# Sacred Cows: Ability Scores



## Professor Murder

When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.

Thoughts?


----------



## Bolares

It really depend on how granular the game wants to feel, but I'd be okay with keeping only the modifiers and dumping scores.


----------



## commandercrud

Since WOTC has made the scores meaningless there's no point in keeping them around. The bell curve bonuses that TSR-era ability scores had made more sense though, and they should bring that back. Then they wouldn't be so pointless.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

I am almost fine with this, but how would you handle level-based stat increases?

I haven't played Planescape: Torment but apparently it had this, relieving one of 2e's problems (frequently very weak PCs).


----------



## Professor Murder

commandercrud said:


> Since WOTC has made the scores meaningless there's no point in keeping them around. The bell curve bonuses that TSR-era ability scores had made more sense though, and they should bring that back. Then they wouldn't be so pointless.



Can't agree. 1st and 2nd ed scores were trash.


----------



## commandercrud

Professor Murder said:


> Can't agree. 1st and 2nd ed scores were trash.



how so?


----------



## Professor Murder

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> I am almost fine with this, but how would you handle level-based stat increases?
> 
> I haven't played Planescape: Torment but apparently it had this, relieving one of 2e's problems (frequently very weak PCs).



I think that would depend on how the power curve got constructed. I am not advocating doing so for the current edition.


----------



## Blue Orange

Professor Murder said:


> Can't agree. 1st and 2nd ed scores were trash.




'TSR-era' is actually a bit ambiguous; there were the Basic D&D scores, that had categories for 3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12, 13-15, 16-17, and 18, and the AD&D scores, which only gave you bonuses over a 15 or a 16 in most cases. The Basic D&D system has something to recommend it; the AD&D system is pretty bad IMHO.


----------



## Professor Murder

commandercrud said:


> how so?



Mainly way too many "dead levels" where increases had no real impact, and no baked in means of increasing stats outside of magic or magic items. Your rogue as a 15 dex? That's for life.


----------



## Bolares

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> I am almost fine with this, but how would you handle level-based stat increases?



you get +1 in your modifier directly?


----------



## billd91

Since rolling stats is still a thing, I'm all for keeping them. Granted, rolling stats and assigning a modifier could be done via a table in the rulebook and no raw stat need appear on the character sheet.


----------



## Helpful NPC Thom

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?



No. Stop. If you slaughter all the sacred cows, you'll have an empty farm.


----------



## Bolares

billd91 said:


> Since rolling stats is still a thing, I'm all for keeping them. Granted, rolling stats and assigning a modifier could be done via a table in the rulebook and no raw stat need appear on the character sheet.



you could also simplify it and roll a d4 or something. If you want to mantain 5e's progression cap you could do the 4 meaning you got a 0 or something like that.

D4bonus1+12+23+340


----------



## Professor Murder

billd91 said:


> Since rolling stats is still a thing, I'm all for keeping them. Granted, rolling stats and assigning a modifier could be done via a table in the rulebook and no raw stat need appear on the character sheet.



See, I gave up on rolling stats like decades ago. Rolling to determine stats is in essence rolling to determine class. I would rather as little of character creation as possible be behind RNG gates and leave random outcomes to actual gameplay to maintain a sense of tension and create a possibility of failure.


----------



## Professor Murder

Helpful NPC Thom said:


> No. Stop. If you slaughter all the sacred cows, you'll have an empty farm.



Any aspect of the game that can be improved should be up for grabs. that said, changing too much at once and you get 4th ed.


----------



## Scribe

Yeah, 6e should be a 'rip off the bandage' edition.

Remove everything that they keep messing around with half measures on, and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Yaarel

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?




I like abilities because they mechanically actualize "aptitudes", things that a character generally tends to be good at.

Skills and class features are highly specific capabilities, and each minutia stands on its own, separately.

But abilities can invite themes and concepts.



Abilities need rethinking, such as consolidating to a more useful, sensible, and balanced four, rather than six.

But abilities as a cluster of things that a character is globally good at, is useful for both mechanics and narrative.


----------



## jmartkdr2

If we get rid of scores, how will we roll for ability scores?

DnD without rolled abilities would be like Star Wars without laser swords.


----------



## ReshiIRE

It did throw me a little when playing KoToR (which while not D&D based is very obviously based on 2nd or 3rd (can't tell which due to unfamilarity) DND) that it was the modifiers afterwards, not the scores themselves, that mattered, but afterwards I did find it an interesting system.

I think the system right now is fine, I don't mind the scores being less important rather than the modifiers and not influencing derived statistics. I think having stop gaps leads to interesting ways to build or approach characters and monsters. I do wish there the rules around ASIs were a little different to perhaps make it so that most feats also gave a +1 to encourage them more, but I'm overall fine with the current system.


----------



## Bolares

Professor Murder said:


> See, I gave up on rolling stats like decades ago. Rolling to determine stats is in essence rolling to determine class. I would rather as little of character creation as possible be behind RNG gates and leave random outcomes to actual gameplay to maintain a sense of tension and create a possibility of failure.



yeah, I loved rolling stats, but with 5e I changed to point buy, and IMO it makes the game a whole lot smoother


----------



## Yaarel

I prefer to use an array anyway. So using an array with bonuses is fine.


----------



## Bolares

As we are in the business of murdering bovines... should we get rid off Stat bonuses on character creation?


----------



## ReshiIRE

Bolares said:


> As we are in the business of murdering bovines... should we get rid off Stat bonuses on character creation?



Why?

... I really don't have more to add but 'why', because allowing some sort of customisation on character creation besides background, race / ancestory, class, background etc. is cool to me, as you can emphasis or deemphasis some aspect of your character's mechanics and who they are and how they act etc.


----------



## Professor Murder

Bolares said:


> yeah, I loved rolling stats, but with 5e I changed to point buy, and IMO it makes the game a whole lot smoother



I totally grok to people enjoying the feeling of rolling great stats. But as a DM primarily, it's more important for me to give players clear access to be able to play things that a given game permits, rather then random chance determining if they get access. Again, during play, I advocate for dice and random chance. But when starting out, I don't even roll for gold anymore.


----------



## Yaarel

Bolares said:


> As we are in the business of murdering bovines... should we get rid off Stat bonuses on character creation?



You mean what was once race ability improvements?

Then yes,


----------



## Professor Murder

Bolares said:


> As we are in the business of murdering bovines... should we get rid off Stat bonuses on character creation?



I think that having a spectrum of ability scores helps to shape the character, so no, bonuses should remain a part of the game. That "My character is more quick than tough and more clever than smart" helps to guide rollplay, when mechanically, that means they have a better Dex bonus than Con and a better Wis than Int.


----------



## Professor Murder

Yaarel said:


> You mean what was once race ability improvements?
> 
> Then yes,



Bonuses should be guided by Class and Background, or whatever the 6th ed equivalent to those might be.


----------



## ReshiIRE

I haven't tried rolling for stats but I think they can work for some games and tables, perhaps those in a more grind-house / 'characters have to prove themselves able' type games. But certainly, I think the variants I have heard of say, rolling to determine a new standard array (outside of the, IMO, boring current one) or for a lower or higher number of points for point buy would be superior. That way, everyone can be around the same base power, so stronger or weaker than expected PCs can be more easily handled by the GM.


----------



## Bolares

Professor Murder said:


> I think that having a spectrum of ability scores helps to shape the character, so no, bonuses should remain a part of the game. That "My character is more quick than tough and more clever than smart" helps to guide rollplay, when mechanically, that means they have a better Dex bonus than Con and a better Wis than Int.



sorry I was not clear. I was talking about the +2 to one thing and +1 to another, that was tied to races, and after tasha's kind of floats there as an artifact in the game. 

PS: I'm not trying to rehash the old fight about racial bonuses, I just wonder if we change scores, should we get rid of them too.


----------



## Bolares

Professor Murder said:


> Bonuses should be guided by Class and Background, or whatever the 6th ed equivalent to those might be.



If they were supposed to remain I agree that is the best place to put them, but in the end, I'd be okay to just add the bonus to the array/point buy systems and live on


----------



## billd91

Professor Murder said:


> See, I gave up on rolling stats like decades ago. Rolling to determine stats is in essence rolling to determine class. I would rather as little of character creation as possible be behind RNG gates and leave random outcomes to actual gameplay to maintain a sense of tension and create a possibility of failure.



See, *your *thing isn't *my *thing. We still roll.


----------



## ReshiIRE

I'm worried about attaching bonuses to class (and not just as a free floating 'thing' or balanced around an ancestories other abilities) because I feel that could cause unfortunate restrictions on how to play certain classes. Obviously, a lot of cases already have restrictions on how you play a class because at-least one ability score is quite important to play the class, but a lot don't force you to invest in two stats for sure (the whole SAD vs MAD) and some are quite flexible as of right now - Fighter and Paladin can be played as Strength or Dexterity based, for example (and I certainly wish the somewhat common homerule of Warlocks either being Charisma or Intelligence based was just the standarad).

I feel that attaching bonuses to class might not allow the flexibility - it is possible by the book but I can easily see decisions being that leads to Fighters only getting a +2 to Strength and a +1 to another, making Dexterity based fighters more difficult.

I also don't see this happening as it would likely make a 6e really incompatible with a 5e, and I think that compatibility is important not only business wise, but also community wise.


----------



## Yaarel

Professor Murder said:


> Bonuses should be guided by Class and Background, or whatever the 6th ed equivalent to those might be.



I prefer narrative character concept decides the high ability.

Obviously choice of class is an important part of the choice of concept, and depends on certain abilities.

It is probably ok to use an array or point buy to determine the bonuses at level 1. Then while leveling put the ability bonus improvement wherever one wants.

We dont really need extra bonuses from race, class, or background.


----------



## Professor Murder

billd91 said:


> See, *your *thing isn't *my *thing. We still roll.



Sorry if that came across as fun policing. Not my intention. You do you and game on.


----------



## Rabulias

I would say keep the stats. A lot of it is tradition, but there are a few minor benefits scattered about. They can provide a way to break ties, like for Initiative, differentiating between two characters with equal modifiers. As an example, a 17 Dex (+3 modifier) will beat a 16 Dex (also a +3 modifier). They are also useful for things like the Encumbrance rules; for instance, multiplying Str by 15 to get your maximum carrying capacity. Also, some houserules can go back to using Ability Score damage or drain (like in D&D 3rd edition) with more granularity.


----------



## Professor Murder

ReshiIRE said:


> I'm worried about attaching bonuses to class (and not just as a free floating 'thing' or balanced around an ancestories other abilities) because I feel that could cause unfortunate restrictions on how to play certain classes. Obviously, a lot of cases already have restrictions on how you play a class because at-least one ability score is quite important to play the class, but a lot don't force you to invest in two stats for sure (the whole SAD vs MAD) and some are quite flexible as of right now - Fighter and Paladin can be played as Strength or Dexterity based, for example (and I certainly wish the somewhat common homerule of Warlocks either being Charisma or Intelligence based was just the standarad).
> 
> I feel that attaching bonuses to class might not allow the flexibility - it is possible by the book but I can easily see decisions being that leads to Fighters only getting a +2 to Strength and a +1 to another, making Dexterity based fighters more difficult.
> 
> I also don't see this happening as it would likely make a 6e really incompatible with a 5e, and I think that compatibility is important not only business wise, but also community wise.



I suspect a part of the issue is that some classes really only need a single stat, like most arcane casters, and some other classes need as many as 3 stats to work ideally.


----------



## Bolares

Yaarel said:


> We dont really need extra bonuses from race, class, or background.



Yeah, just add them to the character creation math and be done with it.


----------



## Bolares

Rabulias said:


> As an example, a 17 Dex (+3 modifier) will beat a 16 Dex (also a +3 modifier). They are also useful for things like the Encumbrance rules; for instance, multiplying Str by 15 to get your maximum carrying capacity.



Well, I think there could be easy fixes for this problems, just adjust the math for the new reality. But as I said in the beginning... it all depends on how granular you want the game to be


----------



## Yora

Ability scores from 3 to 18 exist to roll attributes on 3d6, and to make roll under attribute checks.
Both haven't been done for over 20 years.


----------



## BookTenTiger

As anachronistic as the six ability scores are... I really like them! They are very, very "D&D" to me.

So if I were making 6e, I would actually have the ability scores do something other than just give a bonus! There should be a reason that a 13 strength is different than a 12 strength.

For example, you could have a simplified Encumbrance system based on your Strength Score. Items could have a Heavy Tag, and you can carry a number of Heavy Items (non-light weapons, armor, items weighing more than 10 lbs, etc) equal to your Strength Score.

Or you gain a number of Proficiencies (skills, languages, tools) equal to your Intelligence Score - 10.

Or rather than having a Perception Skill, your Perception is equal to your Wisdom score.

Those are ideas just off the top of my head, I don't expect any of them to stand to scrutiny, but it would be fun for there to be a reason to have an odd score.


----------



## el-remmen

Since I prefer the "see how the campaign narrative shapes your character" approach to character creation to the notion of "build" in mind as a goal, I also like rolling for stats or some other "see what you can get" method (I use a stat draft). I find arrays and point buy systems too "samey."

As for getting rid of ability scores and just having bonuses/penalties, not a fan aesthetically (I don't even like the character sheets that put the bonus above the stat and in a bigger font), but _I don't think *my *aesthetic preferences should be the guiding principal for future iterations of D&D._ That said - this may just be 38 years of D&D talking but - I find ability scores a lot easier to parse and imagine (esp. in comparison) when on a 3 to 18 range.

My other suggestion would be to keep the scores but actually have them do something aside from just give the bonus/penalty - like the number is used to calculate other things.


----------



## Oofta

Scribe said:


> Yeah, 6e should be a 'rip off the bandage' edition.
> 
> Remove everything that they keep messing around with half measures on, and let the chips fall where they may.




Rip off enough bandages and the game may bleed to death.  One person's sacred cow is another person's meat.


----------



## loverdrive

Scribe said:


> Yeah, 6e should be a 'rip off the bandage' edition.
> 
> Remove everything that they keep messing around with half measures on, and let the chips fall where they may.



They did that once... And then desperately tried to roll everything back. So, I don't know if this is actually happening.

As of ability scores, I've thrown them out in Exciting Combat vol. 1 and literally nobody of playtesters ever noticed them gone until I brought that up. It's anecdotal, but it's still funny.


----------



## Scribe

Oofta said:


> Rip off enough bandages and the game may bleed to death.  One person's sacred cow is another person's meat.



Then so be it.

If Wizards is convinced that their recent changes from how 5e was released are correct, then go all the way and stop trying to sit on the fence.

If they get another 4e reaction, well, at least then they know that when they go for 7e, what they need to remember is important, and that sacred cows exist for a reason.


----------



## Oofta

I don't think it really makes that much of a difference. There are a few areas where a +1 or some random number addition or subtraction is more meaningful depending on the precise values.  Those would be pretty easy to iron out, I'm sure.

However, there is opportunity cost and branding.  Does it really buy much of anything?  Is the current system really so cumbersome that it causes issues?


----------



## Professor Murder

I'd also point out that, fundamentally, this is more a cosmetic change than a systemic change. Systemic would be to remove or fundamentally alter a system entirely, like changing what the six ability scores are while cosmetic would be changing the names but not removing any of the functions. If we eliminated Ability scores of 1 to 20 and instead listed the translated bonus only, the way the bonuses interact with the rules does not actually change in any meaningful way. Except for specific corner cases, such as tie breaks, or for more granular record keeping, the change doesn't change how the game is played.


----------



## Deset Gled

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?




My question is "why?"  What is broken that you are trying to fix?

Things the current stat system is useful for:
Dice based stat generation
Carrying capacity
Long jump
Ability drains
Prerequisites (feats, and possibly more)
Granularity for role playing
Tradition and historical continuity

What does your new system provide that is in any way better than these options?


----------



## Steampunkette

MMmm... so... 

For 6e? I dearly wish they'd step -back- a few editions.

5e having strength determine your jumping distance is pretty nice... but what about Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma?

Keep the ability scores and have the different quantities apply different exploration and social traits -alongside- skill-use.

Strength determines your jumping distance. Intelligence divided by 3 is your automatic languages at level 1, before class or background grants more, Wisdom gives you a sight-range for perception checks by determining how easily distracted you are, overall.

Not sure what to do with Charisma and Dexterity, but Constitution already determines how long you hold your breath, just make it 1 round per point of Constitution.

Heck... make stuff like this -baseline- to every skill, where your attribute score determines some aspect of the exploration or social pillar, and then your skill proficiency and bonus determine the result.

How about Persuasion can be done on a number of people equal to your charisma score divided by 2 at a given time, early on, and later on it's score x2 or x3. Allowing you to start out persuading a handful of guards or many a small crowd of legbreakers, but once you've got a few levels under your belt you can persuade a mob the side of a city block to stop a lynching, like Emperor Norton the 1st, Ruler of the United States.

Meanwhile you can Perform for a crowd equal to your Charisma Score at level 1, and that number grows as you gain levels at a similar rate...

And you can only Deceive a fraction of as many people at the start of leveling.

That'd certainly make things interesting.


----------



## loverdrive

Professor Murder said:


> I totally grok to people enjoying the feeling of rolling great stats.



I honestly never did understand 3E (and 5E) rolling for stats mechanism. Like, I can see rolling down the line and wondering, "who is this one gonna be?", but rolling and then distributing them yourself anyway feels weird.


----------



## loverdrive

Deset Gled said:


> What does your new system provide that is in any way better than these options?



Getting rid of a detail that doesn't really justify its existence.

Sometimes I wish making TTRPGs was like actually producing marvels of engineering.



Steampunkette said:


> Not sure what to do with Charisma and Dexterity, but Constitution already determines how long you hold your breath, just make it 1 round per point of Constitution.
> 
> Heck... make stuff like this -baseline- to every skill, where your attribute score determines some aspect of the exploration or social pillar, and then your skill proficiency and bonus determine the result.



I don't know how many people would actually remember these rules. I've personaly seen people using Str to determine jump length (or is it height?) approximately twice, and most of the time it was down to an ability check. Oh, and also there was a guy with a hilarious luchador build who grappled people, jumped 11' and dropped them to knock them prone, but that's it.


----------



## Scribe

loverdrive said:


> I honestly never did understand 3E (and 5E) rolling for stats mechanism. Like, I can see rolling down the line and wondering, "who is this one gonna be?", but rolling and then distributing them anyway feels weird.



Winning the lotto has an appeal. Get that sweet hit of dopamine.


----------



## Professor Murder

Steampunkette said:


> MMmm... so...
> 
> For 6e? I dearly wish they'd step -back- a few editions.
> 
> 5e having strength determine your jumping distance is pretty nice... but what about Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma?
> 
> Keep the ability scores and have the different quantities apply different exploration and social traits -alongside- skill-use.
> 
> Strength determines your jumping distance. Intelligence divided by 3 is your automatic languages at level 1, before class or background grants more, Wisdom gives you a sight-range for perception checks by determining how easily distracted you are, overall.
> 
> Not sure what to do with Charisma and Dexterity, but Constitution already determines how long you hold your breath, just make it 1 round per point of Constitution.
> 
> Heck... make stuff like this -baseline- to every skill, where your attribute score determines some aspect of the exploration or social pillar, and then your skill proficiency and bonus determine the result.
> 
> How about Persuasion can be done on a number of people equal to your charisma score divided by 2 at a given time, early on, and later on it's score x2 or x3. Allowing you to start out persuading a handful of guards or many a small crowd of legbreakers, but once you've got a few levels under your belt you can persuade a mob the side of a city block to stop a lynching, like Emperor Norton the 1st, Ruler of the United States.
> 
> Meanwhile you can Perform for a crowd equal to your Charisma Score at level 1, and that number grows as you gain levels at a similar rate...
> 
> And you can only Deceive a fraction of as many people at the start of leveling.
> 
> That'd certainly make things interesting.



I can understand the appeal, but such would increase rule complexity and dilute the base d20 rule mechanics.


----------



## Bolares

Scribe said:


> Winning the lotto has an appeal. Get that sweet hit of dopamine.



Yeah. It was basically a minigame when I started playing (3e). I found out they were rolled in sequence almost a decade later and was shocked with how "punishing" it was. Rolling stats was just a fun way to start the game, and try to win big.


----------



## loverdrive

Bolares said:


> Yeah. It was basically a minigame when I started playing (3e). I found out they were rolled in sequence almost a decade later and was shocked with how "punishing" it was. Rolling stats was just a fun way to start the game, and try to win big.



Wait. They were rolled in sequence in 3E?


----------



## Steampunkette

loverdrive said:


> I don't know how many people would actually remember these rules. I've personaly seen people using Str to determine jump length (or is it height?) approximately twice, and most of the time it was down to an ability check. Oh, and also there was a guy with a hilarious luchador build who grappled people, jumped 11' and dropped them to knock them prone, but that's it.



You're not wrong. There's plenty of rules people ignore, and rules people put into their own games.

But if it were core? If there was more use to attributes than just determining bonuses, they might feel more important, and important to remember.


Professor Murder said:


> I can understand the appeal, but such would increase rule complexity and dilute the base d20 rule mechanics.



Oh, it would -absolutely- increase complexity.

I disagree that it would have any effect on the base d20 Rule Mechanics.

You'd still roll 1d20+Proficiency/skill/whatever+Attribute modifier. You just can't jump farther than your strength score, or deceive 20 people at level 1 with one check. You'd still be making the check, normally.


----------



## Deset Gled

Professor Murder said:


> I'd also point out that, fundamentally, this is more a cosmetic change than a systemic change. Systemic would be to remove or fundamentally alter a system entirely, like changing what the six ability scores are while cosmetic would be changing the names but not removing any of the functions. If we eliminated Ability scores of 1 to 20 and instead listed the translated bonus only, the way the bonuses interact with the rules does not actually change in any meaningful way. Except for specific corner cases, such as tie breaks, or for more granular record keeping, the change doesn't change how the game is played.




I guess my last post came in a minute too late.

Anyway, if you openly admit that your changes aren't "meaningful in any way", then I just don't see any purpose.  At that point, you're just attacking sacred cows for the sake of attacking sacred cows.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

Bolares said:


> you get +1 in your modifier directly?



That is twice as powerful. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but point increases might have to be spread out more.


----------



## Oofta

Deset Gled said:


> I guess my last post came in a minute too late.
> 
> Anyway, if you openly admit that your changes aren't "meaningful in any way", then I just don't see any purpose.  At that point, you're just attacking sacred cows for the sake of attacking sacred cows.



Exactly.  There's nothing inherently wrong with sacred cows or tradition.


----------



## Bolares

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> That is twice as powerful.



In the current system sure...  But I assume a new system would adjust this to an adequate power level.


----------



## Professor Murder

Deset Gled said:


> I guess my last post came in a minute too late.
> 
> Anyway, if you openly admit that your changes aren't "meaningful in any way", then I just don't see any purpose.  At that point, you're just attacking sacred cows for the sake of attacking sacred cows.



I feel this is a misinterpretation. You are omitting my clarifying systemic vs cosmetic changes. It's only reasonable that a cosmetic change may have little to no systemic impact, such as changing the term "Strength" to "Might" for example. The systems still work the same. Changing from a Stat that leads to a bonus to just a bonus is mostly cosmetic. It's removing a step. Pruning unneeded elements can lead to a tighter game. The advantage to a tighter core game is that you can later add more elements onto it. If your core system already has unneeded bloat, when you add more systems, you increase system bloat faster. 

Furthermore, while I am advocating for discussing this, you are mistaken in your assumption that this change would be my goal. I am just examining.

Finally, if we only keep a system because it is a sacred cow, yeah, cut it. Edition changes should be reevaluations.


----------



## Oofta

Professor Murder said:


> I feel this is a misinterpretation. You are omitting my clarifying systemic vs cosmetic changes. It's only reasonable that a cosmetic change may have little to no systemic impact, such as changing the term "Strength" to "Might" for example. The systems still work the same. Changing from a Stat that leads to a bonus to just a bonus is mostly cosmetic. It's removing a step. Pruning unneeded elements can lead to a tighter game. The advantage to a tighter core game is that you can later add more elements onto it. If your core system already has unneeded bloat, when you add more systems, you increase system bloat faster.
> 
> Furthermore, while I am advocating for discussing this, you are mistaken in your assumption that this change would be my goal. I am just examining.
> 
> Finally, if we only keep a system because it is a sacred cow, yeah, cut it. Edition changes should be reevaluations.




I don't think there's much of anything inherently unique to D&D that some people wouldn't label as a sacred cow.  Whether that's HP, HD, AC or ability scores. Tons of games have come and gone (not to mention editions of D&D) that got rid of some of those traditions.

No game is perfect for everyone, it's impossible.  But 5E did a decent job of threading the needle of adhering to tradition while still maintaining the "feel" of older versions.  There are many reasons it's the most popular TTRPG, keeping around some of those traditional cows is one of them.


----------



## Professor Murder

Side Note: I may be mistaken, but I think the "True 20" system published by Green Ronin a ways back did away with scores for just bonuses. Is there anyone here who used said system and can offer some insight?


----------



## Yaarel

On my character sheets, the bonus is the number written "big". The score is the number written "tiny".

Heh, if eliminating the score could save even more space on my character sheet, that would be even better!


----------



## Steampunkette

Killing "Sacred Cows" just to kill them is kind of pointless.

Far better to milk them. You get better use out of them that way.

Also cheese. Which is delicious.


----------



## Faolyn

Steampunkette said:


> How about Persuasion can be done on a number of people equal to your charisma score divided by 2 at a given time, early on, and later on it's score x2 or x3. Allowing you to start out persuading a handful of guards or many a small crowd of legbreakers, but once you've got a few levels under your belt you can persuade a mob the side of a city block to stop a lynching, like Emperor Norton the 1st, Ruler of the United States.
> 
> Meanwhile you can Perform for a crowd equal to your Charisma Score at level 1, and that number grows as you gain levels at a similar rate...
> 
> And you can only Deceive a fraction of as many people at the start of leveling.
> 
> That'd certainly make things interesting.



You'd _really _have to work to determine what those skills actually mean and what effects they have. Otherwise it's like, you can Perform for 12 people if you have a 12 Cha, but the other 9 people in the crowd are... not entertained? Actively heckling you? Unaffected by whatever pseudo-magical effect Perform creates?


----------



## Steampunkette

Faolyn said:


> You'd _really _have to work to determine what those skills actually mean and what effects they have. Otherwise it's like, you can Perform for 12 people if you have a 12 Cha, but the other 9 people in the crowd are... not entertained? Actively heckling you? Unaffected by whatever pseudo-magical effect Perform creates?



Any of those things. Or just not particularly interested in your performance.

Like singing in a crowded tavern, some people stop talking and look up, others keep playing cards or chatting up the servers.

Could even create problems for those who keep talking while others are trying to listen. Depends on what you're making the perform check to -do-.

Imagine starting a bar fight as a Perform check. You sing SO PRETTY to 12 people in the crowd of 20 that the other 8 not shutting up so they can listen starts a barfight of 12 on 8 when you roll a nat 20.

It'd definitely have to be something worked at, but it's just a quick concept.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> I am almost fine with this, but how would you handle level-based stat increases?



Throw them in a dumpster and set it on fire.


----------



## Bolares

Steampunkette said:


> Killing "Sacred Cows" just to kill them is kind of pointless.
> 
> Far better to milk them. You get better use out of them that way.
> 
> Also cheese. Which is delicious.



but what qualifies as "just to kill them". I'd argue getting rid of unecessary extra steps in game information can be quite usefull. Most of the new players I introduced 5e to asked me why we have both a ability score and modifier, because to them it seemed like the score was just a confusing extra step for the real number.


----------



## Steampunkette

Bolares said:


> but what qualifies as "just to kill them". I'd argue getting rid of unecessary extra steps in game information can be quite usefull. Most of the new players I introduced 5e to asked me why we have both a ability score and modifier, because to them it seemed like the score was just a confusing extra step for the real number.



That's kinda the point...

If there is no reason you can choose to remove it, or to -give- it a reason.

Giving it a reason preserves the "Sacred Cow" for everyone who likes it rather than killing it off and alienating them because you don't have a specific use for it.

It also gives those new players an answer.

It's going to add more complexity, obviously, as any addition will. But here's an alternative:

Why bother having modifiers?

Just add the ability score to the roll, entirely, and raise every DC, armor class, etc. by 10 to compensate. Problem solved, right?


----------



## Bolares

Steampunkette said:


> Why bother having modifiers?
> 
> Just add the ability score to the roll, entirely, and raise every DC, armor class, etc. by 10 to compensate. Problem solved, right?



I think smaller numbers are preferred. If the choices is making everything a +1 or a +10, I think a +1 is better. I agree scores add more complecity and make the game more granular, and if the objective is to make the game more of that sure, keep it... expand it. But I think that's not going to be the goal, so, if we are not going to use the granular system ability scores offer, and they are just an apendage, a remnant of old editions, shouldn't we cut it?


----------



## Yaarel

If skills use scores, but attacks use bonuses, the math becomes wonky, and the gaming mechanics warp and break.

Keeping scores is the opposite of elegant and robust gaming design.

We left the diverse adhoc incompatable mechanics of 1e, long ago, for a reason.


----------



## Steampunkette

Bolares said:


> I think smaller numbers are preferred. If the choices is making everything a +1 or a +10, I think a +1 is better. I agree scores add more complecity and make the game more granular, and if the objective is to make the game more of that sure, keep it... expand it. But I think that's not going to be the goal, so, if we are not going to use the granular system ability scores offer, and they are just an apendage, a remnant of old editions, shouldn't we cut it?



If your arm is broken and nonfunctional do you slice it off or try to mend it?

If it's broken in such a way that it will never gain full use, again, do you cut it off or make a prosthetic to make it more useful than it currently is?

You keep calling it a Sacred Cow, but the point of Sacred Cows is that you -don't- kill them because they have a particular reverence tied to them. There is something important, there, even if it's either hard to put into words or entirely based in feeling and faith rather than function.


----------



## Bolares

Steampunkette said:


> If your arm is broken and nonfunctional do you slice it off or try to mend it?
> 
> If it's broken in such a way that it will never gain full use, again, do you cut it off or make a prosthetic to make it more useful than it currently is?



I don't think this is a good analogy. Comparing a body part to scores is a bit much for me.



Steampunkette said:


> You keep calling it a Sacred Cow



Is this a "me" you or a "general" you. because I didn't call it a sacred cow in any of the posts in our conversations....

I'm not trying to "kill" anything because it has or doesn't have reverence tied to it. I'm asking what's the actual use we have for it, and what are the concrete benefits of having it (if we keep trying to streamline the game). I've said why I think there are reasons for the removal of scores (streamlining, removing new player confusion, etc...), but if the only reason to keep it is feeling and faith.... I don't think that's reason enough. But hey, to each their own. If you like them and have an attachment to them cool!


----------



## Steampunkette

Bolares said:


> I don't think this is a good analogy. Comparing a body part to scores is a bit much for me.
> 
> 
> Is this a "me" you or a "general" you. because I didn't call it a sacred cow in any of the posts in our conversations....
> 
> I'm not trying to "kill" anything because it has or doesn't have reverence tied to it. I'm asking what's the actual use we have for it, and what are the concrete benefits of having it (if we keep trying to streamline the game). I've said why I think there are reasons for the removal of scores (streamlining, removing new player confusion, etc...), but if the only reason to keep it is feeling and faith.... I don't think that's reason enough. But hey, to each their own. If you like them and have an attachment to them cool!



Ah. Nope. That was 100% my fault with the Sacred Cow thing. I got mixed up on who wrote the OP. I apologize!

That said... You are the one who called it an "Appendage". So I think carrying that analogy on was valid in context.

As to the streamlining thing: If that's the only goal going forward? Sure. There's a lot of things we can streamline. The question becomes, instead, how far we -should- streamline, which aspects, and why.

As to my reverence for Ability Scores... kinda meh on them? I think they work fine as they are, a little bit of old school flavor to make sure the game still "Feels" like D&D.

But if we -really- want to streamline ability scores with no thoughts given to "Sacred Cows"?

Physical Power
Physical Toughness
Mental Power
Mental Toughness
Social Power
Social Toughness

Having the flavorful names for the different character abilities is very Old School and cool, but trying to explain the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom is dull and often frustrating for younger players. Meanwhile "Power" and "Toughness" are very simple to understand.

And by breaking it into three categories, we maintain the idea of 6 attributes while also creating a way to handle resilience in social situations! Sure, Dex and Strength kinda get collapsed into one, but that works, right?

Just have modifiers 1 to 5 for those stats, no need for scores whatsoever, and let people gain one +1 at level 1 and another +1 at 4th and every 4 levels after that.

It also makes it easier to handle things like Saving Throws (Toughness is your attribute for them) on different forms of attack.


----------



## jmartkdr2

ReshiIRE said:


> I'm worried about attaching bonuses to class (and not just as a free floating 'thing' or balanced around an ancestories other abilities) because I feel that could cause unfortunate restrictions on how to play certain classes. Obviously, a lot of cases already have restrictions on how you play a class because at-least one ability score is quite important to play the class, but a lot don't force you to invest in two stats for sure (the whole SAD vs MAD) and some are quite flexible as of right now - Fighter and Paladin can be played as Strength or Dexterity based, for example (and I certainly wish the somewhat common homerule of Warlocks either being Charisma or Intelligence based was just the standarad).
> 
> I feel that attaching bonuses to class might not allow the flexibility - it is possible by the book but I can easily see decisions being that leads to Fighters only getting a +2 to Strength and a +1 to another, making Dexterity based fighters more difficult.
> 
> I also don't see this happening as it would likely make a 6e really incompatible with a 5e, and I think that compatibility is important not only business wise, but also community wise.



That would be a weird way to do it, though: if they went this route, they'd probably copy Pathfinder 2e's approach and so fighters would most likely get a +2 to strength or dex, and a +1 to anything else. (Or the +1 would come from background, or some such).

Monks might get a choice of +2 dex or +2 wis or +1 to each, for example. It's workable.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Faolyn said:


> You'd _really _have to work to determine what those skills actually mean and what effects they have. Otherwise it's like, you can Perform for 12 people if you have a 12 Cha, but the other 9 people in the crowd are... not entertained? Actively heckling you? Unaffected by whatever pseudo-magical effect Perform creates?



Maximum number of people who might leave a tip.

I'm pretty sure they were just spitballing, but I do generally like the idea of the raw score dictating some minimum results for certain things, similar to how jump distance works already.


----------



## King Babar

I find the usage of Ability Scores and Modifiers to be awkward. Do we need two sets of numbers? Not really. Ability Scores don't matter outside of a few niche situations and the Modifier does most of the work. So drop the Scores, keep the Modifiers, and rejigger the rules where necessary and you'll probably end up with a mostly unchanged but more elegant system.

If you want raw scores, play Pendragon?*

*speaking as someone who loves Pendragon's rules system


----------



## overgeeked

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?



I prefer the other way around. Drop modifiers and keep the scores. Use scores for checks, like the old days.


----------



## Bolares

Steampunkette said:


> You are the one who called it an "Appendage"



Oh, The term got lost in translation. I was trying to call it an appendix, not an appendage. I hate when two very different words sound alike in english hahahah


----------



## Charlaquin

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?



I don’t agree that granularity is the only reason for scores. I don’t even think it’s the main reason. The main reason is to preserve the 3d6 and 4d6 drop one methods of randomly generating your abilities.


----------



## Steampunkette

Bolares said:


> Oh, The term got lost in translation. I was trying to call it an appendix, not an appendage. I hate when two very different words sound alike in english hahahah



Ahhh... I understand. 

English is the worst language aside from Esperanto.


----------



## Charlaquin

Professor Murder said:


> Any aspect of the game that can be improved should be up for grabs. that said, changing too much at once and you get 4th ed.



Damn, then why aren’t we changing too much at once every opportunity we get?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Professor Murder said:


> Mainly way too many "dead levels" where increases had no real impact, and no baked in means of increasing stats outside of magic or magic items. Your rogue as a 15 dex? That's for life.



I'd actually be fine with that.  Leave the stat increases up to magic.  But I cut my teeth on the TSR editions, so I like to fit in their stuff when I can.


----------



## Charlaquin

Scribe said:


> Yeah, 6e should be a 'rip off the bandage' edition.
> 
> Remove everything that they keep messing around with half measures on, and let the chips fall where they may.



I wish, but they’re too gunshy for that after what happened with 4e.


----------



## Bolares

Steampunkette said:


> Ahhh... I understand.
> 
> English is the worst language aside from Esperanto.



Try to speak portuguese then. This language makes less sense than still using ability scores!  

It's fun when you are trying to learn english. Pull in portugues is "Puxe" and Push is "Empurre". Push and "Puxe" sound EXACTLY the same! So you can guess my confusion hahaha


----------



## Micah Sweet

They w


Professor Murder said:


> See, I gave up on rolling stats like decades ago. Rolling to determine stats is in essence rolling to determine class. I would rather as little of character creation as possible be behind RNG gates and leave random outcomes to actual gameplay to maintain a sense of tension and create a possibility of failure.



They will never remove rolling for stats.  Its among the most sacred of cows, right up there with level and class.


----------



## Charlaquin

ReshiIRE said:


> It did throw me a little when playing KoToR (which while not D&D based is very obviously based on 2nd or 3rd (can't tell which due to unfamilarity) DND)



It’s straight up 3.5e, with like no attempt whatsoever made to hide that fact.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> I like abilities because they mechanically actualize "aptitudes", things that a character generally tends to be good at.
> 
> Skills and class features are highly specific capabilities, and each minutia stands on its own, separately.
> 
> But abilities can invite themes and concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> Abilities need rethinking, such as consolidating to a more useful, sensible, and balanced four, rather than six.
> 
> But abilities as a cluster of things that a character is globally good at, is useful for both mechanics and narrative.



Six ability scores is another thing that will be with us as long as there's a D&D.


----------



## Steampunkette

Bolares said:


> Try to speak portuguese then. This language makes less sense than still using ability scores!



At least it uses a logical subject-verb-object sentence format.

Meanwhile, in English, we've got:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Which is a grammatically correct sentence. Hell. It's -several-.

As is:

I'm going to fish to fish two fish.


----------



## Bolares

Micah Sweet said:


> They w
> 
> They will never remove rolling for stats.  Its among the most sacred of cows, right up there with level and class.



I don't know about never... the vast majority of people have it today as an optional rule, and probably never did it. If this trend continues, maybe in the future it will be just another thing "the old people" did.


----------



## Argyle King

I think we should keep the scores and dump the modifiers.

Have the scores directly interact with other parts of the game.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yora said:


> Ability scores from 3 to 18 exist to roll attributes on 3d6, and to make roll under attribute checks.
> Both haven't been done for over 20 years.



Sometimes I miss roll under attribute checks.  It was so simple!


----------



## turnip_farmer

Bolares said:


> you could also simplify it and roll a d4 or something. If you want to mantain 5e's progression cap you could do the 4 meaning you got a 0 or something like that.
> 
> D4bonus1+12+23+340



Where are the minus scores?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> Then so be it.
> 
> If Wizards is convinced that their recent changes from how 5e was released are correct, then go all the way and stop trying to sit on the fence.
> 
> If they get another 4e reaction, well, at least then they know that when they go for 7e, what they need to remember is important, and that sacred cows exist for a reason.



Yeah, as much as I dont think they will, I really want WotC to make their "modern gamers edition" 6e and see what happens once it's out in the wild.  THEN we'll see what the people who actually buy product really think!


----------



## Bolares

turnip_farmer said:


> Where are the minus scores?



IN HELL WHERE THEY BELONG!   

That was just a quick example, but you could do something similar, and have minus scores too.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Steampunkette said:


> English is the worst language aside from Esperanto.




JavaScript is a contender for that title.


----------



## Steampunkette

Bill Zebub said:


> JavaScript is a contender for that title.



I would say "No one speaks Javascript" but then someone would appear in the kitchen beside me to spout insane noises and prove me wrong.


----------



## TheSword

I still like to see ability scores as a resource. They are used that way in some obscure situations (intellect devoured attacks for instance) though I would like to see them used that way again.

Particularly poisons. I thought 3e’s poison and disease system was very elegant at representing all sorts of damage to the body that was far more interesting than simply reducing hp. I have several homebrew poisons in by file ready to spring on the players.


----------



## Marc Radle

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?




Please no. 
Stats themselves have meaning.

The idea isn’t to remove as many sacred cows as possible. There’s no good reason to remove them, but lots of reason to keep them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> I wish, but they’re too gunshy for that after what happened with 4e.



Maybe the recent uproar in social media has made them forget why 4e wasn't a big hit with everyone. Companies are gun shy about a lot of things.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> Rip off enough bandages and the game may bleed to death.  One person's sacred cow is another person's meat.



Can’t you see the sacred meat processing industry is destroying the planet?


----------



## turnip_farmer

TheSword said:


> I still like to see ability scores as a resource. They are used that way in some obscure situations (intellect devoured attacks for instance) though I would like to see them used that way again.
> 
> Particularly poisons. I thought 3e’s poison and disease system was very elegant at representing all sorts of damage to the body that was far more interesting than simply reducing hp. I have several homebrew poisons in by file ready to spring on the players.



In principle I like ability draining ideas.

But in practice taking ability score damage means rewriting a whole bunch on numbers on your sheet, and then changing them all back when you heal. It gets annoying.


----------



## TheSword

turnip_farmer said:


> In principle I like ability draining ideas.
> 
> But in practice taking ability score damage means rewriting a whole bunch on numbers on your sheet, and then changing them all back when you heal. It gets annoying.



Fair play. I guess I’m used to doing that with lots of things.


----------



## ReshiIRE

As an aside, how long have ability draining abilities been in the game? I can't imagine managing them in a non-electronic format. Then again, even were I to play D&D irl, I'd need an electronic sheet of some kind - I could not handle writing and then rubbing out information and the fact that I am a slower writer in general.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> Can’t you see the sacred meat processing industry is destroying the planet?



Only if the sacred meat is actually Cowthulhu.


----------



## Faolyn

ReshiIRE said:


> As an aside, how long have ability draining abilities been in the game? I can't imagine managing them in a non-electronic format. Then again, even were I to play D&D irl, I'd need an electronic sheet of some kind - I could not handle writing and then rubbing out information and the fact that I am a slower writer in general.



Since the beginning, along with level-draining abilities.


----------



## ECMO3

Bolares said:


> you could also simplify it and roll a d4 or something. If you want to mantain 5e's progression cap you could do the 4 meaning you got a 0 or something like that.
> 
> D4bonus1+12+23+340



That would have a huge variance.  

3d6/4d6d1 results in a bell curve and it is unlikely many scores will be very high or very low.   Rolling a single dice would result in a uniform distribution where a +4 is as likely as a +1.   If you went 3d4 and dropped lowest and highest it would be better.

Also, not that it is statistically relevant - Why is a higher roll a lower score?


----------



## commandercrud

Professor Murder said:


> Mainly way too many "dead levels" where increases had no real impact, and no baked in means of increasing stats outside of magic or magic items. Your rogue as a 15 dex? That's for life.



That's what I like about it.


----------



## the Jester

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?



That seems like it would make it much more difficult to roll stats and still end up with a bell curve.


----------



## the Jester

Bolares said:


> you could also simplify it and roll a d4 or something. If you want to mantain 5e's progression cap you could do the 4 meaning you got a 0 or something like that.
> 
> D4bonus1+12+23+340



Sorry, but for those of us who like rolling stats, this completely misses the point. Not only is there no bell curve creating an average, you can never roll low. I know I'm probably in slim company here, but any version of stat generation that never produces a 3 is not going to satisfy me, no matter its other virtues.


----------



## Maxperson

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?



There are uses for granularity.  For example, I use dex score to determine tie breakers.  If you and an enemy both roll an initiative of 18, but you have a dex of 15 and he has a dex of 14, you go first.


----------



## the Jester

Scribe said:


> Then so be it.



That's pretty terrible business advice.


----------



## Maxperson

Bolares said:


> Try to speak portuguese then. This language makes less sense than still using ability scores!
> 
> It's fun when you are trying to learn english. Pull in portugues is "Puxe" and Push is "Empurre". Push and "Puxe" sound EXACTLY the same! So you can guess my confusion hahaha



The doors to get into and out of businesses must give you nightmares.


----------



## the Jester

loverdrive said:


> Getting rid of a detail that doesn't really justify its existence.
> 
> Sometimes I wish making TTRPGs was like actually producing marvels of engineering.



It seems like a solution in search of a problem. All you're doing is removing granularity, familiarity, and tradition- you're not fixing anything that's broken, at least that I can see.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Roll six d4s and six fate dice. For each blank side rolled, drop a roll to zero, largest number first. Assign the rolled pluses and minuses to the remaining numbers. Arrange to taste.


----------



## the Jester

TheSword said:


> I still like to see ability scores as a resource. They are used that way in some obscure situations (intellect devoured attacks for instance) though I would like to see them used that way again.
> 
> Particularly poisons. I thought 3e’s poison and disease system was very elegant at representing all sorts of damage to the body that was far more interesting than simply reducing hp. I have several homebrew poisons in by file ready to spring on the players.



Oh man, I loved ability damage until I realized how bad players tend to be at massive amounts of on-the-fly recalculation. And God save you from the tedium of refiguring a fully buffed high level party's numbers after an 0area-targeting greater dispel magic or two...


----------



## CubicsRube

billd91 said:


> Since rolling stats is still a thing, I'm all for keeping them. Granted, rolling stats and assigning a modifier could be done via a table in the rulebook and no raw stat need appear on the character sheet.



This is what is done in Mork Borg and a number of new OSR products.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?



Pathfinder 2 does that and I hate it. I thought it wouldn’t bother me, but it really did.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Scribe said:


> Yeah, 6e should be a 'rip off the bandage' edition.
> 
> Remove everything that they keep messing around with half measures on, and let the chips fall where they may.



No, I much prefer the half measures.


----------



## Yaarel

When there are four abilities (Str, Dex, Int, Cha), the starting array is a choice:

+3, +2, +1, +0

+2, +2, +2, +2


----------



## niklinna

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Pathfinder 2 does that and I hate it. I thought it wouldn’t bother me, but it really did.



I thought Pathfinder 2 wouldn't bother me, but it really did.


----------



## loverdrive

the Jester said:


> It seems like a solution in search of a problem. All you're doing is removing granularity, familiarity, and tradition- you're not fixing anything that's broken, at least that I can see.



I mean, everything that could be removed, should be removed. Having less moving parts is better than having more moving parts, given the difference in end results is negligible.

Ability scores don't really do anything, so what's even the point of retaining them? Granularity is pretty much a non-thing since there's almost nothing that gives only +1 to an ability.

WotC effectively eliminated ability scores already, so I don't see any reason to not go all the way and just get rid of it completely.

Now, if they brought back B/X table or AD&D additional bonuses for high scores, retaining them would be at least justifiable.


----------



## Scribe

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> No, I much prefer the half measures.




Interesting. I dont think its helping much at all.



the Jester said:


> That's pretty terrible business advice.




Well, perhaps thats the point. This 'slowly boiling the frog' approach is pretty terrible to me.


----------



## Lakesidefantasy

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?



It's not just granularity.

Maybe we can list the places in the game where the ability score is required rather than the modifier. Admittedly I don't know them all (or maybe I do).

Carrying Capacity.
How far our characters can jump.
Multiclassing Prerequisites.
Ability Score drain.
Ability Modifiers themselves are derived from Ability Scores.
Granted, any of these things can be changed in a new edition, but it's not just granularity.

Also, have any of us mentioned the True 20 system?


----------



## Aldarc

jmartkdr2 said:


> If we get rid of scores, how will we roll for ability scores?
> 
> DnD without rolled abilities would be like Star Wars without laser swords.



Consult a chart like in Fantasy Age, which basically got rid of ability scores in favor of modifiers only but still has rolling for stats with 3d6.


----------



## R_J_K75

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?



Yes.  As a DM I havent called for a straight ability score in years.  Its always give me a STR check. thats roll a d20 add your bonus..., so yeah, 86 them.


----------



## Bolares

Maxperson said:


> The doors to get into and out of businesses must give you nightmares.



You're joking, but that happens sometimes to Brazillian tourists abroad. If you ever see someone having trouble pushing a door, now you know.


----------



## Oofta

Bolares said:


> You're joking, but that happens sometimes to Brazillian tourists abroad. If you ever see someone having trouble pushing a door, now you know.




Sadly speaking from experience from ... umm ... a friend ... it doesn't always have anything to do with language.


----------



## Maxperson

Bolares said:


> You're joking, but that happens sometimes to Brazillian tourists abroad. If you ever see someone having trouble pushing a door, now you know.



Years ago I was playing D&D with a group of friends.  The DM lives in a luxury apartment building and would reserve the meeting room every Sunday.  The meeting room had two walls that were entirely large glass windows.  The smaller wall went to the lobby.  The larger was to the community pool area.

One day we were in the room gaming when a blond woman walked through the lobby in her bathing suit headed for the pool.  When she got to the door she started pulling on the door, but it wouldn't open since it was push from that side.  Instead of switching, she just kept pulling and pulling.  A brunette woman had arrived to head to the pool area while the blond was pulling and reached around and pushed the door open.  The blond thanked her and both went through.  At that point we were just observing and nobody thought much of it and the game continued.

About an hour and a half later we noticed the blond woman leaving the pool area at the same time as the brunette woman.  When she got to the door she started trying to push it open, but of course it was pull from this side.  As she continued to push several times, not switching to pull, the brunette with the most incredulous look on her face reached around and pulled the door open.  The blond thanked her again and they both went their separate ways.  That was the point where one of the players, I can't remember who, turned to the group and said, "Did we just see a blond joke?"  

After the amusement and some small amount of discussion about hair dyes settled down, the game continued.  Now I have another possible explanation for what happened.


----------



## Bolares

It was also a pain in the ass when I was a kid playing star wars games. I always mixed up force push and force pull


----------



## loverdrive

Steampunkette said:


> Ahhh... I understand.
> 
> English is the worst language aside from Esperanto.



Well, there's always Russian.


----------



## the Jester

Scribe said:


> Well, perhaps thats the point. This 'slowly boiling the frog' approach is pretty terrible to me.



D&D is selling better than it ever has and, to the best of my knowledge, shows no signs of slowing down. I don't see why they would make drastic changes when they're on top of the world.


----------



## Scribe

the Jester said:


> D&D is selling better than it ever has and, to the best of my knowledge, shows no signs of slowing down. I don't see why they would make drastic changes when they're on top of the world.



I'd agree, but there seems to be a segment of the player base that wants more change.

If so, I would rather those changes be done quicker, instead of a small adjustment over every 6 months or something.

Mostly I'm quibbling over a few things but if people can't leave them alone, the remove the whole lot and see what happens.


----------



## Yora

Those players are welcome to join us in the homebrew crowd. Have been creating top notch new and different D&D content for 47 years.


----------



## Professor Murder

It's clearly a speculative thread. Its tagged 6th edition. If you hate speculation, why are you here except to rain on someone else's parade?


----------



## Bolares

Professor Murder said:


> It's clearly a speculative thread. Its tagged 6th edition. If you hate speculation, why are you here except to rain on someone else's parade?



Can I speculate on why people do this?


----------



## Professor Murder

Bolares said:


> Can I speculate on why people do this?



The internet.


----------



## Lakesidefantasy

Sorry I overlooked the tag.

But what aren't we talking about True 20? It has everything we want. It even eliminated hit points.

I've always wanted to play it with someone...anyone. But, alas I find no one interested. But then again, I can't get anybody to play anything but Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

In the past I suggested to add more abilities scores to allow an easier adaptation from other systems. At least it could be showed as an optional rule for players who want to test new ideas, or to mix d20 system with other games.









						D&D 5E - Sacred Cows: Added new abilities scores.
					

Sometimes I thought about how to create an universal d20 for all genres and the most of 3PPs wanted to used, and easy to adapt other systems. After a idea storm I have chosen to add two new abilities scores: acuity and spirit.  - Acuity(Acu) would be perception and astuteness, very important in...




					www.enworld.org
				




- Acuity(Acu) would be perception and astuteness, very important in stories where the PCs have to investigate misteries to discover the truth. It is a creativity and fast mind, for example to improvise an excuse. With Wisdom you can notice what is the right or wrong choise but with astuteness you are better in social manipulations or to notice who is lying. Acuity would be very useful for investigators characters, not only to discover the clues but to interpret the signals correctly.

- Spirit(Spi) would be karma/luck/fate/faith-piety/divine grace-blessing and courage (this is important in horror games). With Wisdom the PCs make self-control to stop himself before a wrong or risky action, and courage it self-control check to dare to take a step, for example to attack the undead. Wisdom would be more linked with the good sense, serenity, sanity and within peace.


----------



## Lakesidefantasy

Yeah. Why diminish Ability Scores for a new edition? Why not expand upon them? Make more things dependent on them.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

loverdrive said:


> I mean, everything that could be removed, should be removed. Having less moving parts is better than having more moving parts, given the difference in end results is negligible.
> 
> Ability scores don't really do anything, so what's even the point of retaining them? Granularity is pretty much a non-thing since there's almost nothing that gives only +1 to an ability.
> 
> WotC effectively eliminated ability scores already, so I don't see any reason to not go all the way and just get rid of it completely.
> 
> Now, if they brought back B/X table or AD&D additional bonuses for high scores, retaining them would be at least justifiable.



Backwards thinking, IMO.  instead I would rather see ability scores become something more.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Thinking about this some more, I'm starting to think the playtest idea of "ability mod *or* proficiency bonus" deserves reconsideration - if proficiency will eventually take over anyways, then ability mods matter for a while but then they don't, so the long-term impact is minimal (and the minimum viable character is just one who's proficient in the stuff they want to be proficient with.)

Because of this, you can do dang near anything with ability scores and it will work fine: racial ASIs, life-path, roll or point buy, higher or lower numbers - it'll mostly impact low-level adventurers (mostly getting slightly better attack rolls for a bit) and non-proficient skill checks, which aren't going to be major issues. 

The math would need some work (topping out at a +6 mod requires completely non-scaling target numbers, and will always feel very swingy compared to the range on the die) but I think you could make a game that works this way and feels like DnD.


----------



## loverdrive

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Backwards thinking, IMO.  instead I would rather see ability scores become something more.



Well, I'm not entirely opposed to this idea, but with one important condition: as long, as it's _really_ necessary. Adding stuff just for the sake of adding stuff isn't a particularly good idea.


----------



## Horwath

We should delete constitution while we are at it and merge it into stregth.


----------



## Minigiant

Because of the increased steps in ability scores, I think it wold be cool if some racial and class features are unlocked by reaching some ability score minimums. Especially with odd scores.

I think you can strip away a lot of feat-like aspects this way and make things simpler. Getting a few special features for having a warrior with STR 17, Wis 13, and Con 15.

Because while some things work well with small modifiers, some things like movement speed, carry weight, jumping, languages, vision, etc are extremely akward if you attempt to link them to modifiers.


----------



## NaturalZero

The game just does not need ability scores at this point because the core d20 mechanic makes them irrelevant. Your Initiative doesn't care about your Dex score. Your Perception doesn't care about your Wis score. Your ability to hit with a spell doesn't care about your Int score. The DC of your warlock spell doesn't depend on the Cha score. Your ability hit with a sword or roll damage doesn't depend on the actual Str score. The scores are just numbers on the sheet for nostalgia's sake that add clutter without real mechanical benefit.

But what about a few things like carrying capacity that do use the score? Just make them key off of the bonus, like 99% of the other mechanics that use abilities.


----------



## Horwath

Lakesidefantasy said:


> Yeah. Why diminish Ability Scores for a new edition? Why not expand upon them? Make more things dependent on them.



because it's better to simply have one stat rather than two.

If you have ability scores and ability modifiers and score determines modifiers, while modifiers are responsible for 95% of mechanics,

Just make them responsible for 100% of mechanics. Easier than making some mixed bag where both will have some similar value.


Also if people like to roll scores, they can roll for modifiers;

(6d3 drop 2) - 8, gives the -4 to +4 spread. Same as 3-18. It is not exactly the same distribution, but it's close enough.


----------



## loverdrive

Horwath said:


> because it's better to simply have one stat rather than two.
> 
> If you have ability scores and ability modifiers and score determines modifiers, while modifiers are responsible for 95% of mechanics,
> 
> Just make them responsible for 100% of mechanics. Easier than making some mixed bag where both will have some similar value.
> 
> 
> Also if people like to roll scores, they can roll for modifiers;
> 
> (6d3 drop 2) - 8, gives the -4 to +4 spread. Same as 3-18. It is not exactly the same distribution, but it's close enough.



Or there can be a table that is used exactly once and never used ever again ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Scott Christian

Professor Murder said:


> When we get a new editions, should we dispense with ability scores and just have bonuses listed instead?
> A starting stat block might instead give a +3, a +2, Two +1s, a non bonus, and a -1 for example.
> Besides tradition, the only reason for ability scores that are translated into bonuses is "granularity", in which one can have odd numbered scores that don't increase the bonus, acting as a stopgap between actual mechanical increases or penalties.
> 
> Thoughts?



I would say there are a few things to consider:

Balance
How swingy are the mechanics (can you get the same feel latitudinally and longitudinally)
Effectiveness of things other than +1 or +2 such as feats
The number of skills attached to these abilities
I would also add that there needs to be alternatives instead of everyone making the exact same: randomness for players that like fate, knob turning for players that like the game of inflation, and as I stated in a previous post, a chance to let players just pick their bonuses. 

I am unsure if you switch to just an array of plusses and minuses that you will get the swing (or perception of swing) or ability to knob turn. It might feel a bit more empty and hallow.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Horwath said:


> We should delete constitution while we are at it and merge it into stregth.



Disagree, I can be strong (able to lift great weight) and have a weak constitution. I think they should remain separate


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

loverdrive said:


> Well, I'm not entirely opposed to this idea, but with one important condition: as long, as it's _really_ necessary. Adding stuff just for the sake of adding stuff isn't a particularly good idea.



Of course what is really necessary is a different for different people


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

NaturalZero said:


> The game just does not need ability scores at this point because the core d20 mechanic makes them irrelevant. Your Initiative doesn't care about your Dex score. Your Perception doesn't care about your Wis score. Your ability to hit with a spell doesn't care about your Int score. The DC of your warlock spell doesn't depend on the Cha score. Your ability hit with a sword or roll damage doesn't depend on the actual Str score. The scores are just numbers on the sheet for nostalgia's sake that add clutter without real mechanical benefit.
> 
> But what about a few things like carrying capacity that do use the score? Just make them key off of the bonus, like 99% of the other mechanics that use abilities.



Boring alert, boring alert! How about we don’t water down the game and instead try to inject more interesting ideas, features, and mechanics.  There is so much more you can with ability scores the just a dumb modifier. If we are changing things, let’s make that change instead.


----------



## King Babar

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Disagree, I can be strong (able to lift great weight) and have a weak constitution. I think they should remain separate



Agreed. Constitution has a distinct niche; sprinter (high strength/power) vs marathoner (high constitution/endurance).


----------



## Yaarel

Weightlifting is a skill, called weighttraining, that one learns and gains proficiency in, and size is a significant factor for carrying capacity.

When Strength, Constitution, and Size consolidate into one ability, the mechanics of weightlifting, health, and reach, can be subsets of the combined big and tough Strength, that key off it, while each subset maintains its own mechanics separate from each other.


----------



## Bolares

Sooo... we're back on simulationism aren't we?


----------



## Scribe

Bolares said:


> Sooo... we're back on simulationism aren't we?



I couldn't even tell you at this point.

All I know, is that people are unsatisfied, with everything.

Not all people, but some.


----------



## Deset Gled

Bolares said:


> Sooo... we're back on simulationism aren't we?



Not back on it.  Still on it.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Bolares said:


> Sooo... we're back on simulationism aren't we?



Not really. Wanting to keep ability scores =/= simulationism


----------



## Arilyn

I just like ability scores. I use sheets where the ability score is bigger than the modifier. I admired my character's 11 intelligence that is no better than a ten because then I knew my character was in the higher range of average. Almost smart enough for a bonus! I assigned ability scores to my character in a F20 game that had ditched them in favour of just the bonuses. (the GM rolled his eyes, but I didn't care. They made me happy.) 

6e can ditch them but I'll still use them.


----------



## Remathilis

Scribe said:


> Yeah, 6e should be a 'rip off the bandage' edition.
> 
> Remove everything that they keep messing around with half measures on, and let the chips fall where they may.



Paizo approves this message.


----------



## Oofta

Scribe said:


> I couldn't even tell you at this point.
> 
> All I know, is that people are unsatisfied, with everything.
> 
> Not all people, but some.




Is that a pot throwing shade on a kettle?


----------



## Scribe

Oofta said:


> Is that a pot throwing shade on a kettle?



I'm quite clear I believe in what I'm happy or unhappy with. Can't please everyone.


----------



## Horwath

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Disagree, I can be strong (able to lift great weight) and have a weak constitution. I think they should remain separate



yes you could be.

But that can be explained by proficiency/expertise in Athletics or powerful build.

And the "constitution" or "resilience" part of Strength can be explained with proficiency in saves, advantage on poisons and/or disease and extra HPs beyond STR mod(dwarf or though feat).

Now you just need to delete charisma and let players decide how much or how little their character is charismatic and/or pretty or ugly or whatever.

Redefine Int, Wis and Cha into Willpower and Cunning.

Willpower manages all spell usage(attack, damage, DCs) and mental spell defence(current int, wis and cha saves).
And Cunning manages all skill usage currently used by Int, Wis and Cha. 
More cunning means that you are better at all mental tasks, and proficiency and expertise describe your focused training(or mental preference) and specialized training.


----------



## Yaarel

Horwath said:


> yes you could be.
> 
> But that can be explained by proficiency/expertise in Athletics or powerful build.
> 
> And the "constitution" or "resilience" part of Strength can be explained with proficiency in saves, advantage on poisons and/or disease and extra HPs beyond STR mod(dwarf or though feat).
> 
> Now you just need to delete charisma and let players decide how much or how little their character is charismatic and/or pretty or ugly or whatever.
> 
> Redefine Int, Wis and Cha into Willpower and Cunning.
> 
> Willpower manages all spell usage(attack, damage, DCs) and mental spell defence(current int, wis and cha saves).
> And Cunning manages all skill usage currently used by Int, Wis and Cha.
> More cunning means that you are better at all mental tasks, and proficiency and expertise describe your focused training(or mental preference) and specialized training.



Intelligence (Perception)
Charisma (will, empathy)

Done.

Wisdom is a strictly redundant and incoherent ability.

Charisma has nothing to do with being goodlooking (which works better as a feat with benefits while in line of sight). But Charisma does relate to artistic appeal, as well as all social skills generally, and personal willpower.

The four abilities are:

Strength (big and tough)
Dexterity (athletically mobile)
Intelligence (observant)
Charisma (willful personality)


----------



## Minigiant

NaturalZero said:


> But what about a few things like carrying capacity that do use the score? Just make them key off of the bonus, like 99% of the other mechanics that use abilities.



Nah.

The modifiers are too small for the granulation desired for some things. 

What, are you gonna lift 100 lbs per +1 in Strength? So you get 100lbs of carry by boosting Strength. How would negative modifiers work? 

15 times Score works better than attempting a silly formula just to get it to key off modifiers.

That's the flaw with D&D ability score modifiers. They are tiny and change drastically. Divorced for the d20 and they get weird.


----------



## Argyle King

Yaarel said:


> Intelligence (Perception)
> Charisma (will, empathy)
> 
> Done.
> 
> Wisdom is a strictly redundant and incoherent ability.
> 
> Charisma has nothing to do with being goodlooking (which works better as a feat with benefits while in line of sight). But Charisma does relate to artistic appeal, as well as all social skills generally, and personal willpower.
> 
> The four abilities are:
> 
> Strength (big and tough)
> Dexterity (athletically mobile)
> Intelligence (observant)
> Charisma (willful personality)






> Horwath said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes you could be.
> 
> But that can be explained by proficiency/expertise in Athletics or powerful build.
> 
> And the "constitution" or "resilience" part of Strength can be explained with proficiency in saves, advantage on poisons and/or disease and extra HPs beyond STR mod(dwarf or though feat).
> 
> Now you just need to delete charisma and let players decide how much or how little their character is charismatic and/or pretty or ugly or whatever.
> 
> Redefine Int, Wis and Cha into Willpower and Cunning.
> 
> Willpower manages all spell usage(attack, damage, DCs) and mental spell defence(current int, wis and cha saves).
> And Cunning manages all skill usage currently used by Int, Wis and Cha.
> More cunning means that you are better at all mental tasks, and proficiency and expertise describe your focused training(or mental preference) and specialized training.
Click to expand...


Some of the other games I play have INT (intelligence) and Will, but have charisma as not being ability score at all.
Instead, it's an advantage which is a separately purchased ability (as is being attractive and such).

It's intriguing to see how many changes people support for D&D which are shades of game systems that people claim to have lesser interest in playing than something with "D&D" on the front of the book.


----------



## Horwath

Minigiant said:


> Nah.
> 
> The modifiers are too small for the granulation desired for some things.
> 
> What, are you gonna lift 100 lbs per +1 in Strength? So you get 100lbs of carry by boosting Strength. How would negative modifiers work?
> 
> 15 times Score works better than attempting a silly formula just to get it to key off modifiers.
> 
> That's the flaw with D&D ability score modifiers. They are tiny and change drastically. Divorced for the d20 and they get weird.



Your carry capacity is 150lb, add or reduce 30lb per STR bonus/penalty.


----------



## Minigiant

Horwath said:


> Your carry capacity is 150lb, add or reduce 30lb per STR bonus/penalty.



What happens when you have -4 Strength.


----------



## Scribe

Minigiant said:


> What happens when you have -4 Strength.



You implode.


----------



## Minigiant

Scribe said:


> You implode.



Wow.

I thought you might go around the integer wheel and get the maximum value liftable Ghandi-style.

(cancels nuke order)


----------



## Yaarel

Argyle King said:


> Some of the other games I play have INT (intelligence) and Will, but have charisma as not being ability score at all.
> Instead, it's an advantage which is a separately purchased ability (as is being attractive and such).
> 
> It's intriguing to see how many changes people support for D&D which are shades of game systems that people claim to have lesser interest in playing than something with "D&D" on the front of the book.



"Charisma" is both a venerable D&D-ism and a great word for emotional intelligence and social skills generally, as well as having a 4e tradition of including the Will save and earlier representing a willful personality.

Making D&D mechanics work better and more elegantly is an important ongoing tradition in D&D. As we look at 1e products, we can see its disparate ad-hoc mechanics evolving. The shift from 2e to 3e was largely to systematize the earlier mechanics, to streamline them for consolidation, elegance, and coherence.

4e surprised the player base. 5e tries to ask permission from the player base but still retains the gaming system insights from 4e.

The D&D tradition continues to evolve.


----------



## Horwath

Minigiant said:


> What happens when you have -4 Strength.



as we are talking about modifiers then: 150 + 30*(-4) = 30lb carry capacity


----------



## Lakesidefantasy

Last time, I promise.

True 20.

It's the game we're talking about.


----------



## Scribe

Lakesidefantasy said:


> Last time, I promise.
> 
> True 20.
> 
> It's the game we're talking about.




I just looked it up, (True20 - Wikipedia) and yeah that seems to be what some people are after.

No thank you.


----------



## Lakesidefantasy

Yeah, I was excited about it 15 years ago. But, you know, Dungeons and Dragons makes me happy.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Horwath said:


> yes you could be.
> 
> But that can be explained by proficiency/expertise in Athletics or powerful build.
> 
> And the "constitution" or "resilience" part of Strength can be explained with proficiency in saves, advantage on poisons and/or disease and extra HPs beyond STR mod(dwarf or though feat).
> 
> Now you just need to delete charisma and let players decide how much or how little their character is charismatic and/or pretty or ugly or whatever.
> 
> Redefine Int, Wis and Cha into Willpower and Cunning.
> 
> Willpower manages all spell usage(attack, damage, DCs) and mental spell defence(current int, wis and cha saves).
> And Cunning manages all skill usage currently used by Int, Wis and Cha.
> More cunning means that you are better at all mental tasks, and proficiency and expertise describe your focused training(or mental preference) and specialized training.



I would rathe have both:
The six ability scores + 3 super scores: reflex, fortitude, will. The makeup of the super scores is class dependent maybe


----------

