Why are they keeping ability scores?

[tenkar]

Really, when you come down to it, it looks like the reason they're keeping the ancient 3-through-18 ability spread is tradition and nothing more.

What's so wrong with tradition? Or to take it a step further, with 4e throwing out or greatly modifying many long held DnD traditions (Vancian magic anyone) I can see why WoTC might want to keep the 3-through-18 ability spread to keep at least some of the more visible trappings of the DnD lineage.

It is of course something that can be easily house ruled out if desired. Removing it would leave DnD without one of its more iconic trappings... then again, the removal of percentile strength was fairly major too... ah, the days of 18/00 +3, +6 stats and modifiers.

I guess it's those of us that have 30 years of baggage that would have the most issues with the removal of the 3-through-18 ability spread.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'm pretty sure that almost all gaming systems have ability scores of some degree. Hero, GURPs, White Wolf Games, etc etc.

I can't think of a gaming system that doesn't have some score that reflects your abilities.

Except in white wolf, the dots ARE your mod. Its how many dice you roll. You dont have a score of 4, consult a table, and see you roll 3 dice. In D&D, the score isnt really your mod.

I'm all for cutting out the middle man, if doing so makes sense and makes the game flow better and easier to teach. While I dont know everything about 4th edtiion, I find it hard to believe they couldnt have rigged the system so that we dont need ability scores that arent actually the score used.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I guess it's those of us that have 30 years of baggage that would have the most issues with the removal of the 3-through-18 ability spread.

Not really. I've been playing for over 20 years. I've always thought D&D "design" was half assed at best.

 

[Nikosandros]

I guess it's those of us that have 30 years of baggage that would have the most issues with the removal of the 3-through-18 ability spread.

Well, not in my case... I mean there are many here that have been playing for far longer than me, but still 22 years ain't too shabby either...

I like the older editions of D&D. Currently I'm running an AD&D weekly game and participating in an AD&D PBM, but I'm still not too sure that there are valid design reasons to keep abilities they way they are in 4th edition.

 

[xechnao]

Say the stuck door is DC 21. The weakling with Str 3 would need to roll 18 (15% chance), while the burly fighter with Str 18 would only need 3 (90% chance). If any of them could temporarly increase their Strength by +1, they would each gain 5% on their probability to succeed. That's linear.

My point about being non linear was about the rate of difference or chage. Going from a 5% chance to a 10% chance is doubling your chances. Going from a 95% chance to 100% is a different thing. This is why I see this as a steep curve and I prefer it as it is.
Hope now it is more clear.

 

[Dormammu]

A lot of people are throwing out reasons for keeping the 3-18 scores. None of them make any sense. It's one thing to say they provide more granularity and there can be checks against the score rather than the bonus, but Dungeons & Dragons never does that! Since the game only ever uses the bonus and since the bonus is tied to the score in a linear way, the score is redundant. Period. If you do not agree with this, then you don't understand it.

The only valid reason to keep scores is the sacred cow issue. As Kenneth New said earlier in the thread, he just wouldn't like it if they changed that. Preference is a valid reason. It's also the reason I'm sure WotC isn't changing them. But please stop pretending there is a mechanical reason, because there isn't with the D&D rules as written.

 

[kennew142]

And anybody who's taught new players knows knows that the whole score/modifier thing is just one more mental hurdle to deal with. Not a big one, but players really need as few as possible during that process.

I disagree with this statement. In 28 years (and more new players than I can count), I have never taught anyone who had the slightest bit of trouble with score/modifier thing - not one.

Really, when you come down to it, it looks like the reason they're keeping the ancient 3-through-18 ability spread is tradition and nothing more.

I agree on this point. On the other hand, I have no problem with keeping something based on tradition. They aren't changing the name of the game to The Fantasy Role-Playing Game either. I would hazard a guess (although it is only a guess) that the vast majority of D&D players would prefer the current system to one where abilities went from -5 to infinity.

 

[Dormammu]

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.

Well first, it's only "more formulae" because you're not used to it. It's actually the same amount of complexity exactly. Plus, your system is comparing bonuses to scores which gives weird effects like:

Attacker with stat of 3 (bonus -4) vs defender with stat of 3 = 70% success
Attacker with stat of 10 (bonus 0) vs defender with stat of 10 = 55% success
Attacker with stat of 18 (bonus +4) vs defender with stat of 18 = 35% success

Three cases of equal stats opposing each other give radically different chances to succeed. It makes no sense at all.

 

[Epic Meepo]

It's one thing to say they provide more granularity and there can be checks against the score rather than the bonus, but Dungeons & Dragons never does that!

D&D uses granularity all the time: +1 to an ability score per 4 levels, not wait until 8th level to see any change; +1 inherent bonus to an ability score per wish spell, not wait until you can cast two concurrent wish spells to gain any benefit; +1 Strength from the Strength domain granted power on 1st level, not wait until 2nd level to gain any benefit.

Immediate gratification counts for something. I'd rather get half my paycheck on Wednesday and half on Friday than get my whole paycheck on Friday. Heck, I'd rather get $10 on Wednesday and my entire paycheck minus $10 on Friday, even if $10 is virtually nothing compared to my total salary.

Otherwise, why not just cut character level in half and double up the benefits you gain each level? Then you don't have to add half your level to anything. And the only price you have to pay is going twice as many game sessions without seeing any measurable character advancement.

Since the game only ever uses the bonus and since the bonus is tied to the score in a linear way, the score is redundant. Period.

As of 3.X, that statement is patently false. You need a 13 Wisdom to cast 3rd-level cleric spells. You need a 13 Strength to carry 50 pounds as a light load. Perhaps such things will change in 4e, but your absurd claim is that the game only ever uses the bonus and, well, 3.X is part of everything ever in the history of the game.

And even if 4e does change things, nothing changes the argument about granularity. Sitting around waiting for a level divisible by a large number to get an ability modifier increase is less fun than waiting half that long to get an ability score increase, even if an ability score increase has minimal benefit in and of itself.

And incidentally, point buy only encourages even numbered stats because racial ability score modifiers are even. If and when races with odd ability score modifiers begin to appear, point buy using ability scores instead of ability modifiers gets much more interesting.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I disagree with this statement. In 28 years (and more new players than I can count), I have never taught anyone who had the slightest bit of trouble with score/modifier thing - not one.

I'm sure you're one of the people who cant fathom why anyone would find THAC0 counter intuitive either. Good for you, and those you game with. Theres plenty of evidence to the contrary however. Most games I know of use the stat itself as the value, rather than a value derived from the stat.

I can learn to drive a car with the ignition in the trunk and the horn in the back seat... but why design it so I have to?