Why are they keeping ability scores?

[Shroomy]

I'd assume that there may still be ability requirements for feats and talents.

 

[Nikosandros]

If you have two sources of state bonuses, it becomes an issue.

Say, back in 3e, you had two different PrCs that gave you +1 Strength/5 levels, etc.

Sure, on the other hand, they would take those considerations in account assuming we'll get paths that increase ability scores.

Speaking of Strength, there's also the whole encumbrance thing.

That's true... I guess that I'm hoping that detailed encumbrance rules die a painful death in 4e...

 

[Nikosandros]

I'd assume that there may still be ability requirements for feats and talents.

Yes, it's quite possible.

But I still believe that keeping ability scores is purely a legacy thing.

 

[Oldtimer]

Another thing is that it feels rather unnatural to speak about an ability in negative terms. If my clumsy cleric has a Dex of 7, he would have a Dex of -2 in that system. Just doesn't feel right to have a negative dexterity.

Of course, if you recalibrate everything so Dex 0 = +0 modifier, then all modifiers would be positive and easier to live by.

But then you could just throw out the separate modifier and rewrite the rules to use 1/2 ability score instead (goes well together with 1/2 level).

 

[Creamsteak]

For me, nastalgia. I will always know that the standard character can have ability scores from 3 to 18 and the standard method was at one time 3d6 straight down.

Thinking on it, this is one of the sacred cows I'd feel weirded out by changing.

 

[Nikosandros]

Another thing is that it feels rather unnatural to speak about an ability in negative terms. If my clumsy cleric has a Dex of 7, he would have a Dex of -2 in that system. Just doesn't feel right to have a negative dexterity.

But for all intent and purposes your cleric does have a negative dexterity... there games like Talislanta (or more recently True 20) that use negative scores already.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Ability scores seems more logical than not - not everyone is egal. Somes are strong, somes are uncharismatic, somes are weak...

 

[Nikosandros]

Ability scores seems more logical than not - not everyone is egal. Somes are strong, somes are uncharismatic, somes are weak...

Yes, of course. But stating that my character has a cha of -2 and a str of -1 conveys the exact same lack of charisma and strength.

 

[Dormammu]

There is no reason to keep ability scores anymore. Most people who are giving reasons just don't really understand the question. In 1E/2E, there was an enhanced bell curve to abilities that would be harder to represent (in that bonuses were uneven with respect to the score AND the score was generated on a curve). When you roll, the score itself is still generated on a curve, but honestly you might as well just put a table in the book that says "If you roll a 14 or a 15, your ability is +2" and be done with it. If you're doing point buy, it's linear so you don't even need the table. Worse, with point buy people won't even buy odd ability scores so they are really just buying the bonuses anyway.

After creation, the scores are all but meaningless. The only slight meaning is granularity, but that type of information adds nothing to the game. People are just too used to the concept of the scores to easily let them go.

 

[StarFyre]

you still have to define that somewhere...how you get a value for a specific character, plus or minus.

Either you give everyone the same #s (which results it not needing stats at all since it's assumed the same)....but if you want people to have different values, then you need someway to mediate that.

Rolling for stats is one of the easiest ways.

Sanjay