D&D 5E Why Are Ability Scores Necessary?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Please don't reply to me further, here.

It’s an open thread in an open forum- if another poster is bugging you, quietly put them on your ignore list.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s an open thread in an open forum- if another poster is bugging you, quietly put them on your ignore list.

It is absolutely, egregiously, absurd, to ask people to not ask others to stop engaging with them. To make the ignore feature step one is one of the most ludicrous ideas I’ve ever seen on any forum.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

For 5e the scores don’t matter. Only the bonuses.

Yep. Having everyone just roll d6-2 to generate bonuses and skip the actual 3d6 based "scores" would play just about the same in 5e.

 

[Tonguez]

Just some noodling:

If “ability” scores are reconceived to cover actions, rather than attributes, then maybe we can add Traits that model natural gifts.

Example. You don’t have ability scores as you know them. Instead you have three Action Scores (whatever, just lend me a little license for a sec) and they are Combat, Exploration, and Interaction. And let’s say that the class you pick gives you your starting Scores in each and they’re maybe modified by your background. A Fighter might have base scores of Combat 16, Exploration 10, and Interaction 10. The fighter takes the Sage background and gains a +2 in either Exploration or Interaction. For traits, perhaps we pick some options off a list that’s determined by race, background, and class.

Oh! I do like the idea of using theThree Pillars - Combat, Exploration and Interaction and making them a whole lot more prominent in the game play.

I’d even go as far as using something like the Fate Accelerated Approaches applied to the Pillars

so using a 5 point spread

A Ninja Assasin
Combat - Careful +2 - (silently she observes her opponent to identify weaknesses)
Exploration - Sneaky +2 (keeping hidden and moving through the shadows)
Interaction - Clever +1 (but she uses bluff and wit when needed)

A Knight Cavalier
Combat - Flashy +1 (a glorious Knight in armour with sword blazing)
Exploration - Forceful +3 (he passionately rushes directly into things)
Interaction - Careful +1 (but his heart is noble and sensitive to al)l

A Wizard Illusionist
Combat - Flashy +3 (using distraction and confusing spells)
Exploration - Forceful +0 (he might act without waiting for the team)
Interaction - Careful +2 (and is very manipulative in his speech)

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I like ability scores. But I wish they were detached from random secondary mechanics like how many times a Bard can give inspiration per rest or how many spells a Wizard can prepare, as I feel like these sorts of things are actually where where it actually becomes a serious problem to play a character with subpar stats. A Wizard with an 8 in Intelligence is going to have a low spell save DC and spell attack bonus, but so what, he'll still succeed a lot of the time at casting spells. The same WIzard not being able to have more than 1 spell prepared at a time until level 3 makes him more or less unplayable.

I mean, there are obviously differences between Mike Tyson and Albert Einstein. I don't have a problem with the game representing that.

It doesn't mean Einstein is "better" than Tyson, but I doubt Tyson could ever be a world class physicist no matter how much training he receives.

I'm also pretty sure that even with a lot of training Einstein's heavy weight boxing career would still have been pretty unimpressive.

 

[Aldarc]

I would look into Cortex Prime as it has a number of alternatives for typical ability scores. For example Affiliations (e.g., Solo, Buddy, Team OR Nobility, Clergy, Peasantry); Values (e.g., Duty, Glory, Truth, Love, Power, etc.); Roles (e.g., Commander, Engineer, Medic, Sniper, Soldier, etc.), Relationships, or even via Skill pyramid.

Another alternative is to use a small set of Ability Scores but allow the ability to combine them in rolls. In Ryuutama, for example, there are the ability scores of Strength, Agility, Intelligence, and Spirit. Players rank their ability scores by dice. Skills, combat, and the like involve combining two dice from two different or even the same stat and adding the result. Fighting with weapons, for example, requires players roll Strength + Dexterity. Initiative is Dexterity + Intelligence. Magic may involve Intelligence + Spirit. Traveling for the day may be Strength + Spirit. Stealth may be Dexterity + Dexterity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, you're confirming that you aren't actually reading my posts.

You've expressed a general dislike but focused more than half your responses around multiclassing. Most of your other comments have been on ideas to change the game. I'm trying my best to follow your advice and not infer things, but when I follow what you've actually said I get vague pushback that you want me to understand more. Please pick one.

So, you didn't read where, in a reply to you, I said that monsters would just...not use the new player character ability scores? Because they don't need to use the same stats are player characters?

Is that what that meant? I did not get that.

Immediately, though, that strongly constrains the design space as whatever replacement you choose must replicate the same overall bonus math as the current system. Many of the suggestions (including some of yours) do not do this at all.

And it must match because monsters/npcs mechanically interact very often.

I'm done engaging with you for a while. Your every reply shows direct signs of either not reading or ignoring things I've said, and I'm rather tired of it. I believe we've had fairly positive interactions before, but in this particular thread, our interaction isn't going anywhere, and I'm not going to keep trying to figure out why.

Please don't reply to me further, here.

I did not insult you. I've tried asking you questions and engaging you in the topic in constructive ways, actions which you chose to ignore or dismiss. Making the problem solely mine and denanding I do what you want is not a constructive approach to discussion.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've been thinking about this for a long time. I've played a lot of characters who could be members of a given class, if not for the need for a high score in some ability or other. A rogue who story wise is hyper-intelligent, impulsive, and doesn't really understand other people easily, who is MC wizard because his story needs him to have spent most of his adult life ignoring a knack for magic, only to realize he needs it within the last few years (so arcane trickster would have felt wrong), and his high Int means that wizard is the only caster that mechanically works.
There is an incongruity with him that will always bother me. Given his enviroment, his strong faith, the animistic nature of that faith, etc, any of ranger, paladin, druid, or even cleric, would have made more sense. A bard that doesn't rely entirely on charisma, one of his lowish stats, would also work, but I MCd Wizard because it got me ritual casting and spells to counter enemy casters, and it didn't require me to build him with high stats that don't make sense for him.

On the other hand, in my in development game, Quest For Chevar, your ability scores are just a personal resource pool. You spend from Will to salvage crap rolls or activate spells, but you don't add any of the scores to a skill check. Skills are purely about training. You roll your action die and rank dice, and that's it.

So, I've been wondering, could DnD be made to work in a similar manner? Has anyone tried anything like that? Perhaps reducing the number of stats would alleviate these sorts of issues, so your Mind stat covers all the spellcasters, or something?


*Please note, I don't want advice on the character I referenced. He's level 9 at this point, and any different build would be a story retcon. It worked out, I just wish that the version of him that I first imagined, where he approached natural magic using his intellect and learned the secrets of countering necromancy from the spirits of his mountain home, had worked out.

Sorry, if this is repetitive, but I want to ask as far as the character you mention, what stopped you from going with those other classes if thematically they made more sense? Was it simply the restriction on ability score requirements to MC? If so, I would just toss them out the window and you could play the character you wanted.

Anyway, on to the rest of the post:

I'm not sure just what you are looking for, but it gave me an idea: keep ability scores and modifiers, but make it so they don't apply to checks or rolls unless the player uses them. But, there use is limited per short rest or something? So, your rogue has a DEX 16 and could apply is +3 to AC for a round, but not all the time. Your fighter makes an attack, and could throw extra force behind it, gaining his STR mod to the attack roll or damage roll?

Is that anything like what you are thinking of???

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm also pretty sure that even with a lot of training Einstein's heavy weight boxing career would still have been pretty unimpressive.

Right but I don't think you actually need to separate naturally occurring aptitude from training in the internal game system. Players are more than capable of explaining WHY their character is the way they are in the game if there is ever any need to. Which leads me to believe that the natural aptitude layered on top of training comes directly from a simulationist mindset where the WHY must be explained by the mechanics and to me that places for greater constriants on the kinds of characters you can reasonably play.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is absolutely, egregiously, absurd, to ask people to not ask others to stop engaging with them. To make the ignore feature step one is one of the most ludicrous ideas I’ve ever seen on any forum.

I think maybe it would be best to have a discussion on the ignore feature in the Meta forum. I think I will open that now.

Talking through the Ignore Feature