D&D 5E Odd-numbered ability scores

[Hriston]

Unless you have other odd scores that you care about, it is a waste. Otherwise, it would be better to raise one by 2, then the other by two, instead of raising each by one twice.

You're missing my point. The investment is worthwhile not only because you get to raise that odd score to even, but also by raising your even score to odd with your extra point you're setting yourself up to raise that score to even and still have an extra point you can use elsewhere the next time around.

 

[Coredump]

There is no difference between a 14 and a 15. Yes if you add 1 to each you get 15 and 16.... which are different. But that doesn't change the fact that 14 and 15 are the same.

Right now every PC starts with all even stats if possible, and tries to never get odd stats.... there is no benefit. I think there should be a benefit to having a 15 instead of a 14.... not a big difference, but something.

 

[Hriston]

There is no difference between a 14 and a 15. Yes if you add 1 to each you get 15 and 16.... which are different. But that doesn't change the fact that 14 and 15 are the same.

The difference in potential is still a difference.

Right now every PC starts with all even stats if possible, and tries to never get odd stats.... there is no benefit.

Depending on your method of stat generation, it isn't always possible to avoid odd scores.

I think there should be a benefit to having a 15 instead of a 14.... not a big difference, but something.

There is a difference between a 12 and a 13, however, if it qualifies you for a feat.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

I guess we play at very different tables. I and the players I play with have plenty of odd numbered stats. Besides, there are several feats (if you play with those) that grant a +1 to a stat. Wouldn't you want to "build" your PC to take advantage of those?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Back in 4e I liked keeping one stst even and one odd so every few levels when j boost bot 1 goes up... Starting with a 16 dex and 15 cha ment at level 4 that was 17 and 16 then at other 18 and 17 then at 11th 19 and 18

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Not really, in fact the issue becomes worse at higher level because you have finer control of the granularity. How many 8th level PCs do you see with two odd ability scores? That's right, not very many, because it feels like a waste. Additionally, at high level there are magic items you can potentially find which set your ability score to 19. Why 19? Why not 18? What's the difference?

The difference is you're one point closer to that +5 bonus. It creates the situation where character concept is realized over the course of progression through multiple levels.

In this case though, your 19 Strength does not get you one point closer to that +5 bonus. You can't put on Gauntlets of Ogre Power and then "add +1" to that via ASI--your Strength is still 19 unless you have 20+ Strength naturally.

Which three dice would you roll that would give an average of 5.5?

1d2 + 1d2 + 1d4 will average 5.5, although I don't know why you're asking.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You're missing my point. The investment is worthwhile not only because you get to raise that odd score to even, but also by raising your even score to odd with your extra point you're setting yourself up to raise that score to even and still have an extra point you can use elsewhere the next time around.

Right, everybody on the thread gets that trivially obvious point. You don't need to belabor the obvious.

 

[The Human Target]

I fall more on the "in the d20 era why do we even have the ability scores separate from modifiers" side of things instead of trying to fancy up the odd scores.

Or if we're going to keep the 3 to 18 spread at least have it do something interesting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I guess we play at very different tables. I and the players I play with have plenty of odd numbered stats. Besides, there are several feats (if you play with those) that grant a +1 to a stat. Wouldn't you want to "build" your PC to take advantage of those?

If it's not a problem for you, that's cool. But as a matter of aesthetics, there are those of us including myself who want the barbarian NPC with Str 17 to be mechanically distinct in at least some way from a barbarian with Str 16, not just at the metagame level (what he might be 8 levels from now) but right now. At minimum he should be better at arm-wrestling, right?

Again, if it's not a problem for you, it's not a problem for you. I'm not trying to tell you how to change your game, just sharing a house rule for the sake of anyone who's looking for one.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

If it's not a problem for you, that's cool. But as a matter of aesthetics, there are those of us including myself who want the barbarian NPC with Str 17 to be mechanically distinct in at least some way from a barbarian with Str 16, not just at the metagame level (what he might be 8 levels from now) but right now. At minimum he should be better at arm-wrestling, right?

Again, if it's not a problem for you, it's not a problem for you. I'm not trying to tell you how to change your game, just sharing a house rule for the sake of anyone who's looking for one.

Fair enough. I guess I was trying to make the point that not everyone has a problem with it, but I get that that doesn't really help you

 

[hbarsquared]

I get the desire, and I don't want to demand that people play the game my way.

But I like the odd-ability scores.

It makes every ability score increase a true decision-point, and enforces the concept of delayed-gratification. If you get something no matter what, where's the choice? Where's the angst? Where's the conflict?

I believe D&D should always include the option for decisions worse in the short term and better in the long term - long-ranging character planning.

That temporary frustration is what makes your eventual +1 modifier all the more sweet.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I get the desire, and I don't want to demand that people play the game my way.

But I like the odd-ability scores.

It makes every ability score increase a true decision-point, and enforces the concept of delayed-gratification. If you get something no matter what, where's the choice? Where's the angst? Where's the conflict?

I believe D&D should always include the option for decisions worse in the short term and better in the long term - long-ranging character planning.

That temporary frustration is what makes your eventual +1 modifier all the more sweet.

I don't think that describes the current regime. With rare exceptions (such as if you're planning on taking Resilient at higher level), odd abilities scores aren't currently better in the short-term or the long-term. They're just vestigial remnants of AD&D ability scores, normalized into meaninglessness.

If there were an actual long-term payoff to odd ability scores this issue would lose about 50% of its distastefulness to me, because I actually am totally a long-term thinker. For example, I do have a half-elf warlock/necromancer at 8th level right now who's sitting on a Dex 17 and Con 17 due to good rolls, with the intention of eventually getting +1 in each via Resilient (Con) and Moderately Armored if he ever makes it to 18th level. I'm cool with that. But it's kind of a rare situation.

Under the current regime I tend to put odd scores into Str (because encumbrance) or Int (because intellect devourers). That's not much of a long-term payoff.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Right, everybody on the thread gets that trivially obvious point. You don't need to belabor the obvious.

Please stop being so aggressive and rude, it's getting old. You also need odd numbered ability scores for multi-classing.

 

[Aribar]

It would be nice if they did away with those "dead" ability score levels. In 3E at least there was the odd justification of feats needing odd scores, but here an odd score is worthless. Just rate abilities from zero to +5, or from -5 to +5 if you must. It simplifies a needless portion of the game and while keeping the mechanics ability scores possess.

 

[ko6ux]

Just use 2nd Edition AD&D style ability checks. That makes the even numbered points useful.

 

[The Human Target]

Just use 2nd Edition AD&D style ability checks. That makes the even numbered points useful.

I don't really like that mechanic, but at least that makes the current ability score system make sense.

What we have now is just one of the many vestigial tails of D&D.

They don't bother me really, but they do probably make the game pointlessly arcane for new people.

 

[El Mahdi]

I use a houserule based on an idea that Mearls had back during the original playtest:

If the DC for a check is less than or equal to the actual ability score (not the modifier), the check is an automatic success.

This way the score itself can actually matter, though not necessarily all the time; but the potential is enough to make those odd numbered scores matter to players.

So:
- average scores (10-11, up through 14) always succeed versus an Easy DC (10)
- high scores (15 to 19) always succeed versus a Medium DC (15)
- extraordinary scores (20 to 24) always succeed versus a Hard DC (20)

Cuts down on dice rolling (keeping game play moving faster), let's those odd numbered ability scores matter, and let's high scores really matter (automatic successes for anything other than Very Hard or Nearly Impossible DC's with an extraordinary ability score).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Just use 2nd Edition AD&D style ability checks. That makes the even numbered points useful.

I at one point intended to do that, but then realized that it interacts oddly with things like proficiency, bardic Jack of All Trades and champion's Athletics. I guess I could just port those over to be a bonus on top of the ability score, but... anyway, I haven't found a good way to do that, and the "+1 for odd scores" is more minimalist.

 

[Hriston]

In this case though, your 19 Strength does not get you one point closer to that +5 bonus. You can't put on Gauntlets of Ogre Power and then "add +1" to that via ASI--your Strength is still 19 unless you have 20+ Strength naturally.

Of course, I was addressing the larger issue of the thread. My mistake.

1d2 + 1d2 + 1d4 will average 5.5, although I don't know why you're asking.

I ask because you suggested changing the range of scores to 1-10. Kind of hard to do roll 4 drop lowest with that set-up.

Right, everybody on the thread gets that trivially obvious point. You don't need to belabor the obvious.

It's obvious to me. It doesn't seem to be obvious to those who keep saying there's no difference, or no "long-term payoff."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I ask because you suggested changing the range of scores to 1-10. Kind of hard to do roll 4 drop lowest with that set-up.

Ah, okay. If you wanted to condense ability scores to 1-10 (which I don't), but still retain a "roll 4 drop lowest", you could roll 4d3 drop lowest. If you also wanted to maintain the same probability distribution as 4d6 drop lowest divided by two, I'm afraid you'll have to roll 4d6 drop lowest divided by two--I don't think there's another distribution with whole-numbered dice which will produce the same results.

It's obvious to me. It doesn't seem to be obvious to those who keep saying there's no difference, or no "long-term payoff."

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I seem to match your predicate (someone who says there's no long-term payoff or short-term difference) and it is obvious to me that odd scores bring you one point closer to the next even score. I can explain if necessary why being one point closer isn't a long-term advantage in the general case or a short-term advantage, but I loathe belaboring the obvious[1] so I unless someone asks I won't.

[1] Since having the obvious laboriously explained to me, as if I were an idiot, is one of my pet peeves, I would rather err on the side of not doing that to other people. If they're confused, they can ask for details.