D&D 5E The tyranny of small numbers

[overgeeked]

I have felt for a while, that ability scores do not make sense if they're viewed like most of this board does.

If every character of given class is expected to have the same main ability score or constitution score at a given level, why is it a choice in the first place? If the class effectively dictates your ability scores, why are we pretending they're a choice, why are we pretending they represent individual variation? In such a paradigm they can't. It would be far more logical to get rid of ability scores then, and just have the classes provide the expected level appropriate bonuses.

It is not exactly what I would want, but it would be far more honest than pretending there is a choice and that they represent different characters being different, if in practice your class effectively dictates the score placement.

So seriously stop to think: what is the purpose of ability scores and what do they represent?

I definitely see your point. It would be easier, and more honest, to ditch ability scores and skills (because they're basically a non-choice as well), and simply give classes advantage in the things they're expected to do. It's the equivalent to a +5 so it covers a lot of ground. Keep abilities as a thing and give each class two they get advantage in. That covers ability scores, skills, and saves. Fighters are proficient in STR or DEX and CON, go.

 

[Maxperson]

I know the numbers are small, but I think you also have to look at what all they are affecting. If I'm a Rogue, and I only ever get one attack a turn (without two weapon fighting) and everything rides on that attack, AND I get so many benefits from Dexterity, what would be better than raising it anyways?

To me?

Alert
Athelete
Actor
Dual Wielder
Dungeon Delver
Keen Mind
Lucky
Mage Slayer
Magic Initiate
Martial Adept
Mobile
Observant
Sentinel
Tavern Brawler
Skilled
Sharpshooter
Skulker

Those are just from the PHB and just for rogue characters. I'd be able to list several more from other books, and would have slightly different picks if picking for other classes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have had players rage quit because they didn't roll super-high stats. A character that was average was quote "utterly unplayable trash."

Yeah, I mean if that’s the players’ attitudes, probably best to do point buy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have felt for a while, that ability scores do not make sense if they're viewed like most of this board does.

If every character of given class is expected to have the same main ability score or constitution score at a given level, why is it a choice in the first place? If the class effectively dictates your ability scores, why are we pretending they're a choice, why are we pretending they represent individual variation? In such a paradigm they can't. It would be far more logical to get rid of ability scores then, and just have the classes provide the expected level appropriate bonuses.

It is not exactly what I would want, but it would be far more honest than pretending there is a choice and that they represent different characters being different, if in practice your class effectively dictates the score placement.

So seriously stop to think: what is the purpose of ability scores and what do they represent?

5e has rules for rolling stats using dice, right? In that case the player rolls their dice, and then decides what to make of the resulting character. If you want to really get the feel of "hey, your ability scores determine your fate" then require rolling them in order! IME most players are OK with that, at least some of the time. Usually once they've played with a system for a while though, they will want to try out specific builds and whatnot, and then this process starts to get in the way of the fun. There can be a kind of lingering sense of frustration as well when your character overall has sub-par scores other players are forever wielding an advantage due to a single toss of dice that happened 9 months ago.

In the end you're unlikely to end up with lots of fighters with mediocre physical attributes and such anyway. Notice a few little-mentioned but key points in the design of the original D&D game: There are 'disqualifier' numbers, like if your STR is 5 or less your character MUST be a Magic User in 1e, 5 INT also limits you to Fighter, etc. These, and in OD&D the 'trade points' rule, insures that there are some PCs with things like prime requisites of 12 and such (OD&D's 3d6 in order also kinda guarantees that as well, though people usually toss really pointless ability score sets). Those sorts of things won't come up in 5e, unless you intro some really draconian chargen rules.

When I wrote my own game, I got rid of the notion of 'ability score' and there are just bonuses. While they are not technically tied to specific classes, it usually makes sense to construct certain classic styles of build. OTOH you COULD construct a fighter that pretty much exclusively uses INT and CHA. It will just be a weird character, and requires some unusual build choices (also there isn't really an INT melee weapon, lol, though you could invent an INT based fighting style which is going to basically do the same thing).

 

[Asisreo]

I have had players rage quit because they didn't roll super-high stats. A character that was average was quote "utterly unplayable trash

I'd have them removed from the game anyways. If you think on it, that's not only how they'd view their own characters, but that's how they'd view others' characters on their team.

So the guy playing an average fighter character would probably be "utter garbage" to that person and that's not the type of attitude I'd want in my games.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, I mean if that’s the player’s’ attitudes, probably best to do point buy.

Funnily enough it worked as intended. It's one of the filters I use to screen out certain kinds of players.

I'd have them removed from the game anyways. If you think on it, that's not only how they'd view their own characters, but that's how they'd view others' characters on their team.

So the guy playing an average fighter character would probably be "utter garbage" to that person and that's not the type of attitude I'd want in my games.

Exactly. I insist on rolled stats to find and filter out players with terrible attitudes.

 

[MoonSong]

Exactly. I insist on rolled stats to find and filter out players with terrible attitudes.

It depends, can I choose to lower a score that I find too high?

 

[tetrasodium]

I have felt for a while, that ability scores do not make sense if they're viewed like most of this board does.

If every character of given class is expected to have the same main ability score or constitution score at a given level, why is it a choice in the first place? If the class effectively dictates your ability scores, why are we pretending they're a choice, why are we pretending they represent individual variation? In such a paradigm they can't. It would be far more logical to get rid of ability scores then, and just have the classes provide the expected level appropriate bonuses.

It is not exactly what I would want, but it would be far more honest than pretending there is a choice and that they represent different characters being different, if in practice your class effectively dictates the score placement.

So seriously stop to think: what is the purpose of ability scores and what do they represent?

I don't think the problem is trhe fact that there is a choice so much that the choices are meaningless. Take the 3d6 or 4d6 distribution on pg33 of the tome of variance as an example, suddenly you have serious changes being made & the choices are going to result in viscerally different results rather than just the same results but differently arranged. Try a few minmaxed SAD vrs jack of all but master of none type builds & there are serious choices even into things like "how do I want to handle dump stat(s)"

 

[overgeeked]

It depends, can I choose to lower a score that I find too high?

I dunno. It’s literally never happened in almost 40 years of playing D&D or D&D-like games.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I assume you're referring to me. I certainly take statements like:
"Are we telling people they must have a +1 sword or the character is doomed?"
and
"There are lots of other ways to build one…if you can tolerate a slightly smaller bonus here or there."

as being pretty hyperbolic. The former statement openly implies that even a single deviation results in doom and gloom proclamations from anyone interested in optimization. That is both unfair and inaccurate in most cases. The second likewise implies that optimizers find it intolerable to ever have "a slightly smaller bonus here or there." That is likewise both unfair and inaccurate in most cases.

Do you deny that these paint essentially all optimizers with a broad brush of unfair and inaccurate assertions?

I stand by what I said as it applies to the people I am referencing. If there are people that are doing exactly what I said, I think they are giving bad guidance in most instances.