D&D General Normal Distribution Ability Scores

[TwoSix]

And single digit ability scores were never intended to be so debilitating. The game rules wouldn't have allowed you to have a 3 Int if a 6 was meant to be non-functional as an adventurer.

I think this is the important point. If the game rules wanted you to view characters with some low stats as obviously unsuited to adventuring, why would they let you generate those stats?

The problem is a pretty wide swath of the player base took that "Int * 10 = IQ" as actually meaningful, and thus a lot of people do actually think that anything below an 8 is actually an extreme disability. I think that attitude also combined with the idea of "dump stat = munchkinism", and thus the idea that any low stat characters are problematic got baked into the collective consciousness of the player base.

And thus you have the norm today of no stat can actually be lower than 8.

 

[ezo]

I never imagined the 3d6 system as dictating how every human born got their attributes.

Technically it isn't, of course, it is one method for PCs to generate scores. It isn't even the default method...

FWIW, NPC's (if you wanted to roll):

 

[Horwath]

I think this is the important point. If the game rules wanted you to view characters with some low stats as obviously unsuited to adventuring, why would they let you generate those stats?

The problem is a pretty wide swath of the player base took that "Int * 10 = IQ" as actually meaningful, and thus a lot of people do actually think that anything below an 8 is actually an extreme disability. I think that attitude also combined with the idea of "dump stat = munchkinism", and thus the idea that any low stat characters are problematic got baked into the collective consciousness of the player base.

And thus you have the norm today of no stat can actually be lower than 8.

kind of like this classification:

9 classifications;

great to go from 3(-4 mod) to 18(+4 mod) with middle of 10(+0 mod)

20(+5) if of the scale here and it should be.

 

[tetrasodium]

I am not at home to check my books but I read it somewhere.

"Somewhere" doesn't sound like PHB or DMG let alone current edition. Some people implementing house rules suggesting that a low attribute is some kind of extreme debilitating condition is hardly reason to exclude low attributes while still maintaining the ability to get near max attributes.

 

[Horwath]

"Somewhere" doesn't sound like PHB or DMG let alone current edition. Some people implementing house rules suggesting that a low attribute is some kind of extreme debilitating condition is hardly reason to exclude low attributes while still maintaining the ability to get near max attributes.

well, when you are adventurer and you are in mortal danger on a daily basis from various sources, I would say that in that lifestyle even a 10 can be consider a weak stat and a liability for your team.

 

[Emerikol]

"Somewhere" doesn't sound like PHB or DMG let alone current edition. Some people implementing house rules suggesting that a low attribute is some kind of extreme debilitating condition is hardly reason to exclude low attributes while still maintaining the ability to get near max attributes.

It just means I don't have the ability to access my books at this time.

 

[ezo]

I think this is the important point. If the game rules wanted you to view characters with some low stats as obviously unsuited to adventuring, why would they let you generate those stats?

The problem is a pretty wide swath of the player base took that "Int * 10 = IQ" as actually meaningful, and thus a lot of people do actually think that anything below an 8 is actually an extreme disability. I think that attitude also combined with the idea of "dump stat = munchkinism", and thus the idea that any low stat characters are problematic got baked into the collective consciousness of the player base.

And thus you have the norm today of no stat can actually be lower than 8.

It is unfortunate IMO. Especially as I pointed out above even in 5E base proficiency +2 would offset a penalty for a score as low as 6 in the game.

When you consider in AD&D, most scores of 7 had no real penalty, and a 6 was often (at worse!) just a -1.
STR 6: -1 to hit, -150cn weight allowance
DEX 6: +1 to AC (penalty in AD&D!)
CON 6: -1 hp per die (more serious in AD&D given lower hit dice in some cases)
INT 6: +0 additional languages
WIS 6: -1 to magical mental saves
CHA 6: max 2 henchment, -15% loyalty, -10% reaction

None of these, except perhaps CON 6, would really stop a PC from being a good character, especially if another score was exceptional.

I'll add that it was always at the score 5 where "here or lower the PC an only be an <blank>" restrictions for classes, etc.

 

[ezo]

kind of like this classification:
View attachment 384323

9 classifications;

great to go from 3(-4 mod) to 18(+4 mod) with middle of 10(+0 mod)

20(+5) if of the scale here and it should be.

Yep, I've always preferred the -4 to +4 as normal maximum modifiers, with -5 and +5 being beyond what is considered normal at all.

It works well with this:

from my earlier post.

Basically, you keep the 12 and higher bonuses, allowing a score of 20 to be +5, and this would make a score of 0 a -5 (if you weren't dead because of it??).

 

[Xeviat]

Coming back to this discussion, I'm once again wondering what would happen if offense was stripped from the ability scores and ability scores were only used for skill checks, saves, and prerequisites. Offenses like attack, damage, and saves could use level and proficiency. A level 10 Fighter has X to hit because they're a level 10 fighter; or they're a level 10 fighter because they have +X to hit.

Yeah. Everyone would be "the same", but like they are now? This might even make more differences, because they're could be different feats and fighting styles between Str, Dex, or even Int Fighters.

 

[TwoSix]

Coming back to this discussion, I'm once again wondering what would happen if offense was stripped from the ability scores and ability scores were only used for skill checks, saves, and prerequisites. Offenses like attack, damage, and saves could use level and proficiency. A level 10 Fighter has X to hit because they're a level 10 fighter; or they're a level 10 fighter because they have +X to hit.

Yeah. Everyone would be "the same", but like they are now? This might even make more differences, because they're could be different feats and fighting styles between Str, Dex, or even Int Fighters.

I've done it. It works great, and like you said, totally facilitates more stat differentiation within classes.

The only real change I made other than this is that I made a lot of spells and abilities start to feature Str, Int, and Cha saves, since they're pretty rare compared to Dex, Con, and Wis.