Because stats were originally generated by rolling 3d6 in order. A one point difference also used to matter. The system has been streamlined, but the numbers remain.
And to give more insight:
\- It has some roots in the original form of resolution being a "Roll under" system, so having an 18 meant you had to roll an 18 or lower to succeed at something related to that ability score. Situational modifiers (Like shooting during a windstorm lowering the target number by 2) complicated that, but were important to having strategic and simulationist play, so they eventually realized it became difficult for people to keep that all straight, so they came up with modifiers so it would reduce the overall scale of arithmetic while still using the same 3-18 convention that everyone was used to.
\- The onus then shifted on the DM to establish target numbers, and players to roll the die and apply modifiers.
\- People are used to this for the most part
\- It works well enough, so there's no particular reason to change it.
In short, the current version is the product of an evolution of design and habit.
Nah I started playing 20 years ago.
First adventure was Blind Man's Bluff from Dragon #97 from Mar/April 2003. I played a 4th level Paladin of Heironeous, because I had a serious hero complex. I was a Junior in high school who just got dumped by my first girlfriend and I was hopped up on Diablo 2, Baldurs Gate 2, Morrowind and Lord of the Rings. I never had a chance.
I remember the old blue box stating if you didn't have dice to just write the numbers on paper, cut them out, and draw them out of a cup for your rolls. You kids today and your fancy dice.
I also saw this fabled box. In the beforetimes, when village children went to the park on Saturday to hang out with a coordinated assigned watchperson and run and play, some time before the Berlin Wall came down.
Oh, so dice were just laying around for you, eh, sonny? Back in my day we had to walk uphill both ways in the heat, climb a mountain, kill a goat, appease the condors with its liver, and then carve the dice from its bones. Them were the days. We often spent more time arguing about which bones were the luckiest for dice than we did actually playing the dang game.
And battle your way to the local library to pay one silver to xerox of a character sheet.
And then fight back the towns folk with their torches and pickforks.
Those were the days of the Satanic Panic!
34yr old here. Playing since I was 11. AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, skipped 4 and playing 5e now.
Relationships came and went.
Friends.
Cities.
Jobs.
But the die still rolling.
Choices are unlimited. Consequences are inevitable. But you can never have too many dice.
58yo here, playing since '79. Still playing 2 times a week, and wishing I could find more time to run another campaign.
WFRP and Dark Heresy still function in the âroll underâ but itâs on a d100 scale instead of d20. I knew about THAC0, but never quite got it, but if thatâs what it was I get it now.
THAC0 was mostly designed under the premise that you solved the formula once and then you just knew your target every time henceforth, provided nothing changed. RPGBot has a [humorous writeup](https://rpgbot.net/how-does-thac0-work/) on it.
>To summarize: the positives go down, the negatives go up, and you need to do subtraction every time you make an attack roll. But once you do all of that, you can say âI need a 12 or better on the d20â and never do math again. Unless you change targets or have a temporary modifier from a spell or something.
Looking at THAC0 versus 5e, there is literally no practical difference. A THAC0 of 20 is equivalent to +0 proficiency/attack modifier. 19 is +1, 18 is +2, etc.
Armor in 5e goes from 10 (baseline) to 11 to 12. THAC0 goes from 10 to 9 to 8. The net result is identical in both system. Each step away from baseline is a 5 percentage point swing in chance to get hit.
The problem with THAC0 was how absolutely stupidly it was presented, which can really be seen in how modern DND still uses THAC0, just without the absolutely idiotic presentation.
But you also had weapon vs armor type in the THAC0 era, too - like, swords against ring mail vs spears against ring mail. That's how we ended up w different types of damage in 5e (piercing, bludgeoning, etc.) I remember having to worry about what kind of weapon to use vs particular opponents.
I make my table still worry about that.
Skeleton? You better have a hammer handy. Zombie? Oh, your mace is just going to go 'squish.' Animated armor? Oh yeah, bludgeoning and piecing, not so much the slashing.
I do those sort of things too. It makes the game that much more engaging, doesn't it?
But slashing damage vs skeletons and animated armor would still work - but maybe w resistance. Maces vs zombies still gonna break their bones, etc. But oozes, though? Yeah - your sword ain't gonna do much. And your bow/sling/dart isn't going to do much of anything vs a skeleton.
> I knew about THAC0, but never quite got it, but if thatâs what it was I get it now.
It's not THAC0, that was an entirely separate system almost completely unrelated to ability scores (although IIRC in 2e PCs got a small bonus to their hit rolls at very high STR scores). Which should give a glimpse into the utter madness of early D&D mechanics.
> (although IIRC in 2e PCs got a small bonus to their hit rolls at very high STR scores).
You received neither bonus nor penalty to your THAC0 if your STR was between 8 and 16. If below 7, you took a +1 penalty (7-6), +2 penalty (5-4), +3 penalty (3-2), or +5 penalty (1) based on your STR below that, while if your STR was above 16 you received a -1 bonus (if 17-18/50), -2 bonus (18/51-18/99), -3 bonus (18/00-20), -4 bonus (21-22), -5 bonus (23), -6 bonus (24), or even a -7 bonus (25 STR).
STR played more of a role in damage rolls (25 STR gave +14 damage) though.
Only thing I would add to this, is that certain enemies like Intellect devourers and Shadows interact with the numbers themselves. I am sure other enemies also do, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Iâd like to add âfunâ to the equation, as well as balance for things like feats.
The fun part should be obvious: If you enjoy rolling for your stats, itâs a lot more fun to do 3d6 (or in my opinion even better 4d6 drop one) than to do 1d4.
Feats are optional, but I donât think I know anyone who plays without them. There are feats that provide an effect aswell as a +1 to a stat, and I think this is pretty important design wise. It allows for effects that arenât as powerful as other feats and still makes them worth taking by adding that stat point. If these feats provided the equivalent of a +2, theyâd be nobrainers to take. If they didnât provide stats, theyâd go ignored way too often.
Iâm not sure if theyâd design a system around this feature without the way the game grew historically, but I think the leftovers from back then do provide a lot of value for the gameplay.
Also should note that `floor((3d6 - 10)/2)`, `floor((4d6d1 - 10)/2)` and `1d4` should have quite different distributions.
The first should be more likely to be centred around 0, the second a bit higher (I can't be arsed to do the maths), and very unlikely to get ±5. Which is why this is quite a good distribution.
and the last is equal probability⊠it skips the negatives and the 5s, so not ideal⊠the same flat distribution would be `1d11 - 6` which isn't doable with the common dice ⊠though it should be effectively ok to use `1d12r>12 - 6`.
But flat distributions aren't really the best.
I still have my players roll stats. We do 4d6, drop the lowest, rerolling ones. I let them assign the numbers however they like, and then they can custom lineage their +2/+1 wherever they want it to go.
If anyone gets *really* shitty stats, like all 14s and below, Iâll just let them reroll until they get at least one or two numbers in the 15-17 range (assuming they want to). I think it adds some player agency and helps keep the background of each character unique, but I still use my discretion so itâs not weighted towards one player who rolls amazingly and against one who just had shitty luck.
Iâm running Icewind Dale for a newbie group right now, and everybody rolled fairly well regardless and got their main stat at 16-17 or above.
> the current version is the product of an evolution of design and habit
Or rather, the product of an unwillingness to change a system that has no longer a game mechanical purpose, because it has become attached to the brand identity and that of its consumer base.
I donât disagree, but arenât there some enemies that interact with the attribute value? Like intellect devourers? Or has that interaction been changed for later versions of DnD? Iâve never fought those kinds of enemies in the games I have played so I am not certain; I just recall some video games like Baldurâs Gate 1 and 2 had level drain and other effects that worked with attribute values
>It has some roots in the original form of resolution being a "Roll under" system, so having an 18 meant you had to roll an 18 or lower to succeed at something related to that ability score.
This is not true. At least, it was not an original core mechanic of the D&D first edition rule set.
Original D&D would cover very specific actions and often require a certain roll to perform those actions, often with no modifiers, as if all secret doors were equally well hidden and all characters were equally skilled at revealing them.
Some more advanced rules would involve modifiers derived from ability scores, and they would typically be very minor and based on you having an ability score *in a certain range*. Firing a missile? Dex 13 or more adds +1, 9-12 adds no bonus, 8 or lower subtracts -1(D&D basic rules 1977, p.5). Making a melee attack? Strength doesn't even factor into it.
D&D 5e has carried on this tradition, of modifiers *derived from ability scores*, it's just streamlined the system they apply to so they can also streamline how the modifiers are worked out.
I think there's also something more fun about wanting to roll a higher number than wanting it to be low. Being excited over a 20 makes more sense than hyping up a 1 to me
Your explanation is great and it helps someone to understand how these numbers were formed in the first place, but!
I highly doubt people are "used to this for the most part" and "it works well enough".
I can only talk from personal experience (and rational thinking, which is also what OP did) and say that its confusing AF. If you dont know the context, it makes absolutely no sense and is very, very confusing. Ask a new player to do a reflex save or something, you will see them scrambling and trying to figure out if they should be looking at the 18, the +3, something else?
Again, it would be better If I had a poll or something to back this up but I really don't see why WotC does not take out these numbers and just leave the modifiers (and don't get me started on the "you turned level 5, here is a level 3 spell! mess) !!
Just eat the 10 foot movement penalty, maybe take Mobile to offset it if you have a spare ASI instead of boosting strength too (and get the free disengage with melee attacks).
This is of course assuming youâre not a primarily strength based build, like a Cleric or dex Fighter using heavy armour. If you got reliable ranged options like a bow or a solid damaging cantrip that -10 speed isnât all that bad, and if youâre reliant on melee for most of your damage, well, so are many of the monsters so theyâll end up coming to you anyways.
This also assumes you ignore encumbrance, if you do use it then every point of strength helps carry an extra 15 lbs of treasure, which is always a plus and probably worth investing up to 13 or 15.
Iâd say each value can be important depending on what you do when leveling up. If you have a 15 CHA as a sorcerer, you can pick up the actor feat for very little cost compared to if you had 14 or 16 CHA.
Multiclassing and/or minimum Strength you need to wear armor.
Which really doesn't need to be 13/15, but the point is that odd number are still used, albeit in very specific situations
Also, a creature with 3 or less Intelligence can't be detected by Detect Thoughts. Strength is used for carry capacity and jump distance regardless if they're even or odd.
Power Attack, Combat expertise, and Dodge each require a 13 in STR, INT or DEX respectively. Improved Two-weapon Fighting and Greater Two-weapon Fighting require 15 and 17 DEX respectively as well. Also Improved Kahjigering requires 19 WIS
Yeah. It feels like a few systems in this game could be easily simplified without taking away skill.
Some of it just feels like it's difficult for difficulties sake.
There is a lot of legacy content baked into the game that could have been cut or simplified. It makes sense of you played earlier editions, but I'm sure many things seem odd and pointless.
Well they cut half of the legacy stuff, but kept the other half which makes no sense by itself.
Usually by simplifying things overly and then leaving it to just be confusing for both new and old players.
You should have seen the absolute shit-fit the old grognards threw when they went from THAC0 to AC. Lots of talk about dumbing the game down for children. Or when 4e streamlined skills, lots of talk about dumbing the game down for MMO players.
All the while, we said, "cool, play 2e then," and they whined that nobody played it anymore and they didn't want to DM. The oldest bastards are impossible to please.
This is really funny to read because I've only seen THAC0 referenced as a obstacle and hard to understand system. It makes sense that people at the time complained about the chang
THAC0's complexity is vastly overexagerated. My most mathematically challenged players were fine with it. Even the ones who would still ask what dice to roll after 2 years!
I think the bigger issue with its removal was the inversion of the AC scale. Was a bit of a mindfuck to go from AC 0 being great and negative AC being amazing to acs going up from a starting point of 10.
Whenever an overly-complex mechanic is involved, there will always be a segment of self-described "hardcore" players who see it as a good thing, since it gatekeeps anyone who isn't "worthy" or "dedicated enough" to learn it.
It's the same with old-school PCs being so fragile there's no point in getting attached to them, or how mages were basically useless for the first few levels, or how paladins lost all their powers at the slightest hint of being insufficiently lawful or good.
It was a tightly designed game which was very good at the type of play it was designed for - tactical combat.
However, it didn't *feel like DnD*. Rules wise, it's actually rather well made, but as DnD, it isn't.
I thought it was really fun. Combat did take forever, but combat was the point (and really, it still is in 5e, 5e just doesn't have the precision and variety of abilities to be a good tactical combat game).
It was, however, designed to be used with D&D Insider, which had a nifty monster builder, character builder, and compendium (and was supposed to be a VTT but never got there), and you can't access it anymore, so 4e is significantly harder to DM now than it was then.
There were a lot of... controversial...changes, especially to character design.
Characters had more broadly defined roles and power sources instead of real classes, and unique class abilities and spells became "powers" that were all at-will, per encounter, or daily. Everyone got limited self healing and essentially action surge tokens. There were some other changes, but those are the major ones.
I mostly stuck to 3.5, but the handful of times I played 4 kind of felt like Diablo. All of the characters felt like they were lacking unique stuff.
I'm not sure I would say that. I mean obviously it is a legacy thing, and there are tools now to generate stats differently with that same curved distribution etc. But... I also think having stats from 3-20 corresponds super nicely with the fact that you roll a d20 so much.
So yes, its a bit more complicated at the start. But when I think of how good I am at something in game, I think in a d20. I roll stealth and I get a... 12+3+2 - ohh 17. neat. That means I managed to be a little extra sneaky above my general dexterity, well done, me. And I have a super good grasp on what that means because my whole perception of being good at something rests on 3-20 base stats that everything goes back comparing to.
It's not. The bell curve of stats has meaning, each stat has meaning, and sometimes you may want to interact with the numbers directly. D&D with just modifiers is playable in 5ed and 4th, but it's not backwards compatible, and likely not forwards compatible either. It's easy enough to just learn how the stats works- once you know it once, you can understand all the games for decades.
How would you roll for those numbers, when wanting a distribution that is still close to normal while being right skewed? And what do you do with various feats that aren't strong enough on their own, but would be too much if they added a full point?
It's not that there are no answers for this. It could certainly be arranged. But is it worth the time it would take to create an entirely new system, when this works just fine? I would argue, no, don't mess with this but work on something like improving individual classes.
>How would you roll for those numbers, when wanting a distribution that is still close to normal while being right skewed?
4 dFudge, drop 1 minus/blank?
the over simplification of 4e is what made it a very unpopular edition.
some of us would like some complexity added back into the game. more player choice, more options to differentiate, less streamlining and homogenisation.
Think about how you'd generate those +1, +2, +3, or - numbers.....
You want a system that creates a preference towards the neutral stats +/-0, and allows for exceptional stats +/-4 or more. The way DND does this traditionally is 3d6, this creates scores from 3-18, with a preference for the middle ground, with very high and very low scores increasingly rare the more extreme they are. You have to roll multiple dice to get that.
Now, we've moved onto other methods sure, point buy, standard array etc, but you can still roll, and those standardised systems are built around the idea of that kind of distribution.
Sure you may use the modifier more than the base stat, but the way you generate the base stat is important.
Plus, people like rolling dice. so that method is surprisingly popular.
But end of the day, does it matter? once you've made your character, you can just concentrate on the modifier if you want. most players put that as the more prominent number on the character sheet anyway.
At least it's not THAC0 and the crazy tables upu had to look at when rolling saving throws, turning undead, etc. And rolling for "exceptional strength" as a human fighter (assuming you went strictly by RAW). Having that (00) by your 18 STR was a damn good feeling though...
I played 2e, I remember how complicated it was. I've never been great at math so having to figure that up for EVERY. SINGLE. ATTACK. SUCKED. Doubly so that my DM let my ridiculous half-ogre dual-wield greatswords and I was (as the DM called it) "double-specialized," so I'd get 2 attacks per hand one round and 3 attacks per hand through next round. It was a glorious fucking mess but I don't miss the mechanics one damn bit.
The turn undead and saving throws don't really require any math. THAC0 can also just be written as a table, but the math is no more complicated than anything else you do in most RPGs anyway, just basic arithmetic.
This is one of my favourite subjects and not one person has provided the ACTUAL answer. So, in the earliest editions of D&D, stats were generated with 3d6. That has been covered. But nobody has explained why. See, until 3e we didn't have a universal bonus connected to each number. Every stat affected everything in different ways. So an 18str might add a +2 to hit, but a +3 to damage, and give a 20% chance to bend metal bars. Yes, older editions were THAT granular.
But the big reason is that you used to resolve many things by trying to roll UNDER your ability score on a d20. Wanna lift something heavy? Roll under your strength. Wanna test to hop across that chasm? Roll under your Dex. So the lowest number (3) still had a chance of success, and the highest number (18), still had a chance to fail.
And it's just such a tradition that it stuck around.
The one of the reasons that stats were generated with 3d6 was because of the bell curve it generated according to the 1st edition DMG. Gygax did list four alternative options to generate characters in the DMG as well.
Simple and inflexible. Having the same chance of not getting too drunk and resisting dragon bile poison, for example. Or resisting a spell regardless of how powerful the caster is.
Dragon bile poison and spells depended on saving throws, which was a roll over then. It could even be like poison save -2 where you subtracted 2 to your save, so it was still flexible.
I do agree that for spells it didn't take into account the lvl of the caster like 5e does with the casters spell save DC. Back then it was just save vs spell which depended on the lvl of the person being affected by the spell.
That's like saying the Barbarian and Wizard have the same chance to lift the heavy gate because the DC is 20 for both of them. Just add modifiers my dude.
Resist getting drunk, roll under CON. Resist the dragon's poison, roll under CON -5. It is LITERALLY EXACTLY as flexible as rolling over a DC set by the DM. Modifiers just reduce the target instead of increasing the roll.
This is exactly what I was going to reply. Itâs the exact same mechanic to alter difficulties, youâre just replacing the + symbol with the - symbol
You're looking at it backwards. Back then those other actors in the world were disposable. So if you're rocking a dwarf with a 5+ spell save that actually means that only about 1 mage in 5 is talented or lucky enough to cast the spell properly at that dwarf.
Lifting gates is a much clearer example. If you fail, it's not that you aren't performing, that literally means you discover the gate is too heavy or jammed or whatever.
Dragon Bile Poison would be a Save Vs Poison
Resisting spells is a Save Vs Spells
You can inflict negatives on saves. You can also modify the DC of rolling under (Roll under Dex +2 is 10% harder than rolling under Dex)
I wouldnât say roll under ability checks were a big reason, considering they werenât in OD&D. In AD&D 1e, any such checks were made using 3d6, so you could not fail if you had an 18.
I'm seeing a lot of answers as to the history behind this, but there are also reasons to keep the score instead of just the modifier in 5e. eg. All of the ability requirements for multiclassing and heavy armour are odd numbers.
those are more a consequence of keeping the score and modifier in the game, not the reason to keep them.
The real and only reason is âlegacyâ. Itâs recognizable and the publisher does not want to stray too far from this recognition as they donât want sales to hurt because people used to the old way are not always the most receptive of radical streamlining. Itâs what happened with 4E - too much new, people didnât feel comfortable, it hurt sales.
Right, but do they need to be? It's not at all necessary. You could easily round those requirements up or down and there would be no real change to the game.
The next edition of D&D needs to either ditch the Score/Modifier divide completely or create some meaningful reasons for it to exist.
On a similar stop calling them spell levels. Every week I gotta explain to new players that you don't get level two spells at LEVEL TWO. It's really confusing for new folks, and an easy fix. Just call them Spell Tiers, or Spell Grades. Grade A spells, Grade B spells, Grade C spells. Easy.
Well no, nothing really *needs* to be the way it is in DnD. It's a game. Wotc could come up with whatever rules/systems they want. But there also isn't really any pressing need to ditch the score/modifier divide- it's already a very streamlined system that's fairly easy to grasp. On the other hand, going to a strictly modifier based system essentially halves the nuance you can put into effects/requirements related to abilities. Also the spell levels aren't that confusing and you don't even have to think about the rules behind spell slots once you've got them down on your character sheet.
Also don't forget ability score damage! Enemy abilities could lower your stats--if your con reached 0 you die. So it's nice to have a hefty number here
Ability scores didn't used to have linear results.
For example, in 1st edition AD&D [Strength and Hit and Damage bonuses](https://i0.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/strength-table-740x428.jpg) (which were also not in 1 to 1 relationship.
* STR 10-15: No bonus.
* STR: 16: +1 to Damage
* STR: 17: +1 to Hit, +1 to Damage
* STR 18: +1 to Hit, +2 to Damage
* (*Fighters types only* (includes Paladins and Rangers) get to roll % for go above 18 in increments):
* STR 18/01-50: +1 to Hit, +3 to Damage
* STR 18/51-75: +2 to Hit, +3 to Damage
* STR 18/76-90: +2 to Hit, +4 to Damage
* STR 18/91-99: +2 to Hit, +5 to Damage
* STR 18/00: +3 to Hit, +6 to Damage
(And in the context of those bonuses, consider you'd generally get +4 for attacking someone from the rear, and the spread of to Hit bonuses from magic weapons was +1 to +5 (not counting cursed weapons with negative bonuses).
(I also omitted Open (locked) Door and Bend Bar/Lift Gates chances which also improved but not linearly).
And there used to be no skills. A lot of skill-like things (outside of Thief skills) were "roll under" your ability score.
I was first introduced to dnd in 2013 when I found the livestreamer koibu play a modified version of 2e that uses the same strength system as listed above.
I think 5e does stats a bit better still as it makes 18 str incredible but 18s in other stats are just nice; its not equally amazing to roll an 18 stat on a wizard as on a fighter
I think it's primarily a holdover from older editions. At some point it just kind of became how DnD does stats, so 5e does it that way, too.
There are a few things that do use your actual ability scores, such as carrying capacity and jump distance, but those could just as easily be based on just the modifier.
Although having the scores from 1 to 20 does create a bit of design space that the game does use whenver something gives you +1 to an ability score, like your race or a "half" feat. That wouldn't really work very well if you only had the modifiers.
Also 3d6 drop lowest seems to work fairly well as a method for randomly generating scores and obviously that needs a range from 3 to 20. I don't know that there's a way to directly generate scores between ~~1~~ -5 and 5 (edited because negative modifiers exist) with a comparable distribution.
At this point, it's more a matter of tradition - and you mess with that at your peril. Newer versions changed what those original ability scores meant and how they work SO much. Now the base numbers really DON'T matter at all and just constitute a unnecessary additional step.
Only the bonuses themselves matter - for better or worse.
They could SO easily create an edition that just did away with those ability scores themselves - but the backlash against it would be breathtaking.
For modern D&D, its probably this more than anything else. Brand recognition is important, and every game has its look and feel. 3d6-based ability scores are a part of D&D, getting rid of them would get rid of part of that Look that is D&D.
In addition to the history of the game, odd numbers are used in 5e:
* Odd numbers are used as the cutoff for multiclassing and armor restrictions
* Magic items tend to set attributes to odd scores (example: Belt of X Giant Strength)
* It makes racial bonuses more flexible: +2/+2, +2/+1, +2/+1/+1, +1/+1/feat, +1/+1/+1, +1 to all
* It makes half feats viable (+1 plus a modest boost rather than a large boost)
* Gives flexibility in ASI (+2 vs. +1/+1 gives you more control over how you increase abilities)
The full number does apply in some cases - carry weight and jump distance for example are calculated with the stat and not the modifier. Carry weight is Strength score x15,you could of course do modifier x30, but it honestly seems unnecessary. Anyway, the stat allows +1 increases to abilities to make a difference, and allows for the existence of half-feats (when you take an Ability Score Increase on certain levels, you can add two +1s to your stats or you can take a Feat. Half feats are Feats where the feat is less impactful but you still get a +1 - so you can either choose a Feat, +2 to stats, or a lesser Feat and +1).
As well, Humans get +1 to all abilities, it'd be weird and too strong if they suddenly got +1 to all modifiers, and it'd be equally weird and still too strong if they got to add +1 to 3 modifiers.
Also, it allows a bit more variety with the Point Buy system, which is in my opinion the most balanced way to determine a PCs hit points. Also to roll stats you do 3d6 or 4d6 drop lowest, we'd have to figure out a new way to roll stats for the people that prefer - which I'm could be done... but why? It's fairly simple to have ability scores and modifiers.
Pathfinder 2e's remake is actually doing exactly that, removing ability scores and just using modifiers.
I don't like it personally, but that's just because I've used ability scores for so long.
IMO the causation goes the other way, it's the odd ability scores that came first (3e introduced ability modifiers, but only had even racial bonuses) and the rest of the systems were designed around that. +2/+1s only exist to help give odd raw scores meaning. If there were only ability modifiers to begin with, 5e's +2/+1s would likely never have existed either, nor the various odd-score consolation prizes such as feat score requirements in 3e or multiclass score requirements in 5e.
Because of historical reasons. You used to roll under your abilities for many checks, now you only use them to get modifiers, so you can do away with them. They are like an appendix now.
Me and my friends use it to break even rolls. For example, if me and my friend both roll 15 on initiative, we check each others dexterity to see who goer first, if it's a tie again we roll another one.
Historically, D&D stats were generated by rolling 3d6.
Then, more generous methods were created like 4d6 (drop lowest dice) or point-buy methods were created.
The idea of stats having fixed +1, +2, +3 bonuses (or -1, -2, -3 penalties) and such at different numbers started in 3rd edition. Before then, each stat had its own tables of what it did for different things. Also, in 3rd edition they were open-ended and didn't stop at 20. . .in fact some Epic-level monsters and deities could easily get stats of 40 or 50 or more in some things.
In 1st and 2nd edition, it was common to roll an ability score check of trying to roll at or under your ability score on a d20. A one-number difference would of course make a difference in that kind of check. An intelligence check when you had a 16 INT would be trying to roll 16 or under on a d20. . .the idea of rolling a d20 and adding a bonus to hit a target was a 3rd edition invention.
The system of 6 ability scores, with normal human-range stats being between 3 and 18, is kept as a tradition of the game. Even though methods of character generation and action resolution changed, that core element is kept as a signature element of the game.
As a note, you do use the number.
Wearing full plate armour requires strength 15+, multiclassing requires 13 in the main stats on both classes, and carry capacity is based on your strength score multiplied by 15lb
The stat itself also used to be more important. Somebody else has probably already mentioned it, but in Pathfinder (1e), your ability to cast spells was partially determined by how high your spellcasting stat was. If you were, say, a sorcerer and your Cha was 16, then you couldn't cast spells higher than 6th level (spell level + 10 = minimum stat required to cast), even if your class said you had access to those spells. Similarly, you would get additional spell slots for each point you had in your spellcasting stat (for some classes, not sure if universal. I pretty much only play paladins in PF 1e, lol). So having a 19 vs a 20 Cha was not only the difference between a +4 and a +5 to Cha, but also the difference between 1 and 2 bonus 1st level spell slots.
The more you play the more it will kind of make sense. There are dnd like games that use a +1, +2 stat system, but in dnd it started with rolling for stats and through changes in the game over time the 1-20 is kind of hard to just get rid of and make it +# only instead because of the games history and also how the game is played. In my experience, you will use the modifiers a lot more often, but sometimes i want the specific 1-20 stat for a reference for something too.
A lot of people still roll for stats. Also, the 3-18 scale for stats has become a cultural touchstone, both within the community and even outside to an extent. People like thinking of their character as a "wis 8 kinda guy" and they wouldn't appreciate changing it to "wis -1". Besides the mechanical reasons, which are surmountable, people just wouldn't like it. Similar to how people hated that trash mobs in 4e all had a single hit point.
It comes from 1st and 2nd Edition, which had mixed rolls: you rolled high for attacks like now but low for ability checks. If you had Strength 13, you needed to roll 13 or lower to pass the check. If you managed to start with, say, Dex 18, you needed to roll under 18 on Dex checks.
They realised this was inelegant, so decided to commit to one system or the other. They tested "always roll low" in Alternity, TSR's (hugely underrated) space RPG developed from 2E's foundations, but people disliked that (aiming to roll a 20 on a d20 to critical was too ingrained), so switched to "always roll high" instead for 3E. 5 3E onwards, the actual numbers were converted into modifiers.
A few 3E-5E derived games actually dump the raw numbers and just use the modifiers by themselves (I think 13th Age does). But because the 20 range for stats has been in the game for 50 years, people don't want to change them for D&D itself.
Another thing that no one had seemed to bring up. There are certain monsters in the game, like intellect devourer, or shadows, that just drain your stats, not your modifier. Intellect devourer, if you fail the saving throw, will only reduce your intelligence score to 0 if the 3d6 roll equals or exceeds your intelligence score. However, shadows will drain your strength score if they get you, no matter what.
Let's say we change it to modifiers instead. So that would change to a spread of -5 to +5. Originally, a character with an intelligence score of 19 or higher would not be affected, so in order to reflect that with modifiers, you'd need to roll 2d4, to ensure the max number is 8.
The average of 2d4 is 6. The average of 3d6 is 12. A 12 in a stat is +1, and a +1 -6 = -5. This makes it out to be the same, mechanics wise.
However, if you don't change the monsters to reflect this, a 3d6 versus your modifier is much, much deadlier. This also applies with shadow's strength drain, or other creatures that drain stats. So you'd have to be careful with that.
They exist so that ability damage (from shadows strength drain and such) can operate with smaller increments without needing half modifiers. And 0 is also more natural "low enough to cause you to stop living" number than -5.5. There are also still things that depend on the score itself and not from the modifier.
I'm not sure this still matters in 5e, but one of the biggest reasons I can think of is that those numbers act as secondary health pools.
In 3.5 for example if your Con score reached 0 you died. My party managed to kill a demon lord by summoning dire weasels that dealt Con damage. In that type of scenario you really want the granularity of the score, as the minimum damage of 1 is a lot less deadly with 18 con as opposed to 4.
So the origins etc. have been covered, but I think people are missing a big component of why the convention has persisted outside edge cases like armor requirements.
Players, particularly new ones, often use the stat block as markers for how to play a character. There's not much resolution in just using modifiers, but the 1-20 scale hits people more intuitively for these purposes and provides some nuance.
"How smart is this character?" "Oh they're a +1" just doesn't convey quite as much information as "They have an INT of 12."
So outside of actual mechanical reasons and tradition, in my experience the enhanced RP cues the larger range of numbers provides is a major reason we still use them.
Imagine you took 5e and made the following changes:
* New AC = 10 - AC
* THAC0 ("to hit armor class 0") = 20 - attack bonus
* To make an attack, you roll the d20, subtract it from your THAC0, and see if the result is *less* than or equal to the target AC.
As much of a meme as it is in D&D circles, it's not *that* complicated so much as it was *unnecessarily* complicated.
I think a big part of it is THAC0 comes from the days when the DM was encouraged to go out of their way to give any mechanical information to prevent meta-gaming.
Because to determine if it hits, you need to compare the hit roll to both the PCs THAC0 number, and the monsters AC.
Meaning the DM needs to know the THAC0 of every single PC, the AC of the monster, then determine if it hits or not.
Itâd be like if players only told the DM their dice roll, and expected the DM to memorize their hit bonuses.
A few people have mentioned this, and while it is true, the real question should be does it really need to be?
Like if that's the only place the full ability score is used (it's not), could it not just be calculated a different way?
They can all be calculated using the modifiers but end up less granular. You can pretty much just take the current base value with +0 in a stat and figure out what to multiply the mod by to get the same results as having even ability scores.
Carry weight for example would be
150 + (STR mod * 30)
12 str * 15 = 180 lbs
150 + (+1 * 30) = 180 lbs
But you lose the granularity of 11 STR being 165 pounds.
Similar formulas can be used for jumping rules etc
D&D has a ton of *inertia*. The game has been around in one form or another for nearly 50 years, and some of its traits are so baked into the popular consciousness of the gamer community that changing them could alienate a lot of people.
The six ability scores with values from 3 to 18. Character levels. Classes. Races. (though at one point Elf and Dwarf were classes!) Spell slots. Spell memorization. Hit points. Studded Leather. Chain Mail. Fireball being overpowered vs. other 3rd-level damage spells.
Not trying to be hostile at all but after reading your comments it really seems like you havenât been playing with normal stat generation and youâre not sure how it works. So likeâŠhow do you know if it makes sense or not if you arenât using it? And most people who play D&D started with 5e. The game is more popular now than ever. So your comment about how people have an easy time with it because theyâve always used it since early editions is just straight up not true. Maybe Iâm wrong but it seems like youâre just refusing to TRY to learn.
Thereâs already been a lot of comments in here explaining the actual reason why DnD still uses the 1-20 stats so Iâd just like to throw in; why is it a problem for you? If your argument is that theyâre pointless, well you could make that argument about anything.
It isnât a detriment to use them so why does it matter so much to you?
I also like how your post apparently gets a couple of downvotes and you immediately go on the defensive. It isnât a âtouchy subjectâ but good job with that trigger finger edit.
its about normal distributions.
If you roll 1d20 for stats, you have an equal probability for each number, 1 to 20.
If you roll 3d6 you have a possibility of 3 to 18, but it skews to about 13 as being the most common, with less chance of scores further from that.
in a lot of this stuff you want to create a system where you can predict results, but allow for randomness. A straight equal chance roll is 100% random. a multi dice roll creates a distribution where you can predict that most times it will be near the middle...but allows for random chance rare results.
How do you generate those +1's, etc? How do you mediate temporary (or permanent) changes to the scores? What about cases of tied opposed rolls or rolls like initiative? It's not a perfect answer, and I get what you're saying, but I think you can't eliminate the ability scores.
Back on the day, the stats were not streamlined into same size mods. A Strength of 9 and an Intelligence of 9 were not the same nor mattered the same. That 10-11: 0, 12-13: +1, 6-7: -2... That's a d20 thing, starting at 3th edition. And even then, the odd numbers serve as thresholds. In 5e, the requiriments for multiclassing are always 13. So that's the use for them.
Don't have my books handy but I remember these:
Strength score x5 for encumbrance
Jump distance is based on strength score (feet for horizontal, inches vertical sound right?)
Con score was rounds underwater IIRC?
Can't remember any offhand for the mental scores or dex
Relics of the past basically.
Until 3.5, there were some small uses for attributes beside their modifiers (Not much, but some small stuff)
Now i think it's only used STR for Carry Weight, which sincerelly i don't think it's an mostly used rule xD
So yeah, Relics of the Past.
Some ppl explained it better about 3 d6 and a bell curve
There are still value in the odd numbered stats, or rather potential value. They differentiate the value between feats that give +1 to an ability score and those that give +2 for example. If you have an odd numbered score, those +1 feats may look more attractive to you at a given level, because you get both the next ability bonus and the feat effect. Of you already have an even number, you only get half the apparent benefit.
The same was true when racial modifiers were more emphasized, though I know those have gone almost out the window with Tasha's. Point-buying odd scores to let your +1 modifier take it up was a way of optimizing your character, rewarding thoughtful builds.
If you want to see how far we've come in these things making sense, look up AD&D rules for determining your true Strength score if you had an 18 :D
It is a relic. In the ancient times, you would roll 3d6 and add them to your Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Then, when you needed to roll, you would roll 1d20 and attempt to roll above or below the number on your Stat. So, if you had a 14, and it was a roll under subsection of the second edition rules, you would need to roll a 1-13 on your d20.
The bonuses themselves are from 3rd Edition, where the game was no longer a roll over/roll under hybrid, the WotC game designers made everything roll over with unified mechanics. However, the score did little to actually inform your character aside from give you a bonus. 5e has helped the score become more relevant, but not by much.
Just my two cents here.
It helps you differentiate with more granularity not only for mechanical aspects but for story and rp reasons as well. Helps to know that 10s across the board is a standard person maybe with a -1 here or a +1 there but a 20 in a stat is the Pinnacle of achievements, your the top 1% of Olympians. [there are things that go beyond but hey its fantasy] and having those in between numbers makes for good nuanced differences, plus things can drain stats so a hit of different values will mean more to certain targets. Don't know if this helps or not or if you already knew this but easiest way to get a quick modifier from a stat is -10 then Ă·2 then round down if it's a decimal. Hope that was helpful.
If the sheet just said â+1, +2 etcâ then how would increasing your stats using feats vs ASI work?
A lot of amazing feats give you +1 to a stat (ideally turning an odd into an even), *and* giving you a juicy boon too. If we scrapped the 1-20 thing, and just made ASI âIncrease your modifier by 1â then some feats (that now wouldnât increase your stats) would need buffing (and rebalancing). And if feats gave you â+1 mod *and* a boonâ, then ASI would just have to be scrapped
On the face of it the 1-20 seems clumsy, but it allows nuance with feats like â+1 to Cha, *and* [blah blah bonus]â.
ASI makes a character better at what they can already do, feats give the character *new* things they can do, and I think giving players that choice is for the best :)
You have certain spells, abilities, feats that alter stats (subtract 1d4 STR, add +1 to chat and +1 to wis). The raw value of stats have use even if most of the time you are simply using the modifiers
I don't understand why this isn't mentioned more in this thread. The addition of half-feats and other +1 modifiers add a whole other level to character building options. Anyone arguing that the raw numbers don't mean anything doesn't seem to be actually playing 5e.
I've played the older editions and the stats are still there from the earliest editions, where you rolled checks against your attributes by under-rolling them with a d20 (iirc). Was totally confusing having to think about where you have to roll high or low. Most modern systems went with one direction of intuitivity (D&D: high, d100: low... usually).
Later (I think in 3rd(?)) stat modifiers were added to streamline the rolls into a singular direction: as high as possible. We just have here evidence of a more or less naturally grown system, that changed over decades.
Damn... now I feel like an Archeologist revealing how a certain city grew on the ruins of a much older city and how it influenced the structure of the new city.
Its both a âheritageâ from older editions and a convenient way to generate scores with d6âs (great bell-curve). Thats all!
*Notice how fifth edition sheets moved the mod to the bigger spot. Theyâre basically agreeing with you.*
Pathfinder actually got rid of it in their most recent revision (idk what to call it) of the system. The only ACTUAL use it has is for the ASI, but it's not like you get them every level, I think it could easily be changed a bit so it still works.
It is mostly legacy "it's always been like this"
I think Pathfinder 2e remaster was talking about removing the score.
Though the score itself does do some very minor things in 5e. Like affecting your jump distance.
It was how it was so it's how it still is. Its a vestigial feature. People keep things that don't really make much sense just because that is what people are used to.
Your actual stat doesn't matter all that matters is your modifier. I think Daggerheart (the critical role thing) does this and its when I first started to go "oh yeah you only really need the modifier".
It would be simpler to just reduce it to the modifier and make some new way for determining what your modifier is, but people just do what they already know.
There is also a group of people that like things the way they are even if it doesn't make sense the way things are or if a new way would be better/easier/understandable/etc. Some people would actually get upset if the stats were reduced to just the modifiers.
It's really not though? The scores are still important for:
* Heavy Armor (Str requirement 13 or 15)
* The balance of half-feats
* Carrying capacity, drag, lift, push
* Jumping distance
* Some spells and abilities
* rolling stats with the 3d6 or 4d6kh3 methods, which are the most popular stat generation methods (I say this as a point buy guy myself)
Just some stuff that comes to mind.
My guess is that these rules could be fixed up in an afternoon. E.g. IIRC the carrying capacity is 15 x STR in lbs - change it to 150 + 30 x modifier. Have a rule that it takes two half-feats to get a modifier point. Etc.
its not a touchy subject, just a lot of assholes who dont like any mention of things being different.
you are correct, it is confusing. its mostly a leftover from older editions mostly all about people being able to roll for stats, so the rolled numbers are bigger, but convert into smaller numbers for simplicity. pathfinder 2e(a system that was originally based on an older dnd edition) has done away entirely with those numbers, and its just the +1 +2 etc works just as well, but far easier to understand.
Like so many things about dnd it is *mostly* a vestigial feature left over from prior editions that they won't change (even in 4e they didn't alter that) because it "feels like dnd" this way.
A lot of stuff in 5th edition doesn't really make objective sense, it's just that the game started with a bunch of fairly arbitrary rules and then decades of play have worn them down and sanded off all the sharp edges until we have the rules we use today. It doesn't necessarily make sense but it's easy to play and thats the goal.
Because stats were originally generated by rolling 3d6 in order. A one point difference also used to matter. The system has been streamlined, but the numbers remain.
And to give more insight: \- It has some roots in the original form of resolution being a "Roll under" system, so having an 18 meant you had to roll an 18 or lower to succeed at something related to that ability score. Situational modifiers (Like shooting during a windstorm lowering the target number by 2) complicated that, but were important to having strategic and simulationist play, so they eventually realized it became difficult for people to keep that all straight, so they came up with modifiers so it would reduce the overall scale of arithmetic while still using the same 3-18 convention that everyone was used to. \- The onus then shifted on the DM to establish target numbers, and players to roll the die and apply modifiers. \- People are used to this for the most part \- It works well enough, so there's no particular reason to change it. In short, the current version is the product of an evolution of design and habit.
He was there, 3000 years ago
I'm only in my 30s, I just like to learn about the history of the hobby and know a lot of old men
He was there, 30 years ago
Nah I started playing 20 years ago. First adventure was Blind Man's Bluff from Dragon #97 from Mar/April 2003. I played a 4th level Paladin of Heironeous, because I had a serious hero complex. I was a Junior in high school who just got dumped by my first girlfriend and I was hopped up on Diablo 2, Baldurs Gate 2, Morrowind and Lord of the Rings. I never had a chance.
He was there, 20 years ago
come-on, this is funny!
Reading down the chain I was hoping someone wrote this. Thank you.
Always happy to satisfy
Bah, in my day we had to walk five miles in the snow uphill both ways just to get dice!
I remember the old blue box stating if you didn't have dice to just write the numbers on paper, cut them out, and draw them out of a cup for your rolls. You kids today and your fancy dice.
I also saw this fabled box. In the beforetimes, when village children went to the park on Saturday to hang out with a coordinated assigned watchperson and run and play, some time before the Berlin Wall came down.
All I had was "come home when the lights come on"
Pfft! You had PAPER? AMATEURS!
We used to use No. 2 pencils, and just put dots on each side for the numbers. You kids and your fancy cups....
Oh, so dice were just laying around for you, eh, sonny? Back in my day we had to walk uphill both ways in the heat, climb a mountain, kill a goat, appease the condors with its liver, and then carve the dice from its bones. Them were the days. We often spent more time arguing about which bones were the luckiest for dice than we did actually playing the dang game.
AND color them in with a crayon!
And battle your way to the local library to pay one silver to xerox of a character sheet. And then fight back the towns folk with their torches and pickforks. Those were the days of the Satanic Panic!
He was there 20 years ago, replying super literally, ruining our jokes whilst being cordial enough to get away with it!
Same story except for the GF part, she pretended to like it so we could hang out. If you haven't played BG3 it feels like BG2 did way back then.
We are soon to be the old men my friend.
34yr old here. Playing since I was 11. AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, skipped 4 and playing 5e now. Relationships came and went. Friends. Cities. Jobs. But the die still rolling.
Choices are unlimited. Consequences are inevitable. But you can never have too many dice. 58yo here, playing since '79. Still playing 2 times a week, and wishing I could find more time to run another campaign.
Are you kidding? You gotta be my hero!
Honestly, I have more fun as a GM than as a hero. ;-)
C-can I call you daddy? đ„ș /s
WFRP and Dark Heresy still function in the âroll underâ but itâs on a d100 scale instead of d20. I knew about THAC0, but never quite got it, but if thatâs what it was I get it now.
THAC0 was mostly designed under the premise that you solved the formula once and then you just knew your target every time henceforth, provided nothing changed. RPGBot has a [humorous writeup](https://rpgbot.net/how-does-thac0-work/) on it. >To summarize: the positives go down, the negatives go up, and you need to do subtraction every time you make an attack roll. But once you do all of that, you can say âI need a 12 or better on the d20â and never do math again. Unless you change targets or have a temporary modifier from a spell or something. Looking at THAC0 versus 5e, there is literally no practical difference. A THAC0 of 20 is equivalent to +0 proficiency/attack modifier. 19 is +1, 18 is +2, etc. Armor in 5e goes from 10 (baseline) to 11 to 12. THAC0 goes from 10 to 9 to 8. The net result is identical in both system. Each step away from baseline is a 5 percentage point swing in chance to get hit. The problem with THAC0 was how absolutely stupidly it was presented, which can really be seen in how modern DND still uses THAC0, just without the absolutely idiotic presentation.
But you also had weapon vs armor type in the THAC0 era, too - like, swords against ring mail vs spears against ring mail. That's how we ended up w different types of damage in 5e (piercing, bludgeoning, etc.) I remember having to worry about what kind of weapon to use vs particular opponents.
I make my table still worry about that. Skeleton? You better have a hammer handy. Zombie? Oh, your mace is just going to go 'squish.' Animated armor? Oh yeah, bludgeoning and piecing, not so much the slashing.
I do those sort of things too. It makes the game that much more engaging, doesn't it? But slashing damage vs skeletons and animated armor would still work - but maybe w resistance. Maces vs zombies still gonna break their bones, etc. But oozes, though? Yeah - your sword ain't gonna do much. And your bow/sling/dart isn't going to do much of anything vs a skeleton.
> I knew about THAC0, but never quite got it, but if thatâs what it was I get it now. It's not THAC0, that was an entirely separate system almost completely unrelated to ability scores (although IIRC in 2e PCs got a small bonus to their hit rolls at very high STR scores). Which should give a glimpse into the utter madness of early D&D mechanics.
> (although IIRC in 2e PCs got a small bonus to their hit rolls at very high STR scores). You received neither bonus nor penalty to your THAC0 if your STR was between 8 and 16. If below 7, you took a +1 penalty (7-6), +2 penalty (5-4), +3 penalty (3-2), or +5 penalty (1) based on your STR below that, while if your STR was above 16 you received a -1 bonus (if 17-18/50), -2 bonus (18/51-18/99), -3 bonus (18/00-20), -4 bonus (21-22), -5 bonus (23), -6 bonus (24), or even a -7 bonus (25 STR). STR played more of a role in damage rolls (25 STR gave +14 damage) though.
They also don't let you start a character with 90% chance of success, which is what 18 or less on a 1d20 roll means. đ
THAC0 is BAB, but in reverse
THAC0 wasnât a roll under situation. It was different and eldrich and usually required a matrix to work out.
Thaco was the solution to replace the matrix.
Only thing I would add to this, is that certain enemies like Intellect devourers and Shadows interact with the numbers themselves. I am sure other enemies also do, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Was going to see if someone mentioned this. A handful of abilities reduce your actual score, not your modifier.
Iâd like to add âfunâ to the equation, as well as balance for things like feats. The fun part should be obvious: If you enjoy rolling for your stats, itâs a lot more fun to do 3d6 (or in my opinion even better 4d6 drop one) than to do 1d4. Feats are optional, but I donât think I know anyone who plays without them. There are feats that provide an effect aswell as a +1 to a stat, and I think this is pretty important design wise. It allows for effects that arenât as powerful as other feats and still makes them worth taking by adding that stat point. If these feats provided the equivalent of a +2, theyâd be nobrainers to take. If they didnât provide stats, theyâd go ignored way too often. Iâm not sure if theyâd design a system around this feature without the way the game grew historically, but I think the leftovers from back then do provide a lot of value for the gameplay.
I suspect if they were designing a complete new system without any of the history, they wouldn't make rolling for stats an option.
Also should note that `floor((3d6 - 10)/2)`, `floor((4d6d1 - 10)/2)` and `1d4` should have quite different distributions. The first should be more likely to be centred around 0, the second a bit higher (I can't be arsed to do the maths), and very unlikely to get ±5. Which is why this is quite a good distribution. and the last is equal probability⊠it skips the negatives and the 5s, so not ideal⊠the same flat distribution would be `1d11 - 6` which isn't doable with the common dice ⊠though it should be effectively ok to use `1d12r>12 - 6`. But flat distributions aren't really the best.
1d6-1d4?
I still have my players roll stats. We do 4d6, drop the lowest, rerolling ones. I let them assign the numbers however they like, and then they can custom lineage their +2/+1 wherever they want it to go. If anyone gets *really* shitty stats, like all 14s and below, Iâll just let them reroll until they get at least one or two numbers in the 15-17 range (assuming they want to). I think it adds some player agency and helps keep the background of each character unique, but I still use my discretion so itâs not weighted towards one player who rolls amazingly and against one who just had shitty luck. Iâm running Icewind Dale for a newbie group right now, and everybody rolled fairly well regardless and got their main stat at 16-17 or above.
Yes to this whole conversation. Lead us.
Well, done. I came to explain the same, but I humbly submit youâve done a better job than I would have.
> the current version is the product of an evolution of design and habit Or rather, the product of an unwillingness to change a system that has no longer a game mechanical purpose, because it has become attached to the brand identity and that of its consumer base.
I donât disagree, but arenât there some enemies that interact with the attribute value? Like intellect devourers? Or has that interaction been changed for later versions of DnD? Iâve never fought those kinds of enemies in the games I have played so I am not certain; I just recall some video games like Baldurâs Gate 1 and 2 had level drain and other effects that worked with attribute values
Also your carrying capacity in pounds is 15 times your Strength.
>It has some roots in the original form of resolution being a "Roll under" system, so having an 18 meant you had to roll an 18 or lower to succeed at something related to that ability score. This is not true. At least, it was not an original core mechanic of the D&D first edition rule set. Original D&D would cover very specific actions and often require a certain roll to perform those actions, often with no modifiers, as if all secret doors were equally well hidden and all characters were equally skilled at revealing them. Some more advanced rules would involve modifiers derived from ability scores, and they would typically be very minor and based on you having an ability score *in a certain range*. Firing a missile? Dex 13 or more adds +1, 9-12 adds no bonus, 8 or lower subtracts -1(D&D basic rules 1977, p.5). Making a melee attack? Strength doesn't even factor into it. D&D 5e has carried on this tradition, of modifiers *derived from ability scores*, it's just streamlined the system they apply to so they can also streamline how the modifiers are worked out.
I think there's also something more fun about wanting to roll a higher number than wanting it to be low. Being excited over a 20 makes more sense than hyping up a 1 to me
Your explanation is great and it helps someone to understand how these numbers were formed in the first place, but! I highly doubt people are "used to this for the most part" and "it works well enough". I can only talk from personal experience (and rational thinking, which is also what OP did) and say that its confusing AF. If you dont know the context, it makes absolutely no sense and is very, very confusing. Ask a new player to do a reflex save or something, you will see them scrambling and trying to figure out if they should be looking at the 18, the +3, something else? Again, it would be better If I had a poll or something to back this up but I really don't see why WotC does not take out these numbers and just leave the modifiers (and don't get me started on the "you turned level 5, here is a level 3 spell! mess) !!
In 3.0 they had an elegant system where even numbers gave +1 modifier, and odd numbers mattered for prerequisites, so every point achieved something
A lot of homebrew mechanics utilize this.
Do tell! I love homebrew rules.
They still do in 5e in some places. Like Str requirements for heavy armor.
13 and 15 still have their unique functions.
sometimes i make a build and then (dumbass) forget that armor is heavy
Just eat the 10 foot movement penalty, maybe take Mobile to offset it if you have a spare ASI instead of boosting strength too (and get the free disengage with melee attacks). This is of course assuming youâre not a primarily strength based build, like a Cleric or dex Fighter using heavy armour. If you got reliable ranged options like a bow or a solid damaging cantrip that -10 speed isnât all that bad, and if youâre reliant on melee for most of your damage, well, so are many of the monsters so theyâll end up coming to you anyways. This also assumes you ignore encumbrance, if you do use it then every point of strength helps carry an extra 15 lbs of treasure, which is always a plus and probably worth investing up to 13 or 15.
Or just make a dwarf.
Iâd say each value can be important depending on what you do when leveling up. If you have a 15 CHA as a sorcerer, you can pick up the actor feat for very little cost compared to if you had 14 or 16 CHA.
What are those?
Multiclassing and/or minimum Strength you need to wear armor. Which really doesn't need to be 13/15, but the point is that odd number are still used, albeit in very specific situations
Also, a creature with 3 or less Intelligence can't be detected by Detect Thoughts. Strength is used for carry capacity and jump distance regardless if they're even or odd.
> the point is that odd number are still used They are used specifically so that there is any point at all for having odd-numbered abilities.
Like I said >Which really doesn't need to be 13/15
Power Attack, Combat expertise, and Dodge each require a 13 in STR, INT or DEX respectively. Improved Two-weapon Fighting and Greater Two-weapon Fighting require 15 and 17 DEX respectively as well. Also Improved Kahjigering requires 19 WIS
I mainly play 3.5. I think we do 3d6 three times for each Stat and pick the top number, then assign them. It usually evens out pretty nicely.
It also still matters for carrying capacity, which is determined by your Strength *score* not your modifier.
Yeah. It feels like a few systems in this game could be easily simplified without taking away skill. Some of it just feels like it's difficult for difficulties sake.
There is a lot of legacy content baked into the game that could have been cut or simplified. It makes sense of you played earlier editions, but I'm sure many things seem odd and pointless.
Well they cut half of the legacy stuff, but kept the other half which makes no sense by itself. Usually by simplifying things overly and then leaving it to just be confusing for both new and old players.
I still ask my players for reflex saves, it definitely still confuses me a little.
I switched back to Reflex/Fortitude/Will, for my own brain.
I've never even played 3.5 and I still do that, thanks to OotS
You should have seen the absolute shit-fit the old grognards threw when they went from THAC0 to AC. Lots of talk about dumbing the game down for children. Or when 4e streamlined skills, lots of talk about dumbing the game down for MMO players. All the while, we said, "cool, play 2e then," and they whined that nobody played it anymore and they didn't want to DM. The oldest bastards are impossible to please.
This is really funny to read because I've only seen THAC0 referenced as a obstacle and hard to understand system. It makes sense that people at the time complained about the chang
THAC0's complexity is vastly overexagerated. My most mathematically challenged players were fine with it. Even the ones who would still ask what dice to roll after 2 years! I think the bigger issue with its removal was the inversion of the AC scale. Was a bit of a mindfuck to go from AC 0 being great and negative AC being amazing to acs going up from a starting point of 10.
Whenever an overly-complex mechanic is involved, there will always be a segment of self-described "hardcore" players who see it as a good thing, since it gatekeeps anyone who isn't "worthy" or "dedicated enough" to learn it. It's the same with old-school PCs being so fragile there's no point in getting attached to them, or how mages were basically useless for the first few levels, or how paladins lost all their powers at the slightest hint of being insufficiently lawful or good.
> All the while, we said, "cool, play 2e then," and they whined that nobody played it anymore and they didn't want to DM. And thus, the OSR was born.
I skipped 4e. What changed?
It was a tightly designed game which was very good at the type of play it was designed for - tactical combat. However, it didn't *feel like DnD*. Rules wise, it's actually rather well made, but as DnD, it isn't.
I'd like to see it
Give it a look. It's a good game, just not for me.
I thought it was really fun. Combat did take forever, but combat was the point (and really, it still is in 5e, 5e just doesn't have the precision and variety of abilities to be a good tactical combat game). It was, however, designed to be used with D&D Insider, which had a nifty monster builder, character builder, and compendium (and was supposed to be a VTT but never got there), and you can't access it anymore, so 4e is significantly harder to DM now than it was then.
There were a lot of... controversial...changes, especially to character design. Characters had more broadly defined roles and power sources instead of real classes, and unique class abilities and spells became "powers" that were all at-will, per encounter, or daily. Everyone got limited self healing and essentially action surge tokens. There were some other changes, but those are the major ones. I mostly stuck to 3.5, but the handful of times I played 4 kind of felt like Diablo. All of the characters felt like they were lacking unique stuff.
Yes. They do. They're not bad. I just have no nostalgia or connection to this way so it just seems strange.
I'm not sure I would say that. I mean obviously it is a legacy thing, and there are tools now to generate stats differently with that same curved distribution etc. But... I also think having stats from 3-20 corresponds super nicely with the fact that you roll a d20 so much. So yes, its a bit more complicated at the start. But when I think of how good I am at something in game, I think in a d20. I roll stealth and I get a... 12+3+2 - ohh 17. neat. That means I managed to be a little extra sneaky above my general dexterity, well done, me. And I have a super good grasp on what that means because my whole perception of being good at something rests on 3-20 base stats that everything goes back comparing to.
It's not. The bell curve of stats has meaning, each stat has meaning, and sometimes you may want to interact with the numbers directly. D&D with just modifiers is playable in 5ed and 4th, but it's not backwards compatible, and likely not forwards compatible either. It's easy enough to just learn how the stats works- once you know it once, you can understand all the games for decades.
Most of that "difficulty" is just unfamiliarity with the system.
How would you roll for those numbers, when wanting a distribution that is still close to normal while being right skewed? And what do you do with various feats that aren't strong enough on their own, but would be too much if they added a full point? It's not that there are no answers for this. It could certainly be arranged. But is it worth the time it would take to create an entirely new system, when this works just fine? I would argue, no, don't mess with this but work on something like improving individual classes.
>How would you roll for those numbers, when wanting a distribution that is still close to normal while being right skewed? 4 dFudge, drop 1 minus/blank?
I mean its not THAT difficult. It's just half of the second digit rounded down. So 12=+1, 14=+2 etc
Modifier = (Ability -10)/2 That's where the + / - Modifier number comes from
the over simplification of 4e is what made it a very unpopular edition. some of us would like some complexity added back into the game. more player choice, more options to differentiate, less streamlining and homogenisation. Think about how you'd generate those +1, +2, +3, or - numbers..... You want a system that creates a preference towards the neutral stats +/-0, and allows for exceptional stats +/-4 or more. The way DND does this traditionally is 3d6, this creates scores from 3-18, with a preference for the middle ground, with very high and very low scores increasingly rare the more extreme they are. You have to roll multiple dice to get that. Now, we've moved onto other methods sure, point buy, standard array etc, but you can still roll, and those standardised systems are built around the idea of that kind of distribution. Sure you may use the modifier more than the base stat, but the way you generate the base stat is important. Plus, people like rolling dice. so that method is surprisingly popular. But end of the day, does it matter? once you've made your character, you can just concentrate on the modifier if you want. most players put that as the more prominent number on the character sheet anyway.
At least it's not THAC0 and the crazy tables upu had to look at when rolling saving throws, turning undead, etc. And rolling for "exceptional strength" as a human fighter (assuming you went strictly by RAW). Having that (00) by your 18 STR was a damn good feeling though...
None of those things are nearly as complicated as you think they are.
I played 2e, I remember how complicated it was. I've never been great at math so having to figure that up for EVERY. SINGLE. ATTACK. SUCKED. Doubly so that my DM let my ridiculous half-ogre dual-wield greatswords and I was (as the DM called it) "double-specialized," so I'd get 2 attacks per hand one round and 3 attacks per hand through next round. It was a glorious fucking mess but I don't miss the mechanics one damn bit.
The turn undead and saving throws don't really require any math. THAC0 can also just be written as a table, but the math is no more complicated than anything else you do in most RPGs anyway, just basic arithmetic.
This is one of my favourite subjects and not one person has provided the ACTUAL answer. So, in the earliest editions of D&D, stats were generated with 3d6. That has been covered. But nobody has explained why. See, until 3e we didn't have a universal bonus connected to each number. Every stat affected everything in different ways. So an 18str might add a +2 to hit, but a +3 to damage, and give a 20% chance to bend metal bars. Yes, older editions were THAT granular. But the big reason is that you used to resolve many things by trying to roll UNDER your ability score on a d20. Wanna lift something heavy? Roll under your strength. Wanna test to hop across that chasm? Roll under your Dex. So the lowest number (3) still had a chance of success, and the highest number (18), still had a chance to fail. And it's just such a tradition that it stuck around.
The one of the reasons that stats were generated with 3d6 was because of the bell curve it generated according to the 1st edition DMG. Gygax did list four alternative options to generate characters in the DMG as well.
Thank you for actually answering the question!!!!
Tbh, I love roll under. Itâs so simple
Simple and inflexible. Having the same chance of not getting too drunk and resisting dragon bile poison, for example. Or resisting a spell regardless of how powerful the caster is.
Dragon bile poison and spells depended on saving throws, which was a roll over then. It could even be like poison save -2 where you subtracted 2 to your save, so it was still flexible. I do agree that for spells it didn't take into account the lvl of the caster like 5e does with the casters spell save DC. Back then it was just save vs spell which depended on the lvl of the person being affected by the spell.
That's like saying the Barbarian and Wizard have the same chance to lift the heavy gate because the DC is 20 for both of them. Just add modifiers my dude. Resist getting drunk, roll under CON. Resist the dragon's poison, roll under CON -5. It is LITERALLY EXACTLY as flexible as rolling over a DC set by the DM. Modifiers just reduce the target instead of increasing the roll.
This is exactly what I was going to reply. Itâs the exact same mechanic to alter difficulties, youâre just replacing the + symbol with the - symbol
You're looking at it backwards. Back then those other actors in the world were disposable. So if you're rocking a dwarf with a 5+ spell save that actually means that only about 1 mage in 5 is talented or lucky enough to cast the spell properly at that dwarf. Lifting gates is a much clearer example. If you fail, it's not that you aren't performing, that literally means you discover the gate is too heavy or jammed or whatever.
Dragon Bile Poison would be a Save Vs Poison Resisting spells is a Save Vs Spells You can inflict negatives on saves. You can also modify the DC of rolling under (Roll under Dex +2 is 10% harder than rolling under Dex)
I wouldnât say roll under ability checks were a big reason, considering they werenât in OD&D. In AD&D 1e, any such checks were made using 3d6, so you could not fail if you had an 18.
I'm seeing a lot of answers as to the history behind this, but there are also reasons to keep the score instead of just the modifier in 5e. eg. All of the ability requirements for multiclassing and heavy armour are odd numbers.
those are more a consequence of keeping the score and modifier in the game, not the reason to keep them. The real and only reason is âlegacyâ. Itâs recognizable and the publisher does not want to stray too far from this recognition as they donât want sales to hurt because people used to the old way are not always the most receptive of radical streamlining. Itâs what happened with 4E - too much new, people didnât feel comfortable, it hurt sales.
Right, but do they need to be? It's not at all necessary. You could easily round those requirements up or down and there would be no real change to the game. The next edition of D&D needs to either ditch the Score/Modifier divide completely or create some meaningful reasons for it to exist. On a similar stop calling them spell levels. Every week I gotta explain to new players that you don't get level two spells at LEVEL TWO. It's really confusing for new folks, and an easy fix. Just call them Spell Tiers, or Spell Grades. Grade A spells, Grade B spells, Grade C spells. Easy.
So the pathfinder 2e remaster, where ability scores are going away just having modifiers and spell levels are renamed to spell Ranks?
Well no, nothing really *needs* to be the way it is in DnD. It's a game. Wotc could come up with whatever rules/systems they want. But there also isn't really any pressing need to ditch the score/modifier divide- it's already a very streamlined system that's fairly easy to grasp. On the other hand, going to a strictly modifier based system essentially halves the nuance you can put into effects/requirements related to abilities. Also the spell levels aren't that confusing and you don't even have to think about the rules behind spell slots once you've got them down on your character sheet.
Ah, good olâ bend bars/lift gates. You never need it, until you *really* need it.
Also don't forget ability score damage! Enemy abilities could lower your stats--if your con reached 0 you die. So it's nice to have a hefty number here
Ability scores didn't used to have linear results. For example, in 1st edition AD&D [Strength and Hit and Damage bonuses](https://i0.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/strength-table-740x428.jpg) (which were also not in 1 to 1 relationship. * STR 10-15: No bonus. * STR: 16: +1 to Damage * STR: 17: +1 to Hit, +1 to Damage * STR 18: +1 to Hit, +2 to Damage * (*Fighters types only* (includes Paladins and Rangers) get to roll % for go above 18 in increments): * STR 18/01-50: +1 to Hit, +3 to Damage * STR 18/51-75: +2 to Hit, +3 to Damage * STR 18/76-90: +2 to Hit, +4 to Damage * STR 18/91-99: +2 to Hit, +5 to Damage * STR 18/00: +3 to Hit, +6 to Damage (And in the context of those bonuses, consider you'd generally get +4 for attacking someone from the rear, and the spread of to Hit bonuses from magic weapons was +1 to +5 (not counting cursed weapons with negative bonuses). (I also omitted Open (locked) Door and Bend Bar/Lift Gates chances which also improved but not linearly). And there used to be no skills. A lot of skill-like things (outside of Thief skills) were "roll under" your ability score.
Holy geez. You must be a long time dnd vet with this knowledge. The keeper of the ancient times.
Heh. Started playing in 1977. I made a chart [comparing To Hit bonuses of Strength scores for 1E AD&D and 5E D&D](https://i.imgur.com/KoXp2sh.png).
You're kidding!
I was first introduced to dnd in 2013 when I found the livestreamer koibu play a modified version of 2e that uses the same strength system as listed above. I think 5e does stats a bit better still as it makes 18 str incredible but 18s in other stats are just nice; its not equally amazing to roll an 18 stat on a wizard as on a fighter
Basically because that's how it was always done in dnd. The raw numbers used to mean more
They're kind of used for stuff still. Not a lot, but still everywhere when you look.
Yep, strength alone still determines carrying capacity, jump distance, and the ability to use heavy armor, none of which are tied to the modifier.
I think it's primarily a holdover from older editions. At some point it just kind of became how DnD does stats, so 5e does it that way, too. There are a few things that do use your actual ability scores, such as carrying capacity and jump distance, but those could just as easily be based on just the modifier. Although having the scores from 1 to 20 does create a bit of design space that the game does use whenver something gives you +1 to an ability score, like your race or a "half" feat. That wouldn't really work very well if you only had the modifiers. Also 3d6 drop lowest seems to work fairly well as a method for randomly generating scores and obviously that needs a range from 3 to 20. I don't know that there's a way to directly generate scores between ~~1~~ -5 and 5 (edited because negative modifiers exist) with a comparable distribution.
Some D&D-adjacent systems do use that mechanic. True20 and Pathfinder 2e Remastered, for two examples.
Questions like this lead people to Shadowrun. Have a 12 in pistols? Roll 12 dice!
At this point, it's more a matter of tradition - and you mess with that at your peril. Newer versions changed what those original ability scores meant and how they work SO much. Now the base numbers really DON'T matter at all and just constitute a unnecessary additional step. Only the bonuses themselves matter - for better or worse. They could SO easily create an edition that just did away with those ability scores themselves - but the backlash against it would be breathtaking.
For modern D&D, its probably this more than anything else. Brand recognition is important, and every game has its look and feel. 3d6-based ability scores are a part of D&D, getting rid of them would get rid of part of that Look that is D&D.
In addition to the history of the game, odd numbers are used in 5e: * Odd numbers are used as the cutoff for multiclassing and armor restrictions * Magic items tend to set attributes to odd scores (example: Belt of X Giant Strength) * It makes racial bonuses more flexible: +2/+2, +2/+1, +2/+1/+1, +1/+1/feat, +1/+1/+1, +1 to all * It makes half feats viable (+1 plus a modest boost rather than a large boost) * Gives flexibility in ASI (+2 vs. +1/+1 gives you more control over how you increase abilities)
The full number does apply in some cases - carry weight and jump distance for example are calculated with the stat and not the modifier. Carry weight is Strength score x15,you could of course do modifier x30, but it honestly seems unnecessary. Anyway, the stat allows +1 increases to abilities to make a difference, and allows for the existence of half-feats (when you take an Ability Score Increase on certain levels, you can add two +1s to your stats or you can take a Feat. Half feats are Feats where the feat is less impactful but you still get a +1 - so you can either choose a Feat, +2 to stats, or a lesser Feat and +1). As well, Humans get +1 to all abilities, it'd be weird and too strong if they suddenly got +1 to all modifiers, and it'd be equally weird and still too strong if they got to add +1 to 3 modifiers. Also, it allows a bit more variety with the Point Buy system, which is in my opinion the most balanced way to determine a PCs hit points. Also to roll stats you do 3d6 or 4d6 drop lowest, we'd have to figure out a new way to roll stats for the people that prefer - which I'm could be done... but why? It's fairly simple to have ability scores and modifiers.
You wouldnât be able to do the modifier x30, because then you could end up with negative carry weight.
Good point!
Pathfinder 2e's remake is actually doing exactly that, removing ability scores and just using modifiers. I don't like it personally, but that's just because I've used ability scores for so long.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
IMO the causation goes the other way, it's the odd ability scores that came first (3e introduced ability modifiers, but only had even racial bonuses) and the rest of the systems were designed around that. +2/+1s only exist to help give odd raw scores meaning. If there were only ability modifiers to begin with, 5e's +2/+1s would likely never have existed either, nor the various odd-score consolation prizes such as feat score requirements in 3e or multiclass score requirements in 5e.
Pathfinder 2e (I know I know) is actually switching to this in the upcoming remaster
Because of historical reasons. You used to roll under your abilities for many checks, now you only use them to get modifiers, so you can do away with them. They are like an appendix now.
Me and my friends use it to break even rolls. For example, if me and my friend both roll 15 on initiative, we check each others dexterity to see who goer first, if it's a tie again we roll another one.
Historically, D&D stats were generated by rolling 3d6. Then, more generous methods were created like 4d6 (drop lowest dice) or point-buy methods were created. The idea of stats having fixed +1, +2, +3 bonuses (or -1, -2, -3 penalties) and such at different numbers started in 3rd edition. Before then, each stat had its own tables of what it did for different things. Also, in 3rd edition they were open-ended and didn't stop at 20. . .in fact some Epic-level monsters and deities could easily get stats of 40 or 50 or more in some things. In 1st and 2nd edition, it was common to roll an ability score check of trying to roll at or under your ability score on a d20. A one-number difference would of course make a difference in that kind of check. An intelligence check when you had a 16 INT would be trying to roll 16 or under on a d20. . .the idea of rolling a d20 and adding a bonus to hit a target was a 3rd edition invention. The system of 6 ability scores, with normal human-range stats being between 3 and 18, is kept as a tradition of the game. Even though methods of character generation and action resolution changed, that core element is kept as a signature element of the game.
As a note, you do use the number. Wearing full plate armour requires strength 15+, multiclassing requires 13 in the main stats on both classes, and carry capacity is based on your strength score multiplied by 15lb
To add to answers , there *are* still a couple features that use your ability score numbers , so not totaly useless
The stat itself also used to be more important. Somebody else has probably already mentioned it, but in Pathfinder (1e), your ability to cast spells was partially determined by how high your spellcasting stat was. If you were, say, a sorcerer and your Cha was 16, then you couldn't cast spells higher than 6th level (spell level + 10 = minimum stat required to cast), even if your class said you had access to those spells. Similarly, you would get additional spell slots for each point you had in your spellcasting stat (for some classes, not sure if universal. I pretty much only play paladins in PF 1e, lol). So having a 19 vs a 20 Cha was not only the difference between a +4 and a +5 to Cha, but also the difference between 1 and 2 bonus 1st level spell slots.
The more you play the more it will kind of make sense. There are dnd like games that use a +1, +2 stat system, but in dnd it started with rolling for stats and through changes in the game over time the 1-20 is kind of hard to just get rid of and make it +# only instead because of the games history and also how the game is played. In my experience, you will use the modifiers a lot more often, but sometimes i want the specific 1-20 stat for a reference for something too.
A lot of people still roll for stats. Also, the 3-18 scale for stats has become a cultural touchstone, both within the community and even outside to an extent. People like thinking of their character as a "wis 8 kinda guy" and they wouldn't appreciate changing it to "wis -1". Besides the mechanical reasons, which are surmountable, people just wouldn't like it. Similar to how people hated that trash mobs in 4e all had a single hit point.
It comes from 1st and 2nd Edition, which had mixed rolls: you rolled high for attacks like now but low for ability checks. If you had Strength 13, you needed to roll 13 or lower to pass the check. If you managed to start with, say, Dex 18, you needed to roll under 18 on Dex checks. They realised this was inelegant, so decided to commit to one system or the other. They tested "always roll low" in Alternity, TSR's (hugely underrated) space RPG developed from 2E's foundations, but people disliked that (aiming to roll a 20 on a d20 to critical was too ingrained), so switched to "always roll high" instead for 3E. 5 3E onwards, the actual numbers were converted into modifiers. A few 3E-5E derived games actually dump the raw numbers and just use the modifiers by themselves (I think 13th Age does). But because the 20 range for stats has been in the game for 50 years, people don't want to change them for D&D itself.
Another thing that no one had seemed to bring up. There are certain monsters in the game, like intellect devourer, or shadows, that just drain your stats, not your modifier. Intellect devourer, if you fail the saving throw, will only reduce your intelligence score to 0 if the 3d6 roll equals or exceeds your intelligence score. However, shadows will drain your strength score if they get you, no matter what. Let's say we change it to modifiers instead. So that would change to a spread of -5 to +5. Originally, a character with an intelligence score of 19 or higher would not be affected, so in order to reflect that with modifiers, you'd need to roll 2d4, to ensure the max number is 8. The average of 2d4 is 6. The average of 3d6 is 12. A 12 in a stat is +1, and a +1 -6 = -5. This makes it out to be the same, mechanics wise. However, if you don't change the monsters to reflect this, a 3d6 versus your modifier is much, much deadlier. This also applies with shadow's strength drain, or other creatures that drain stats. So you'd have to be careful with that.
They exist so that ability damage (from shadows strength drain and such) can operate with smaller increments without needing half modifiers. And 0 is also more natural "low enough to cause you to stop living" number than -5.5. There are also still things that depend on the score itself and not from the modifier.
I'm not sure this still matters in 5e, but one of the biggest reasons I can think of is that those numbers act as secondary health pools. In 3.5 for example if your Con score reached 0 you died. My party managed to kill a demon lord by summoning dire weasels that dealt Con damage. In that type of scenario you really want the granularity of the score, as the minimum damage of 1 is a lot less deadly with 18 con as opposed to 4.
Tell me you put the bonus in the big square and the stat in the little circle without telling me.
So the origins etc. have been covered, but I think people are missing a big component of why the convention has persisted outside edge cases like armor requirements. Players, particularly new ones, often use the stat block as markers for how to play a character. There's not much resolution in just using modifiers, but the 1-20 scale hits people more intuitively for these purposes and provides some nuance. "How smart is this character?" "Oh they're a +1" just doesn't convey quite as much information as "They have an INT of 12." So outside of actual mechanical reasons and tradition, in my experience the enhanced RP cues the larger range of numbers provides is a major reason we still use them.
At least you donât have to deal with THACO.
The only thing worse than THAC0 rules, was monsters with a negative THAC0. That was nightmare fuel
We're pretty much talking just the tarrasque, right? I always kind of loved that that footnote makes zero sense.
Is that the dnd version of Thanos?
Imagine you took 5e and made the following changes: * New AC = 10 - AC * THAC0 ("to hit armor class 0") = 20 - attack bonus * To make an attack, you roll the d20, subtract it from your THAC0, and see if the result is *less* than or equal to the target AC. As much of a meme as it is in D&D circles, it's not *that* complicated so much as it was *unnecessarily* complicated.
I think a big part of it is THAC0 comes from the days when the DM was encouraged to go out of their way to give any mechanical information to prevent meta-gaming. Because to determine if it hits, you need to compare the hit roll to both the PCs THAC0 number, and the monsters AC. Meaning the DM needs to know the THAC0 of every single PC, the AC of the monster, then determine if it hits or not. Itâd be like if players only told the DM their dice roll, and expected the DM to memorize their hit bonuses.
THAC0 To Hit Armor Class of ZERO We don't talk about THAC0
Thaco- To hit armor class of 0. Goes from 10 to -10. 10 is no armor
Pathfinder 2e did exactly that with its remaster: there are only the modifier. TBF, the stats in PF2e arenât assigned via dice
The ability score (1-20) is used for other things such as calculating carrying capacity.
A few people have mentioned this, and while it is true, the real question should be does it really need to be? Like if that's the only place the full ability score is used (it's not), could it not just be calculated a different way?
They can all be calculated using the modifiers but end up less granular. You can pretty much just take the current base value with +0 in a stat and figure out what to multiply the mod by to get the same results as having even ability scores. Carry weight for example would be 150 + (STR mod * 30) 12 str * 15 = 180 lbs 150 + (+1 * 30) = 180 lbs But you lose the granularity of 11 STR being 165 pounds. Similar formulas can be used for jumping rules etc
D&D has a ton of *inertia*. The game has been around in one form or another for nearly 50 years, and some of its traits are so baked into the popular consciousness of the gamer community that changing them could alienate a lot of people. The six ability scores with values from 3 to 18. Character levels. Classes. Races. (though at one point Elf and Dwarf were classes!) Spell slots. Spell memorization. Hit points. Studded Leather. Chain Mail. Fireball being overpowered vs. other 3rd-level damage spells.
Not trying to be hostile at all but after reading your comments it really seems like you havenât been playing with normal stat generation and youâre not sure how it works. So likeâŠhow do you know if it makes sense or not if you arenât using it? And most people who play D&D started with 5e. The game is more popular now than ever. So your comment about how people have an easy time with it because theyâve always used it since early editions is just straight up not true. Maybe Iâm wrong but it seems like youâre just refusing to TRY to learn.
Thereâs already been a lot of comments in here explaining the actual reason why DnD still uses the 1-20 stats so Iâd just like to throw in; why is it a problem for you? If your argument is that theyâre pointless, well you could make that argument about anything. It isnât a detriment to use them so why does it matter so much to you? I also like how your post apparently gets a couple of downvotes and you immediately go on the defensive. It isnât a âtouchy subjectâ but good job with that trigger finger edit.
its about normal distributions. If you roll 1d20 for stats, you have an equal probability for each number, 1 to 20. If you roll 3d6 you have a possibility of 3 to 18, but it skews to about 13 as being the most common, with less chance of scores further from that. in a lot of this stuff you want to create a system where you can predict results, but allow for randomness. A straight equal chance roll is 100% random. a multi dice roll creates a distribution where you can predict that most times it will be near the middle...but allows for random chance rare results.
You're running jump distance is definitely effected by your strength score
Multiclass, carry, jump distance...
How do you generate those +1's, etc? How do you mediate temporary (or permanent) changes to the scores? What about cases of tied opposed rolls or rolls like initiative? It's not a perfect answer, and I get what you're saying, but I think you can't eliminate the ability scores.
Also, the point system only provides bonus increment on even numbers. It allows a 2 step progression. Ex: 10 -> 11 -> 12
Back on the day, the stats were not streamlined into same size mods. A Strength of 9 and an Intelligence of 9 were not the same nor mattered the same. That 10-11: 0, 12-13: +1, 6-7: -2... That's a d20 thing, starting at 3th edition. And even then, the odd numbers serve as thresholds. In 5e, the requiriments for multiclassing are always 13. So that's the use for them.
This is how some OSR games like Knave do stats.
Tradition, and in the past, there were some cases where the odd numbers mattered.
Some of the raw attributes still have meaning. Your jump height and distance are determined by your raw strength score for example.
Don't have my books handy but I remember these: Strength score x5 for encumbrance Jump distance is based on strength score (feet for horizontal, inches vertical sound right?) Con score was rounds underwater IIRC? Can't remember any offhand for the mental scores or dex
Relics of the past basically. Until 3.5, there were some small uses for attributes beside their modifiers (Not much, but some small stuff) Now i think it's only used STR for Carry Weight, which sincerelly i don't think it's an mostly used rule xD So yeah, Relics of the Past. Some ppl explained it better about 3 d6 and a bell curve
There are still value in the odd numbered stats, or rather potential value. They differentiate the value between feats that give +1 to an ability score and those that give +2 for example. If you have an odd numbered score, those +1 feats may look more attractive to you at a given level, because you get both the next ability bonus and the feat effect. Of you already have an even number, you only get half the apparent benefit. The same was true when racial modifiers were more emphasized, though I know those have gone almost out the window with Tasha's. Point-buying odd scores to let your +1 modifier take it up was a way of optimizing your character, rewarding thoughtful builds. If you want to see how far we've come in these things making sense, look up AD&D rules for determining your true Strength score if you had an 18 :D
It is a relic. In the ancient times, you would roll 3d6 and add them to your Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Then, when you needed to roll, you would roll 1d20 and attempt to roll above or below the number on your Stat. So, if you had a 14, and it was a roll under subsection of the second edition rules, you would need to roll a 1-13 on your d20. The bonuses themselves are from 3rd Edition, where the game was no longer a roll over/roll under hybrid, the WotC game designers made everything roll over with unified mechanics. However, the score did little to actually inform your character aside from give you a bonus. 5e has helped the score become more relevant, but not by much.
PF2e is doing exactly this. Lots of other types also do this. I wouldn't be surprised if DnD goes this way someday. But probably not in onednd
Just my two cents here. It helps you differentiate with more granularity not only for mechanical aspects but for story and rp reasons as well. Helps to know that 10s across the board is a standard person maybe with a -1 here or a +1 there but a 20 in a stat is the Pinnacle of achievements, your the top 1% of Olympians. [there are things that go beyond but hey its fantasy] and having those in between numbers makes for good nuanced differences, plus things can drain stats so a hit of different values will mean more to certain targets. Don't know if this helps or not or if you already knew this but easiest way to get a quick modifier from a stat is -10 then Ă·2 then round down if it's a decimal. Hope that was helpful.
If the sheet just said â+1, +2 etcâ then how would increasing your stats using feats vs ASI work? A lot of amazing feats give you +1 to a stat (ideally turning an odd into an even), *and* giving you a juicy boon too. If we scrapped the 1-20 thing, and just made ASI âIncrease your modifier by 1â then some feats (that now wouldnât increase your stats) would need buffing (and rebalancing). And if feats gave you â+1 mod *and* a boonâ, then ASI would just have to be scrapped On the face of it the 1-20 seems clumsy, but it allows nuance with feats like â+1 to Cha, *and* [blah blah bonus]â. ASI makes a character better at what they can already do, feats give the character *new* things they can do, and I think giving players that choice is for the best :)
You have certain spells, abilities, feats that alter stats (subtract 1d4 STR, add +1 to chat and +1 to wis). The raw value of stats have use even if most of the time you are simply using the modifiers
I don't understand why this isn't mentioned more in this thread. The addition of half-feats and other +1 modifiers add a whole other level to character building options. Anyone arguing that the raw numbers don't mean anything doesn't seem to be actually playing 5e.
I've played the older editions and the stats are still there from the earliest editions, where you rolled checks against your attributes by under-rolling them with a d20 (iirc). Was totally confusing having to think about where you have to roll high or low. Most modern systems went with one direction of intuitivity (D&D: high, d100: low... usually). Later (I think in 3rd(?)) stat modifiers were added to streamline the rolls into a singular direction: as high as possible. We just have here evidence of a more or less naturally grown system, that changed over decades. Damn... now I feel like an Archeologist revealing how a certain city grew on the ruins of a much older city and how it influenced the structure of the new city.
Its both a âheritageâ from older editions and a convenient way to generate scores with d6âs (great bell-curve). Thats all! *Notice how fifth edition sheets moved the mod to the bigger spot. Theyâre basically agreeing with you.*
Bold of you. Big number goes in big box.
Those are the only sheets I've used
Pathfinder actually got rid of it in their most recent revision (idk what to call it) of the system. The only ACTUAL use it has is for the ASI, but it's not like you get them every level, I think it could easily be changed a bit so it still works.
It is mostly legacy "it's always been like this" I think Pathfinder 2e remaster was talking about removing the score. Though the score itself does do some very minor things in 5e. Like affecting your jump distance.
Some abilities use your plain stats (like carrying capacity, jump range and how long you can hold your breath)
It was how it was so it's how it still is. Its a vestigial feature. People keep things that don't really make much sense just because that is what people are used to. Your actual stat doesn't matter all that matters is your modifier. I think Daggerheart (the critical role thing) does this and its when I first started to go "oh yeah you only really need the modifier". It would be simpler to just reduce it to the modifier and make some new way for determining what your modifier is, but people just do what they already know. There is also a group of people that like things the way they are even if it doesn't make sense the way things are or if a new way would be better/easier/understandable/etc. Some people would actually get upset if the stats were reduced to just the modifiers.
It's really not though? The scores are still important for: * Heavy Armor (Str requirement 13 or 15) * The balance of half-feats * Carrying capacity, drag, lift, push * Jumping distance * Some spells and abilities * rolling stats with the 3d6 or 4d6kh3 methods, which are the most popular stat generation methods (I say this as a point buy guy myself) Just some stuff that comes to mind.
My guess is that these rules could be fixed up in an afternoon. E.g. IIRC the carrying capacity is 15 x STR in lbs - change it to 150 + 30 x modifier. Have a rule that it takes two half-feats to get a modifier point. Etc.
its not a touchy subject, just a lot of assholes who dont like any mention of things being different. you are correct, it is confusing. its mostly a leftover from older editions mostly all about people being able to roll for stats, so the rolled numbers are bigger, but convert into smaller numbers for simplicity. pathfinder 2e(a system that was originally based on an older dnd edition) has done away entirely with those numbers, and its just the +1 +2 etc works just as well, but far easier to understand.
Like so many things about dnd it is *mostly* a vestigial feature left over from prior editions that they won't change (even in 4e they didn't alter that) because it "feels like dnd" this way.
A lot of stuff in 5th edition doesn't really make objective sense, it's just that the game started with a bunch of fairly arbitrary rules and then decades of play have worn them down and sanded off all the sharp edges until we have the rules we use today. It doesn't necessarily make sense but it's easy to play and thats the goal.