Why do we have ability scores?

[Kordeth]

The biggest advantage to ability scores driving bonuses rather than straight-up bonuses is gradation. If you have straight bonuses, every ability increase corresponds to an increase in effectiveness. By buffering the bonuses with ability scores, you can give out more improvements while still keeping "bonus creep" under a modicum of control.

 

[MaelStorm]

As long as we keep the six abilities, I don't mind if they are just bonus. To me the real sacred cow are the 6 abilities. I don't want to see them turned into just 3 abilities.

 

[Surgoshan]

I think a big part of it is negatives. If you assume the PCs all start with a base 8 (and thus bonus of -1) then it'll probably break realism and fun for some people. It's viscerally more appealing to have a wizard with 18 intelligence and 8 strength rather than +4 and -1. After all, what is negative strength? If it just means "below average" then why not just come up with an arbitrary average and put people around that?

Hmm, something of an analogy occurs to me; your speedometer. Unless you soup up your car and race for fun you will never do 120. The reason your speedometer goes up to 120 is because that puts the 45-75 range conveniently at the top where it's easy to read, because you'll spend virtually all of your driving time in that range. So we have 10/11 as the average strength and group strength scores around that.

That and all the other mechanical reasons.

 

[DandD]

I'm rather perplexed why there are still negative ability score modifiers. You know, from 1-9, you only have penalties, at 10 and 11, you have a modifier equal 0, but starting from 12 and forward, it scales infinitely high.
I don't mind the ability score, but sure hope that in D&D 5.0, they're going to re-evaluate the ability score modifiers, and somehow eliminate penalties completely.
Oh well, time will tell...

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think part of it is that newbies might expect any number with a + or - in front of it to be added to a roll or something.

For example, the monster stat blocks would say Str 10 (+10) for a level 20 monster, which means that the monster has an average Strength score but adds +10 to Strength checks and untrained Strength=based skill checks (which I still think is dumb BTW).

If we went all the way to pure modifiers, how would they print that? "Str +0 (+10)"? Kind of confusing.

Now take that back a step. A newbie looking at a character sheet that says "Strength: +2" might ask, "+2 to WHAT?" Whereas "Strength: 10" makes it clear that your strength is rated 10 on some arbitrary scale.

 

[Klaus]

I was looking over the quickstart rules today and the question struck me: Why do we still have ability scores these days? Why not skip the ability score and go straight for the modifier?

I know why they originally existed back when there were nonweapon proficiencies and ability checks and PCs were limited to 18 or somtimes 19 in a score so you could roll a d20, equal or under, to succeed at something not covered in the rules and the ability score only gave you specific modifiers to a small range of applications.

But now we have skills, ability modifiers and difficulty classes, why do we need the score? Wouldn't it be easier, cut out the middle man, and just have 'Strength +4' rather than 'Strength 18/+4'?

At first, I thought that it could be to make generation easier with dice. Then I realized it's just as easy, if not easier, to, say, start with a value of -2 and roll a d6 to get your modifier, or 2d6 drop lowest. For point buy it's even easier to convert the system: Make the starting point 'plus zero', give them 8 points to increase their modifiers on a 1 for 1 basis, allow them to 'buy back' points from the base score.

Then I thought about ability point damage and wondered if it was going to remain in 4E or not, then considered that there might be better ways to do poison, or just apply lesser penalties to a character's modifier score.

About the only reasons I can see for keeping ability scores is a) Strength, for the calculation of max loads and such and b) It's a sacred cow. On the other hand, would DnD lose something of itself taking away the ability score?

Thoughts?

At first, it's tradition.

But the designers found a way to make ability scores matter. For instance, you add your Con *score* to your starting hit points.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Because whole numbers sound like more then modifiers.

18 compared to 10 is much more impresive then +4 compared to 0.

 

[ShinRyuuBR]

Don't forget that your Con score is used to calculate your starting HP

That's something new and easy to fix. Just up the base HP by 10 and apply double your ability modifier. Piece of cake.

I think a big part of it is negatives. If you assume the PCs all start with a base 8 (and thus bonus of -1) then it'll probably break realism and fun for some people. It's viscerally more appealing to have a wizard with 18 intelligence and 8 strength rather than +4 and -1. After all, what is negative strength? If it just means "below average" then why not just come up with an arbitrary average and put people around that?

Assuming 4e doesn't have multiple ability modifiers applied to the same stat, which would be the case in 3.x for the monk's AC and the paladin's saves, the solution would be simply to shift the numbers by 5: -5 would be 0, -4 would be 1, -3 => 2, -2 => 3, -1 => 4, 0 => 5 and so forth. It doesn't matter if your +2 to hit becomes +7 if your AC of 15 becomes 20. Of course, damage would increase greatly and HP would have to keep up with it.

 

[Immolate]

I'd like to put my vote in for a) legacy - some of us have been playing for 30+ years and the 3d6 stats are beyond iconic... way beyond. It is as sacred a cow as the d20. There is also b) as mentioned by several, constitution score figures into starting hitpoints. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a number of other instances where scores are used as modifiers. After all, a bonus is either positive or negative. Some things, like hit points, you don't want to ever be negative.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Not that everyone used it, but in 3.5 encumbrance was based off of the Strength score, not the modifier. I don't recall what earlier editions used.