D&D 5E Odd-numbered ability scores

[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.