit more damage with spells.

But that's where it gets tricky. Take above. The fighter gets say, one "build option" per level, while the wizard gets one every other level.
So the wizard-fighter gets 7 choices. How many "build options" do we really need to be better with a greatsword? Two? Maybe three? All the while he's still gaining 5 spells(lets just say one per level for simplicity). The wizard-fighter can cast as a 5th-level, and hit as a 7th level. That still makes our fighter-wizard a 12/10. We're closer, but he's still sitting on more power individually than the straight fighter or the straight wizard.

This is why all classes should have similar amounts of "build options".

Effectively dealing damage and the amount of damage you do are often two different scores(which I'm fine with). Dex-to-hit, str-for-damage.

So Dexterity only effects people's binary chances of making contact or not making contact? Doesn't it make sense that dexterity could also help people target more damaging locations, or that perceptiveness (Wisdom) could ferret out openings for greater effect?

Sure, but we still retain the linear-fighter, quadratic-caster problem. Wizards get better at hitting, and also get better things to hit with, in addition to new option on how to hit. The fighter gets better at hitting, and new options, but never anything better to hit with, and if they do, they have to pay out the wazoo for it.

Ability scores, if anything, have traditionally favored Wizards over Fighters, since Wizards tend to be able to just maximize Intelligence at the expense of all else, while Fighters want Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity. Removing ability scores from combat does not fix caster superiority, but it does help. Just because this doesn't fix everything doesn't mean it isn't a step forward.

4e did that to an extent and you can see how well that was received(though don't get me wrong, I liked a lot of things about 4e).

I understand what you're getting at, but to balance things out we'd have to take a 4e "powers" approach to martial combat. Basically so every class would gain the options of:
Better to-hit/damage(through your BAB variant)
Better things to hit with(4e powers)
Build Options(the new feats, limited only by class or power choice)
X number of Skills to train in.

Sure, you don't need ability scores for that type of a setup, but I'm not really sure that says D&D to me. It sounds like a fine basis for a game and pretty easy to balance, but I'm just not really seeing "D&D" in that.

Consider this: suppose you took 3.5, and wherever your PC uses an ability modifier outside of skills, you just use +2 instead, and ignore ability score prereqs. Would the game actually change that much? Would it suddenly become significantly less balanced? Would the actual variety of viable builds go up or down? Does a Fighter/Wizard suddenly become better than a Wizard?

You don't have to radically alter your design to remove ability scores from combat abilities. Sure, I think a 4E "powers" approach is the best way to design a D&D game, but you don't actually need to go that route. Certainly, the original D&D didn't have "powers", yet would barely be changed if the very few effects of ability scores on combat were removed.

 

[Sunseeker]

Consider this: suppose you took 3.5, and wherever your PC uses an ability modifier outside of skills, you just use +2 instead, and ignore ability score prereqs. Would the game actually change that much? Would it suddenly become significantly less balanced? Would the actual variety of viable builds go up or down? Does a Fighter/Wizard suddenly become better than a Wizard?

You don't have to radically alter your design to remove ability scores from combat abilities. Sure, I think a 4E "powers" approach is the best way to design a D&D game, but you don't actually need to go that route. Certainly, the original D&D didn't have "powers", yet would barely be changed if the very few effects of ability scores on combat were removed.

I suppose if we're not scaling bonuses, then we can eliminate levels too. We could just use XP as a pool to purchase new features, spells, maneuvers, powers and abilities. Assign a price to each die-type and what a +1 is worth and bam, you've priced the entire game, every last aspect of it, past, future, present.

Again, I don't see that as a wholly bad game design, it reminds me a lot of Deadlands, but it's not really screaming D&D to me.

 

[Ratskinner]

Minor variations to power, style, flavor and the ability to numerically represent the character you made.

Keep in mind that I suggested two separate things.

The first is that we say that a Fighter 4 means a dude who is a level 4 threat. How he got there is irrelevant. Remove the ability adjustments entirely from class functions. In this case, the ability scores are just informing you of the how the character is working, and the skills (which makes the skillmonkeys another issue).

The second is that if we keep the ability scores tied in, we might as well just make +2 Str a part of the Fighter class, since that's what's gonna happen anyway. Variety, in this scenario comes from the fact that I would also suggest that Races and Backgrounds get things like +1 Con or +2 Int. So, if you wanted a Fighter/Mage, you should pick your Background/Race accordingly (making the old-school Elf thing inherent). I would suggest that picking up class later would not allow you to pick up those bonuses.

I like diversity, and diversity is not achieved by allowing a player to be great at everything. You could get more variety by giving people more choice. Instead of saying A,B,C,D,E,F are class skills, give players X,Y,Z and two of their choice.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, although in the current architecture, I would simply split those sets up amongst Race, Class, and Background.

I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation that certain aspects of the game, such as dealing physical damage, a tied to how strong you are. I liked some of the flexibility provided by 4e, but when you have physical classes dealing physical damage based on how charismatic they are, it's a little odd(at least with Paladin's you can rationalize that the damage is sourced from their divine empowerment, represented by their charisma score).

And with a Fighter, you can rationalize it as minor feints giving him the edge. (I think Constitution is the only one I have trouble with justifying as the root of being an effective fighter.) The one thing I do know, is that so long as having high Strength score adds directly to how well a fighter is a fighter....virtually all fighters will have maxed-out strength scores. If you want that...then there's no reason to make "I am strong" a separate character gen step from "I am a fighter."

 

[dkyle]

I suppose if we're not scaling bonuses, then we can eliminate levels too. We could just use XP as a pool to purchase new features, spells, maneuvers, powers and abilities. Assign a price to each die-type and what a +1 is worth and bam, you've priced the entire game, every last aspect of it, past, future, present.

Again, I don't see that as a wholly bad game design, it reminds me a lot of Deadlands, but it's not really screaming D&D to me.

Sure you could do all those things, but then if it doesn't "scream" D&D, it seems to me it's due to all those other things you've done, not just taking ability scores out of combat.

Are ability modifiers in combat really what makes 3.5 "scream" D&D, and without them, it doesn't? Is the original D&D, with it's almost absent ability modifiers, somehow almost absent of D&D-ness?

Also, for 3.5, I probably would scale the modifier to make it fit with the expectations of the rest of the system. But even without that, taking levels in classes is still a mechanic that's not easily converted into a pure XP point-buy system. Classes organize mechanics, and can be easier to balance, than freeform point-buy.