Why are they keeping ability scores?

[StarFyre]

addition..

Okk ongoing..yes, once the initial random numbers are generated, we only do care asbout the bonus or penalty, so yeah, it could probably be gone...

not that it makes any real difference since we rolled the #s anywyas to get the values so we have them on hand...

Sanjay

 

[Dormammu]

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.

No, you're not seeing it. Bonuses are a linear representation of the stat as of 3E. Every 2 points in a stat = 1 point of bonus. Because that relationship is fixed, it becomes meaningless. Nothing in the game is rolled off the stat, only off the bonus. Only the bonus matters. With point buy, just start at 0 and buy your bonus.

Since rolling will be a variant anyway, just make a table that says: "Roll 3D6 and consult this table to find your bonus" and has lines like "10-11: 0:" and "14-15: +2". The game will work the same but there will be 6 fewer boxes on your character sheet.

Edit: maybe you are seeing it based on your second post

 

[Lackhand]

Legacy, and it doesn't really make any difference at all to change it.

In fact, changing it isn't even house rules territory, just a matter of how large the boxes on the character sheets for stat and stat bonus are, relative to each other.

::shrug:: I don't care what they use either way, and I suspect they feel the same way, so they figured might as well leave well enough alone.

 

[Nathan P. Mahney]

Because having a Strength of 18 is totally more kickass than +4.

 

[Nikosandros]

Because having a Strength of 18 is totally more kickass than +4.

Bah! Back when I could have str 18(00) it really meant something, nowadays it's just a number...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I was wondering why they did decide to keep ability scores instead of just using modifiers. So many sacred cows have been butchered this time around, but why has this one been spared?

I think ability scores will represent a sort of continuum for various types of conditions.

For instance, in 3e, a poison did Dexterity damage, which snowballed through a hundred different bonuses.

In 4e, perhaps you acquire "poison points." When these equal half your Dexterity, you are reduced to only taking partial actions. When they equal or exceed your Dexterity, you are paralyzed.

Similarly, think about the "social encounters" system. To make these more like combat, perhaps your Charisma checks need to beat the other character's Intelligence (Int working kind of like a Social AC), and then you score points that, once they equal the enemy's Wisdom, the enemy gets persuaded to your point (or maybe they beat Wisdom to get points that work against Int?)

Either way, the idea of "ability damage" is still kept, only it doesn't directly change your ability scores, so the character suffering from those poison points can still fire a bow just fine, and the person being persuaded isn't any more vulnerable to a Charm spell. It limits the effects to one or two specific things.

This is the most obvious purpose I can see for them. They work on the same 1-20 continuum that the d20 works on, after all, with 10 being roughly average. Using them as DC's for checks and as ways to track various gradual conditions should be pretty useful.

 

[Nikosandros]

Hmmm... those are some pretty interesting ideas.

 

[SadisticFishing]

Well, then 10 wouldn't be average anymore, 0 would be, wouldn't it?

 

[Dormammu]

For instance, in 3e, a poison did Dexterity damage, which snowballed through a hundred different bonuses.

There is no reason this couldn't be applied to the bonus rather than the score.

In 4e, perhaps you acquire "poison points." When these equal half your Dexterity, you are reduced to only taking partial actions. When they equal or exceed your Dexterity, you are paralyzed.

If it's like 3E with a 0 average, you are right. But of course, they have implied 0 will be the minimum and there will only be bonuses, in which case this would also work without using the scores.

Similarly, think about the "social encounters" system. To make these more like combat, perhaps your Charisma checks need to beat the other character's Intelligence (Int working kind of like a Social AC)

This would also work without scores. Roll D20 + your bonus to beat 10 + their bonus.

and then you score points that, once they equal the enemy's Wisdom, the enemy gets persuaded to your point (or maybe they beat Wisdom to get points that work against Int?)

This one is the closest to needing scores, but again if they are moving away from penalties (ie, all stat mods are bonuses and 0 is the minimum instead of the average), you can still make this work without scores easily enough (eg, for every 2 you make your roll by you get a point, succeed when points > opposing Wis bonus).

Again, the only reason bonuses would not be interchangeable with the score is if they went back to 1E where the bonuses weren't even (ie, not +1 per 2 points of score). In that game it was like 15-16 was +1, 17 was +2, 18 was +3 or similar. Because it wasn't a standardized progression across the range of the score, the bonuses were not functionally identical to score.

As of 3E, bonuses and scores are the same thing expressed in two different ways. The score is redundant.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There is no reason this couldn't be applied to the bonus rather than the score.

The score gives you more granularity to work with. You can have, say, an average deadly poison giving you 2d6 "fatality points," which, if they equal your CON, you die. Heroes like PC's will probably be able to survive these venoms, common people probably can't. You could have a weaker poison dealing 2d4 "fatality points." Rolling dice is fun, tracking individual numbers not so much, so it throws better than "1 fatality point" or "3 fatality points."

If it's like 3E with a 0 average, you are right. But of course, they have implied 0 will be the minimum and there will only be bonuses, in which case this would also work without using the scores.

Again, the bigger number (the score) gives you more granularity. This means you can have cascading effects, broader continuum, and more breathing room in general. Add this to the fact that "18 Strength" is a very classic D&Dism that the game would probably be breaking brand recognition if they ditched, and you've got a better reason to keep them than to ditch them.

This would also work without scores. Roll D20 + your bonus to beat 10 + their bonus.

Right, but that's more math and more formulae and more blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. It's a lot easier and less wordy to say "d20 + bonus vs. SCORE," and it has the advantage of working just like AC and other defenses -- a static number that is noted on your character sheet.

This one is the closest to needing scores, but again if they are moving away from penalties (ie, all stat mods are bonuses and 0 is the minimum instead of the average), you can still make this work without scores easily enough (eg, for every 2 you make your roll by you get a point, succeed when points > opposing Wis bonus).

Why would you want to make it work without scores when it works just fine with scores? In fact, it works slightly better -- more granularity, pre-made existence on the 1-20 continuum, equivalence to defenses in the game....why change it to a somewhat counter-intuitive "bonuses are also scores sometimes" kind of system?

Again, the only reason bonuses would not be interchangeable with the score is if they went back to 1E where the bonuses weren't even (ie, not +1 per 2 points of score). In that game it was like 15-16 was +1, 17 was +2, 18 was +3 or similar. Because it wasn't a standardized progression across the range of the score, the bonuses were not functionally identical to score.

As of 3E, bonuses and scores are the same thing expressed in two different ways. The score is redundant.

They were so busy thinking about whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think about whether or not they should!

A relationship does not imply equivalence, or redundancy. There are many uses for a 1-20 score in a d20 game aside from deriving a bonus. That is one of the purposes. There are others (serving as "condition hit points," "situational defenses," "check DC's," etc.). Bonuses can be made to work that way, but if we're going to say "10 + bonus," why not just call that a "score" and note it on your character sheet with the rest of your scores?