Why are they keeping ability scores?

[Nikosandros]

Possibly this has already been discussed, but the search function has been acting up this last two days...

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?

 

[perchy]

with ability damage and drain gone, hmm the only possible reason is if you ever get +1 to a stat for some reason (say, lvl 4, though SWSE gives 2 +1's).

so not a clue really

 

[Voss]

Possibly this has already been discussed, but the search function has been acting up this last two days...

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?

Nothing is really gained by dropping ability scores. Its also very recognizable as something that makes D&D D&D, and the change for change's sake people would be even more worked up.

There is also a difference in the way the system works if you're giving +2 to a stat to get a +1 modifier than if you're directly adding to the modifier. It fits in better with the 'most things advance at 1/2 level' thing they've got going on. Adding 7 points to strength over 30 levels and getting a +3 (or +4) modifier is easier on the system than adding 7 points of strength modifier directly. Better granularity between levels, rather than a huge disparity with just a few levels.

 

[Nikosandros]

Nothing is really gained by dropping ability scores. Its also very recognizable as something that makes D&D D&D, and the change for change's sake people would be even more worked up.

We gain one less step in evaluating a final value. It's a trivial calculation to be sure, but it still looks pointless. As for it being recognizable as a very D&D, I would argue that fireballs that deal 1d6 points of damage per level and wizards that must memorize all their spells are also very D&D...

There is also a difference in the way the system works if you're giving +2 to a stat to get a +1 modifier than if you're directly adding to the modifier. It fits in better with the 'most things advance at 1/2 level' thing they've got going on. Adding 7 points to strength over 30 levels and getting a +3 (or +4) modifier is easier on the system than adding 7 points of strength modifier directly. Better granularity between levels, rather than a huge disparity with just a few levels.

Yes, the advancement has to be modified, but it doesn't look like a big deal. Also, there isn't really much granularity... except for the odd ability score requirements for some feats (assuming that they are keeping those). Furthermore, there is also the thing of bumping up an ability score and not seeing any benefit. Wouldn't that fall in the much touted "unfun" category?

 

[Set]

About the only factors that matter would be resolving ties (higher Dex goes first) and units of Poison or Disease ability damage (which can result in odd numbers, like 1 pt of Str damage). Otherwise, it's pretty much a wash and just going with straight bonuses would probably be just as sensible.

 

[Incenjucar]

Flexibility. Saves people from having to say "You gain +.5 to Hit, rounded down" when you're only part-way through gaining Strength, and they may find something else to do with it later.

The amount of trouble you gain by removing the score outweighs the meager benefits.

It's just not worth the trouble.

 

[Nikosandros]

About the only factors that matter would be resolving ties (higher Dex goes first) and units of Poison or Disease ability damage (which can result in odd numbers, like 1 pt of Str damage). Otherwise, it's pretty much a wash and just going with straight bonuses would probably be just as sensible.

I think that ability damage has been removed, so it's one less reason to keep the scores themselves.

I also believe that in any kind of checks the modifiers will be added to the level bonus (look at the labels for attacks that we have seen like Cha vs AC or Dex vs Reflex), so the "raw" score is even less useful.

 

[Nikosandros]

Flexibility. Saves people from having to say "You gain +.5 to Hit, rounded down" when you're only part-way through gaining Strength, and they may find something else to do with it later.

The rate of increase could be slowed. I never thought about granting fractional bonuses. Just grant a full increment, less often. I'm not sure what is the flexibility of the current system.

The amount of trouble you gain by removing the score outweighs the meager benefits.

It's just not worth the trouble.

Personally, I don't see any trouble except the nostalgia factor.

 

[xechnao]

My guess is for monsters and NPCs. Since they will be cut short of skill lists and the like, stats will give a picture of their abilities.

EDIT: Now I see you are asking a different question than the one I am answering. Well, I think it is only for an aesthetic factor: bigger numbers of abilities seem more awesome.

 

[Incenjucar]

The rate of increase could be slowed. I never thought about granting fractional bonuses. Just grant a full increment, less often. I'm not sure what is the flexibility of the current system.

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.

Personally, I don't see any trouble except the nostalgia factor.

Which is a significant amount of trouble for very little gain. Maybe some editions down the road, but it's just not valuable enough a change to bother with right now.

--

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