Level based ability score increases pointless?

[Wiseblood]

Are level based ability score increases in 3e-4e pointless?

They seem to be an artifact/consequence from earlier editions where ability scores were much more difficult to increase. I remember seeking ways to get such increases in earlier editions. What do you think?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not at all. It's one of the few things that actually makes odd ability scores matter; an odd starting ability can be boosted at 4th level and gain a modifier. That increased modifier could be a bonus to attack and damage, a new reservoir of skill points, increased DCs and bonus spells, hit points and fort saves, AC and ref saves...

Such small but meaningful increases can be very important, especially if you DM gives you little control over your starting abilities and you want to control your character's development.

If it were any faster, you'd risk losing the relevance of starting ability scores. Some games define ability scores differently, but in D&D they are very important and not to be toyed with lightly.

The static ability scores of 2e were a problem and one that 3e fixed rather nicely.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

They're not exactly pointless, but they're more trouble than they're worth -- if you're interested in game balance.

I play 4e using C4 rules, which means all abilities get boosted every few levels. So effectively...there might as well be no boosts at all. Which I'd be perfectly happy with.

 

[El Mahdi]

In my houserules, I make them Feat based. In other words, you can increase an ability score through training, exercise, etc. - not as an automatic result of gaining experience. Those who feel the increased ability score is important to their character concept can use an earned feat to gain it. I do however, limit how often one can take such feats, and there are preset limits on ability scores (Mortal limit above which is limited only to supernatural beings/gods).

 

[Mark CMG]

Not at all. It's one of the few things that actually makes odd ability scores matter (. . .)

That's a legacy of stretching the game to encompass a greater number of levels, a problem in its own right.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's a legacy of stretching the game to encompass a greater number of levels, a problem in its own right.

I'm all for less levels and level-dependent growth, but I think ability score increases compensate to some extent for exorbitant skill, BAB, base save, and other bonuses. I don't see how they contribute to the "problem".

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm all for less levels and level-dependent growth, but I think ability score increases compensate to some extent for exorbitant skill, BAB, base save, and other bonuses. I don't see how they contribute to the "problem".

I agree, insofar as it is a symptom (as are those other things you mention, of the stretched leveling system. There's no real need for the system to be more than ten levels (which works well when using a d20 and having 10 as the baseline for many features and checks). It helps maintain the integrity of the system and avoids the need to patch it with artificial add-ons that account for odd (non-even) ability scores and "dead" levels or the features designers try to squeeze in to avoid "dead" levels. One of the other things you can do is pack each level with more meaning, granulating what happens between level-ups, if you will.

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm all for less levels and level-dependent growth, but I think ability score increases compensate to some extent for exorbitant skill, BAB, base save, and other bonuses. I don't see how they contribute to the "problem".

They do not compensate for weak scores, they are included in the balance calculations for character growth. In fact, they are half of the reason why all those derived statistics are so exorbitant.

Ability score growth simply exasperates the difference between the "haves" and the "have-nots". When you level up, your opponents and obstacles get harder, which bumps up the required stats needed to overcome them. You become effectively worse at something, because you leveled up and didn't bump up the ability that influences that stat, just so that the people who did level up that ability can be effectively challenged.

 

[was]

They don't bother me. I just seem them as a side effect of experience. If you spend a year swinging a sword and killing things your strength improves. If you spend a year tactically casting spells in battle your intelligence improves...etc..

 

[billd91]

They do not compensate for weak scores, they are included in the balance calculations for character growth. In fact, they are half of the reason why all those derived statistics are so exorbitant.

Ability score growth simply exasperates the difference between the "haves" and the "have-nots". When you level up, your opponents and obstacles get harder, which bumps up the required stats needed to overcome them. You become effectively worse at something, because you leveled up and didn't bump up the ability that influences that stat, just so that the people who did level up that ability can be effectively challenged.

I do not think the game was designed to be so bleak if you decide to invest in secondary stats. That has not been my experience at all.

That said, I favor the stat increases because they work in the opposite direction - they alleviate the need to start with exceptional stats because a character has numerous ways to get better as the campaign progresses.