Should we have ability scores in Second Edition?

[Aenigma]

In First Edition, we have both ability scores and ability modifiers. Ability scores represent a character's most basic attributes. But we don't roll a check using an ability score. It is the ability modifier it creates that affects nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities. You apply the ability modifier to the die roll when your character tries to do something. When you increase one point of your ability score, nothing changes actually because to increase the ability modifier you must increase two points of an ability score. Maybe this is the reason Paizo didn't include ability scores in the monster statistics in Starfinder and Second Edition playtest. Thus I suggest, what if we delete ability scores from the game entirely and use ability modifiers only?

[PossibleCabbage]

Ability scores are going to stay because they are a legacy thing. "18 Strength" resonates with people who have been playing these sorts of games for upwards of 30 years in a way that "+4 Strength" does not.

Plus you gain very little with the conversion, since you write down your ability score modifier on your character sheet and don't have to recalculate it unless your ability score changes.

[Gorbacz]

Pretty much what PC said. There's a sizable cohort of people for whom a game with "STR: 18" is a game they want to play but a game with "STR: +4" is a game they won't even touch. Even if technically, these are the same values. Humans are funny like that. They're not programs. They're not logical. They get hung up on things and consider them part of their identity and if you poke around that identity, you'll start a fire.

Also, PF2 is already slaughtering 3e/PF1 sacred cows left and right (action economy, skill system, paladin alignment), so keeping that one non-consequential artifact of yesteryear around is a small price for having some people breath a sigh of relief that at least the ability score system is the same what they are used to.

[The Once and Future Kai]

I'm all for Ability Scores disappearing. In fact, I've stated this opinion on a few surveys. Remove an unnecessary layer of complication - to my knowledge they're only used for ability boosts above 18 and that's not enough usage to justify scores.

[Malk_Content]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

I'm all for Ability Scores disappearing. In fact, I've stated this opinion on a few surveys. Remove an unnecessary layer of complication - to my knowledge they're only used for ability boosts above 18 and that's not enough usage to justify scores.

Especially as the above 18 score boost reduction leads to what feels like 5 levels of a wasted choice (which is seriously bad design in my eyes, where else is acceptable to have a player pick something for their character that is GUARANTEED to be useless for the next 20 sessions) and worse has players ask the question "what level do we think we'll get to? I don't want to buff my main stat if we are never getting to 10."

[RazarTuk]

Malk_Content wrote:

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

I'm all for Ability Scores disappearing. In fact, I've stated this opinion on a few surveys. Remove an unnecessary layer of complication - to my knowledge they're only used for ability boosts above 18 and that's not enough usage to justify scores.

Especially as the above 18 score boost reduction leads to what feels like 4 levels of a wasted choice (which is seriously bad design in my eyes, where else is acceptable to have a player pick something for their character that is GUARANTEED to be useless for the next 20 sessions) and worse has players ask the question "what level do we think we'll get to? I don't want to buff my main stat if we are never getting to 10."

A comparison:

5e- Start with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 before racials. Racials are typically a +1 and a +2. Every four levels, increase 1 score by +2 or 2 scores by +1, but there's a hard cap at 20. You can always get two scores to the cap by level 20, or even 16 if you aren't a human. If you're really determined, you can even get one up there by level 8.

PFPT- Start with one of 11+ arrays, although the most common will probably by 18/16/12/12/10/10, 16/16/14/12/10/10, 18/14/14/12/10/10, 16/14/14/14/10/10. Every five levels, increase 1 score by +2 if it's below 18 or by +1 if it's 18 or above. I.e., there's a soft cap at 18. Similarly to 5e, you can always get 2 stats to the cap, but never more than that. Unlike 5e, you'll probably have one stat at the cap at level 1, unless you make an effort to distribute your boosts more evenly. (For example, by not putting any of your four free boosts into your key ability)

Spoiler:

Assuming you're human, half-elf, or half-orc, the other 7 possibilities are 16/16/12/12/12/10, 16/14/14/12/12/10, 14/14/14/14/12/10, 18/14/12/12/12/10, 16/14/12/12/12/12, 14/14/14/12/12/12, and 18/12/12/12/12/12. I didn't do the math for other races that didn't buy off penalties.

The problem isn't the 18+ reduction. It's that you can literally start at the soft cap, making it feel like an Absurdly Low Level Cap. (Warning: TV Tropes link)

[Data Lore]

+1 to getting rid of vestigal ability scores. Modifiers all the way.

[Marc Radle]

Thank God they are not doing away with the actual ability scores!

That would be pretty much the final straw for a great many folks - it certainly would for me.

[Kaladin_Stormblessed]

I'd be fine with getting rid of ability scores, but not in the same game as "legendary means you have +3 more than your buddy who practiced a bit!" Not in the same game as "well, the DC is based on your level, and your skill mod is based on your level, so if you're a master you have a slightly better chance of succeeding than failing, and are only a little likely to fall on your face." 2e already has so many ways of making the PCs feel like chumps, I don't think it can afford to also swap out "you have 12 strength!" for "you have 1 strength", purely in terms of psychology and appeal.

[Aenigma]

Well, if removing ability scores entirely would not satisfy most gamers, then I wish Paizo at least give ability scores back to monsters, instead of just giving them ability modifiers. I know ability scores mean nothing to monsters but the fact that only PCs have ability scores makes me feel like PCs and NPCs live in two entirely different worlds.

[Marc Radle]

I agree with that actually - I really dislike the removal of ability scores and other similar things from monsters. I also think PCs and monsters need to follow the same basic rules ...

[RazarTuk]

Aenigma wrote:

Well, if removing ability scores entirely would not satisfy most gamers, then I wish Paizo at least give ability scores back to monsters, instead of just giving them ability modifiers. I know ability scores mean nothing to monsters but the fact that only PCs have ability scores makes me feel like PCs and NPCs live in two entirely different worlds.

I mean, we already decided in a different thread that PCs are Darwinian failures who actually need potency runes to do damage, while NPCs get extra damage dice for free...

[Lucas Yew]

Aenigma wrote:

I know ability scores mean nothing to monsters but the fact that only PCs have ability scores makes me feel like PCs and NPCs live in two entirely different worlds.

Marc Radle wrote:

I also think PCs and monsters need to follow the same basic rules ...

Thirded. With a personal additional reason that it (the raw scores) is very helpful in gauging in-game universe abilities from zero/nil to an existant physical/mental capability (for example, a pseudo IQ in the case of INT).

If going on an all-modifier system anyway, I'd rather retranslate the previous 0 to 20 score range into 0 to +10 mod and assume all DCs start with 5, not 10.

[Igor Horvat]

Also for removal of ability scores.

They serve nothing in the game except "legacy".

And if you only care about legacy, there is PF1 and 5 editions of D&D to have ability scores.

[Combat Monster]

Igor Horvat wrote:

Also for removal of ability scores.

They serve nothing in the game except "legacy".

And if you only care about legacy, there is PF1 and 5 editions of D&D to have ability scores.

Couldn't we turn that logic around and say if you don't like legacy, there are other games for you?

We don't need "all new, all different" for it's own sake. Having ability scores isn't broken. Considering it will alienate some players out of buying into 2nd Edition, what bonus is there to remove them?

[DerNils]

I started that discussion before on the Topic how to free iup space on the character sheet. I even got an answer from Marc Seifter saying "We keep it for legacy reasons. Feel free to delete them from your own character sheet".

[KujakuDM]

Nah. Pathfinder is supposed to be D&D analog. The further they move from that... well I'm already not planning on moving to P2 but this certainly doesn't change my mind. All this play test has done is make me go and get my 3.0/5 books out for more additions to the game.

[Richard Crawford]

Brother Fen wrote:

It's dungeons and dragons, not Pokemon.

I don't know what you're getting at. Pokemon has six stats, six modifiers, and they advance at different rates depending on what race/class they are.

[Malk_Content]

They aren't broken they are just entirely unnecessary. Which means for the sake of not annoying people on a purely aesthetic point (literally they do nothing) we keep in a waste of character sheet space, a waste of book space and a bizzare potentially new player confusion creating situation in which we generate a set of scores whose sole purpose is to generate a secondary set of scores (without any sort of justification like having those secondary scores be derived from multiple attributes) before we never look at them again.

They are purely vestigial.

[adresseno]

I can see at least one use for the scores that could warrant their permanency in the game. Minimum rolls. Some options on 5ed allows you to use your score if your dice roll was low enough. These options can be used as assurance feats or things like that.

However, keeping an extra layer of information just for the sole reason to preserve the legacy of another versions seems to be undeserved space for me.

[MaxAstro]

I don't think they are needed, but I think removing them is going to alienate more people than is worth it.

[PossibleCabbage]

MaxAstro wrote:

I don't think they are needed, but I think removing them is going to alienate more people than is worth it.

I mean it's pretty easy to just play PF2 as written without ability scores for PCs, once you figure out what to do with the "post 18 stat boosts counting half as much" mechanic. So if you want to play this way, then just do it. It's much like alignment in this way- for your game, you are free to do without it.

It's worth considering whether a personal preference for a change is something that can easily be implemented in particular games who want to play that way rather than something which should be the way for all people to play. It is, after all, easier for people to dispense with ability scores in their home games (since you calculate them anyway) than for people to put them back in.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Combat Monster wrote:

We don't need "all new, all different" for it's own sake. Having ability scores isn't broken. Considering it will alienate some players out of buying into 2nd Edition, what bonus is there to remove them?

They serve no purpose in the new system except to halve ability boosts over 18. Removing them would reduce complication by removing an unused mechanic and free up much needed space on the character sheet.

If Paizo is going to keep them in then they need to make more use of them (which first edition did). Keeping them in for the sake of tradition alone makes no sense - either make scores meaningful or remove them.

[Grognardy Dangerfield]

Awfully hard to (optionally) roll stats without ability scores.

[Mark Carlson 255]

Many years ago when the basic ideas of what is now PF 2.0 B were discussed in another location this was also talked about, and if I remember correctly (IIRC) these were some of the points presented.
1) If you remove them you could possibly reduce your player pool.
2) If you are removing them so you can have ability scores simply be a modifier track vs a representation of what we think of today's or yesterdays people should have you can turn a lot of people off. (ie the standard example is if a person can lift X pounds then should should have a Strength score or about Y.)
3) At the time the original poster liked games that were based on average human norms to generate mods (IIRC) like the silhouette system and other D6 tight math systems (which can cause problems if you like more descriptive PC design systems.) And this last fact was brought up and at the time no reference to replacing a system was provided except for the idea of a Star Gate SG-1 type setting to go with it.
4) At the time it was also discussed if times had changed enough to support such a system, with just some musing about it and thoughts going back to point #2 above, are you just changing things to change them and it felt like some other games ideas that were tried in the mid 80's when D&D was struggling and other systems were trying to break into the market.

In general (IIRC) from what was talked about back then and the proposed issues that might and could arise with all ideas discussed and how PF 2.0 B has been received I would keep them as it can be a reason to not play the game.

I also remember recently a thread about making stats more representative of what people can do (today, yesterday) and not simply a mod scale that increases. I can say that the mod scale thing is one reason people I know of list when they talk about why they left PF for other games.
(Yes some have put in house rules to fix this but if they use adventure path materials they have to do a lot of mod'ing to fix the issue.)
(But I also know of others that like it, the Paladium crowd.)
(So the choice is clear do you want to be more like what the Paladium crowd or the D&D crowd? And then live with the benefits or fall out of that decision)
MDC

[Raylyeh]

Ultimately I don’t know why this topic even matters. It seems like a non issue for 2 reasons.

1. What are people’s solutions for tracking the raising of an ability modifier above 18 that isn’t as or more complicated/convoluted than just keeping ability scores? Which I wouldn’t call ability scores either in the 1st place...

2. This valued character sheet space that keeps coming up doesn’t matter. The current sheet is 2 pages (3 for casters) and removing the ability scores part won’t shorten it to 1.

Ability scores don’t subtract from the game and removing them doesn’t add anything. Which brings me back to who really cares?

[PossibleCabbage]

Grognardy Dangerfield wrote:

Awfully hard to (optionally) roll stats without ability scores.

Well, you roll a 14 then you just write down "+2", and this saves you a step compared to "rolling a 14, writing down 14, then in the column to the right write +2" I guess.

[Igor Horvat]

Combat Monster wrote:

Igor Horvat wrote:

Also for removal of ability scores.

They serve nothing in the game except "legacy".

And if you only care about legacy, there is PF1 and 5 editions of D&D to have ability scores.

Couldn't we turn that logic around and say if you don't like legacy, there are other games for you?

We don't need "all new, all different" for it's own sake. Having ability scores isn't broken. Considering it will alienate some players out of
buying into 2nd Edition, what bonus is there to remove them?

IF in the end PF2 will be a good game I will play it, no matter if they keep ability scores in just for nostalgia.

I will ignore it for other good stuff in the game.

Biggest concern for me is still religion like dogma for d20 as it is the biggest mistake of any d20 RPG system(oh the irony).

Point is, when you cling too much for legacy it can prevent you from making a new great game.

[breithauptclan]

Doesn't ability damage still affect ability scores?

Or does it directly affect ability modifier and I didn't notice?

[Raylyeh]

breithauptclan wrote:

Doesn't ability damage still affect ability scores?

Or does it directly affect ability modifier and I didn't notice?

The status debuffs that equate to ability damage effect your ability modifiers, not the score. Though it might be a bit more complicated and I’m just Oversimplifying it. Someone else may have a more accurate answer.

[Malk_Content]

For stats over 18 you just write +4.5/5.5 etc. This would actually probably make that feel worse, which would hopefully lead to it being removed because it is a bad metagame inducing bottleneck.

The character sheet arguement is a bit weak I admit, but it is still a waste of space that going forward will become more needed. As is for example without that space you could fit more space for tracking HP on the sheet for example. Or a picture, or more space for character description.

For the book, every single time an ability is called they have to add the word "modifier" to it. That is a collossal amount of wasted space. In each class alone it probably eats up the space of two or three feats.

[DerNils]

The page Count and place on the character sheet are aboslutely Arguments - after all, we had specific questions on what is needed to be there and what data is actually relevant to the game.
Guess what - Ability scores aren't. They are referenced super rarely (as Feat prerequisites), and that is the only place where odd numbers still Count.
For descriptive purposes there is no benefit to having strength on the 3-18 scale vs the -4 to +4 scale.
Actually, it is the other way round - on the -4 to +4 scale there is no conceit of "My strengt is 13, yours is only 12, I am stronger than you". No, you aren't.

The bookkeeping for half raises is exactly the same. The difference between writing down 19 or 4.5 is non existent.

But all we are writing here is wasted space - the decision to keep it for legacy and recognition value is already taken. One of the design Goals is "This should still feel like Pathfinder", and there is a vocal group of people that say it is an important aesthetic to them. So it will stay.

[Mark Carlson 255]

Malk_Content wrote:

For stats over 18 you just write +4.5/5.5 etc. This would actually probably make that feel worse, which would hopefully lead to it being removed because it is a bad metagame inducing bottleneck.

The character sheet arguement is a bit weak I admit, but it is still a waste of space that going forward will become more needed. As is for example without that space you could fit more space for tracking HP on the sheet for example. Or a picture, or more space for character description.

For the book, every single time an ability is called they have to add the word "modifier" to it. That is a collossal amount of wasted space. In each class alone it probably eats up the space of two or three feats.

IMHO, your point about extra space or colossal as you put it should be able to be solved by formatting in some way. For example if you have an 18 it could be written as this 18 (+4) or in the case of the score being modified, 18 (+2) {has a -2 penalty for something}, 18 (+6) {has a +2 to stat item}

I do agree though that there are cases in which extra stuff is included in some games stat blocks that do not really have relevance (that I can see). For example I am back to helping some friends (2nd revision for people in multiple countries) to adapt the Jovian Chronicles to use highly modified Battle Tech mech and ship rules and a variety of PC rules and the stat blocks of JC mech's and ship's all have an appogee motor entry that is somewhat baffling and in my quick'ish look over the rules does not really seem to matter.

MDC

[Malk_Content]

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

For stats over 18 you just write +4.5/5.5 etc. This would actually probably make that feel worse, which would hopefully lead to it being removed because it is a bad metagame inducing bottleneck.

The character sheet arguement is a bit weak I admit, but it is still a waste of space that going forward will become more needed. As is for example without that space you could fit more space for tracking HP on the sheet for example. Or a picture, or more space for character description.

For the book, every single time an ability is called they have to add the word "modifier" to it. That is a collossal amount of wasted space. In each class alone it probably eats up the space of two or three feats.

IMHO, your point about extra space or colossal as you put it should be able to be solved by formatting in some way. For example if you have an 18 it could be written as this 18 (+4) or in the case of the score being modified, 18 (+2) {has a -2 penalty for something}, 18 (+6) {has a +2 to stat item}

I do agree though that there are cases in which extra stuff is included in some games stat blocks that do not really have relevance (that I can see). For example I am back to helping some friends (2nd revision for people in multiple countries) to adapt the Jovian Chronicles to use highly modified Battle Tech mech and ship rules and a variety of PC rules and the stat blocks of JC mech's and ship's all have an appogee motor entry that is somewhat baffling and in my quick'ish look over the rules does not really seem to matter.

MDC

I think you missed my point on the waste of space part. No one is having to write 18 (+2) or whatever. Its that every time an Ability is mentioned in the rules it is written [Ability Name] Modifier. In some feats that comes up multiple times for example. I'd hazard to guess it wastes a couple thousand characters over the book. Even if formatting means we wouldn't get much more content the change would allow for the same space to be used in making better write up of the content we have.

[MER-c]

I don't think removing the 3-18 numbers would remove the [Name] Modifier notation, after all the term modifier is the most descriptive word for the derived value, it modifies dice rolls

[KujakuDM]

Igor Horvat wrote:

Point is, when you cling too much for legacy it can prevent you from making a new great game.

They aren't trying to make a new game. They want to make Pathfinder 2e.

[Malk_Content]

MER-c wrote:

I don't think removing the 3-18 numbers would remove the [Name] Modifier notation, after all the term modifier is the most descriptive word for the derived value, it modifies dice rolls

Why would it need to exist? If abilities already are just a modifier then you don't have to restate modifier each and every time.

add your Charisma to something makes sense without including the word modifier if your Charisma is already expressed as -/+#

[Jason Bulmahn]

Hey there folks,

Ability scores are not going anywhere at the current time. We appreciate the feedback, but this one is pretty settled.

This thread is locked.