Levels and skill vs. ability scores.

[B.T.]

Something I've noticed in D&D editions is the shift away from levels and your skill gained with them to proficiency based on ability scores. The earliest iterations of D&D didn't really use your ability scores except to give you an XP bonus. By 2e, your ability scores mattered, but they only affected your ability at the high end of things. 3e changed all that with standard ability scores that were completely uncapped. Whereas 2e topped out around 25 or so (IIRC), 3e introduced monsters with ability scores that were in the 30-40 range with PCs that could get similarly high numbers. For better or for worse (worse, IMO), everything was standardized into a bonus (or penalty) for every two points higher (or lower) than 10. 4e streamlined this system: everyone advanced at the same rate, so the fighter's attack bonus from leveling was the same as the wizard's. 5e is pushing this even further, in which there is almost no level bonus and that the raw ability score is the main determiner of effectiveness.

My question is: what style of system do you prefer and why?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Both.

I want ability scores to matter, but not so much so that your character is gimped compared to another because you don't have an 18 in a particular attribute. Similarly, I want to gain skills and abilities by gaining experience and levels, but don't want to wait forever for fun abilities.

3E got it close, but probably had too much power from ability scores alone. I worry that 5E is going too far in the "ability scores are everything" direction.

 

[Bullgrit]

The earliest iterations of D&D didn't really use your ability scores except to give you an XP bonus. By 2e, your ability scores mattered, but they only affected your ability at the high end of things. 3e changed all that with standard ability scores that were completely uncapped. Whereas 2e topped out around 25 or so (IIRC), 3e introduced monsters with ability scores that were in the 30-40 range with PCs that could get similarly high numbers.

Not completely accurate.

Yes, in the very earliest incarnations, (OD&D and Holmes BD&D), ability scores didn't really matter or give a bonus/penalty except for experience points.

But as soon as AD&D1 and Moldvay BD&D, high and low ability scores gave bonuses and penalties, very similar to how D&D3 did it. Although, in AD&D1, there was no standard pattern to the bonuses and penalties. In Moldavy BD&D, the pattern was standardized. AD&D2 was nearly identical to its predecessor. D&D3 combined having a pattern (as in Moldvay BD&D) with the bonus/penalty range of the AD&Ds. AD&D1 even had tables for ability scores up to 25.

I liked the system in D&D3 -- it combined the best parts of both AD&D and BD&D, standardizing the numbers while making the numbers matter throughout play.

Bullgrit

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the standardization of 3e provided clearer meaning to what ability scores meant (and made their bonuses easily comparable to level-based bonuses). I think the numbers are way too heavy on the side of the skills though. I prefer ability scores to be of primary importance throughout a character's career, both for verisimilitude and to support heroic play (heroes, after all, are born, not made) (well, some of them anyway). 5e is perhaps a step in the right direction, but also more confusing than 3e.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Not completely accurate.

Yes, in the very earliest incarnations, (OD&D and Holmes BD&D), ability scores didn't really matter or give a bonus/penalty except for experience points.

But as soon as AD&D1 and Moldvay BD&D, high and low ability scores gave bonuses and penalties...AD&D2 was nearly identical

I think that's what "by 2e" was supposed to mean.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Something I've noticed in D&D editions is the shift away from levels and your skill gained with them to proficiency based on ability scores. The earliest iterations of D&D didn't really use your ability scores except to give you an XP bonus. By 2e, your ability scores mattered, but they only affected your ability at the high end of things. 3e changed all that with standard ability scores that were completely uncapped. Whereas 2e topped out around 25 or so (IIRC), 3e introduced monsters with ability scores that were in the 30-40 range with PCs that could get similarly high numbers. For better or for worse (worse, IMO), everything was standardized into a bonus (or penalty) for every two points higher (or lower) than 10. 4e streamlined this system: everyone advanced at the same rate, so the fighter's attack bonus from leveling was the same as the wizard's. 5e is pushing this even further, in which there is almost no level bonus and that the raw ability score is the main determiner of effectiveness.

My question is: what style of system do you prefer and why?

4e is my favorite game so it's not terribly surprising I'd vote for that one. I think 4e made ability scores less important. You only needed one good score (and one halfway decent score, depending on build). In some cases (an Essentials thief, for instance) it hardly mattered what your secondary was. Essentials 1 suggested a thief make their secondary either Strength or Charisma (just like in the PH1) but for a one-shot where I played an E-thief I chose Wisdom instead.

For me, ability scores should play a big role when it comes to skills (I don't like the idea of simply making the highest level fighter the general, it should be going to someone with lots of Int and Charisma; in 4e terms a military officer is probably a warlord, not a fighter) but should play less of a role when it comes to combat. With appropriate feats you don't even need to use a class's key stat as its high stat. (In a one-shot, a fellow player played an eladrin knight, whose key stat was Strength. Needless to say, he played very strategically, as befitted a really smart warrior.)

It didn't bother me much that a wizard's attack bonus increased at the same rate as a fighter's. (Here's where ability scores played a key role in combat.) A fighter is going to have more Strength and a fighter talent bonus, plus he's doing to deal far more damage. A starting fighter's attack bonus could easily be +5 over a wizard's (when it comes to using a weapon). The wizard could literally go their entire career without ever using their dagger, given the way spells work. By tying the wizard spell attack bonus progression to that of the fighter's weapon attack bonus progression, it prevented situations where you might have a wizard whose spells always hit (when the fighter never hits) or whose spells never hit (when the fighter always hits). Even if it turned out both classes hit too much (or not enough) only one change is needed.

My main beef with D&D Next's bonded accuracy isn't that it "doesn't work" because I think it can be made to work. I don't like how saving throws work though, or how a class that uses Dexterity to boost AC will see their AC scale when no one else does. At higher levels, a rogue might never really need to worry about getting hit, but everyone else does, and that's not balanced. At any level (but worse at higher levels) a wizard can target a monster's obviously weak ability score. (I don't think it's metagaming to realize the fire giant who was grunting to himself before the battle started isn't that intelligent, and probably isn't all that agile either.) A level 1 wizard with Int 18 is looking at +4 vs -1, a 5 point swing. Not that 1st-level wizards should be facing "paragon"-level fire giants, but an at-level wizard won't find the fire giant to be any kind of threat. In 4e, you can also try to target a creature's weak defense, but at most that's giving you the equivalent of +2 (unless you're fighting zombies, who specifically have very bad NADs other than Fort). In addition, by using the better of two stats, it's quite possible to explain why a monster might not have a terrible NAD. (Said grunting fire giant will have a bad Reflex defense in any system from 3e onward, but he could have a dynamic presence - high Cha - and have a good Will defense. Or he might be a shaman - high Wisdom - and also have a good Will defense.)

One key reason for the change from 2e to 3e was to make point buy possible. Point buy wouldn't make sense with 2e and previous edition's weird ability score systems. (Alternity used something similar, but the point buy wasn't weighed, which IME was a bit problematic.) Even D&DN will not move backward on that topic. A system like D&DN, where ability scores are so important, just wouldn't work with 2e-style ability scores.

But overall I like 4e's system better than D&DN, because in 4e you can actually get better with non-combat skills over levels, but in D&DN you can't really. That's especially the case with, say, a warlord-archetype (probably a fighter with high mental stats rather than its own class) who can only really boost Strength because they want to be useful at combat and not just be capable of leadership.

 

[Bullgrit]

I think that's what "by 2e" was supposed to mean.

But "by 2e" skips over 1e and Basic when "your ability scores mattered" originated, around 10 years earlier.

Bullgrit

 

[Evilhalfling]

I really disliked 2e and (late 1e) skill system.
instead of a skill roll based on a modifier, it was based directly on the ability score. This over emphasized the role of ability scores, and adding a second NWP for a +1 was an option that was never taken ever.

I played with a Fighter who wanted to make armor and weapons. it was virtually impossible (smithing /armor/ weapons was something like a int roll at -3.

There needs to be a way for skills to increase as you gain levels/practice. Perhaps not automatically as in 4e, but it needs to be possible, without gimping yourself for combat. I think pathfinder has actually done the best job. the +3 skill bonus punting any ranks into class skills, with several ways of making skills into class skills. It encourages people to spread out some skill points, while focusing on a few key skills that they use/practice with all the time.

I would really like the new system that encourages just this dynamic.

 

[howandwhy99]

Ability Scores mattered enormously in earlier editions of D&D. What they weren't however, were skills or what we've come to know as narrative resolution mechanics. Instead they were statistics where each covered a broad aggregate of game mechanics. Rather than deriving Ability Score stats from the bottom up using the multitude of game modifiers, the multitude were derived from the top down.

These six scores are a kind of emergent set of traits attributable to most everything in the game. Well, maybe not all six, but most of them. That everything appears "cleaned up" and simplified in newer games doesn't necessarily make them better. A good deal of the changes were due to decades of designers working on the game without any understanding of why D&D was designed as it was.

My thinking is D&D Next is vastly over weighting the Ability Score modifiers in the d20 rolls of the game. I also want class, race, equipment, environment, and other modifiers to matter as well. I know they do, but, as D&D is first and foremost a role playing game, Class should be paramount in the degree it sways die roll results.

 

[N'raac]

For me, I liked the switch from 2e to 3e. In 2e, how many Fighters would have a 16 or 17 STR? Somehow, they all had an 18 (and far less than half rolled 01-50 on percentile dice...). Because bonuses applied only on very high scores, we grew to believe everyone needed those very high scores.

3e mae smaller gradations more meaningful. A 2e character with a 17 STR, 16 INT, 15 WIS, 12 CON, 18 DEX and 16 CHA could get by in 3e with a 12 STR, 18 DEX, 10 CON, 14 INT, 12 WIS, 14 CHA - he received similar bonuses.He's still formidable to be sure, but his stats are much more granular, and seem more reasonable. Characters don't need an 18 to be competitive (though we often persuade ourselves they do to eke out that extra bonus point) In 2e, a 7 - 14 is all the same. In 3e, that range generates considerable variation.

There are three determiners of success, skill (ranks/level/class), Ability (stats) and Luck (d20). As the OP notes, 4e removed "skill" (level) from the system to a significant extent - I like the 3e balance between skill, native ability and luck better than that balance in prior or later editions.