While I seem to be an unabashed fan of 4th Ed., the truth of the matter is that I am probably more of a fan of the game I happen to be playing at the time. Right now, it’s 4th Ed. I like it. I’m into it because it lets me roll dice with my buddies and have a good time. The point of any game, I think. Are there things that I don’t like about it? Sure there are. Let’s talk about one: The way it treats ability scores.
In the quest for game balance zen, the designers chose to implement a system to generate ability scores very different from previous editions of the game, esentially killing off one of the sacred cows of character creation for my friends and I, the rolling of the dreaded 4d6, dropping the lowest die. Instead we got some crap we just ignored, and continued rolling. Good for us. The point of this, it’s my wild guess, was to ensure a balance accross the table for all the PC’s in the game. It ensures equal chances of success for all the characters in the party. I say a loud MEH! to that, Mr. and Mrs. Game Designers.
The day of a dopey dwarf with an 8 INT, 8 WIS, and 9 STR are gone, unless you houserule him in.
Back in the day, the game rules encouraged players to hold on to characters that were not given a good chance at survival, based on their initial stats, and even went as far as calling them “fun and interesting to play.” Of course, today’s min/maxers will take that crappy guy and hit re-roll on their automatic character generator, thereby deniying themselves the opportunity to flesh out a great story-arc of survival and zero-to-hero adventures for their character. Not that there is anything wrong with that, ultimately you play the guy you want to play.
Unfortunately, the game today does nothing to foster that type of relationship between player and character. In fact, the game now encourages abortion in the first trimester of character creation if the scores are pathetic, describing characters with low scores as “virtually unplayable” (pg. 18, PHB 4th Ed), and asking the player to be mindful of strengths as compared to other characters. What is this? A clone army?
The Players Handbook of the 2nd Ed. of the game, written by David Cook, takes an entirely different approach, and in my opinion the correct of the two. It takes a sample character with bad ability scores, and through personality alone, shows the reader how he could be made a worthwhile character.
“Although Rath is on good health (Con 13), he’s not very strong (Str 8) because he’s just plain lazy-he never wanted to exercise as a youth and now it’s too late. His low Wisom and Charisma scores (7, 6) show that he lacks the common sense to apply himself properly and projects a slothful, ‘I’m not going to bother’ attitude (which tends to irritate others). Fortunately, Rath’s natural wit (Int 13) and Dexterity (14) keep him from being a total loss. Thus you might play Rath as an irritating, smart alecky twerp forever ducking out of range of those who want to squash him.”
Rath is given a chance in 2nd. Ed., while he’s aborted before birth in 4th. Not a good way to introduce new players of the game to the concept of roleplaying I think, huh designers?
So there, while I love me some 4th Ed. goodness for its ease of preparation, nicely laid out monster stats, and quick and easy encounter creation, I can also find its flaws. And this attitude regarding the initial abilities, versus previous editions, is certainly a big one.
So what can you do, DM’s looking to encourage both roleplaying and interesting characters in your party? Well, for startes disregard the advice given in the PHB about low ability scores. If a party isn’t balanced then so be it. Life isn’t balanced. The Fellowship of the Ring wasn’t balanced. Too bad. Roleplay it out. Why is Belgar’s Dex so low? He walks with a limp since birth, as he was born with a bad leg. What’s up with Rungar’s extremely high Charisma? The dude looks like a medieval Brad Pitt and women love him while men want to be him.
Roleplay it out. Have fun. Abortion kills potentially interesting characters.
—
Random plot hook of the day: A young apprentice to a local wizard accidentally ventured into an ogre cave, and in his rush to run out, dropped his magic book. Now, the ogre shaman is attempting to read the book, and in his gibberish he is setting off all sorts of stupid spells, causing minor disturbances to the nearby town. He already turned a farmers’ wandering dog into a half dog-goat thing. Hurry, find that spell book!
www. Newbie DM .com 
Milambus
May 6, 2009
Hmm, I think this has to do with the default assumption in 4e that Player Characters are Heros… with a capitol H. They are the people that stand out from the crowd. This is why they go adventuring. After if they were like everyone else they would be back home on the farm still.
And really in a party with Aragon, Legolas and Gimli who wants to play Pippin or Merry? Sure you get to be comic relief on occasion, but every time a fight occurs you have to run away to not end up dead. Even when you’re not fighting its up to the others to track things down, find the trail, and do pretty much anything that requires skill.
I would also say that like most numbers in 4e, an “average” stat is simply a larger number now. 2nd Editions 8 Str is the same as 4e’s 10.
Alex
May 6, 2009
Actually…the 4th ed Players Guide gives three options for player building; rolling the 4d6, dropping the lowest, is the third of the three. So it’s still there in the core rules. It seems they included the first two methods for RPGA to balance everything out there.
The suggestion to the DM is that if a character is sufficiently ganked (or overpowered) by the rolls as compared to the rest of the group, then the player should roll again. It depends on the DM, really, and per the post above…if everyone has a -1 total ability mod score, that’s one thing, but if you’re Rath in a group where the average total ability mod score is +5, then you’re going to be feeling like Merry or Pippin a lot.
Having one or two stats that are particularly low is one thing, having a lowly character as compared to the rest is another most of the time. As a DM, you have to balance your players having a good time and being able to do things without the other players stepping in with giving them interesting challenges because of low skill rolls.
Also, with his total ability mod score of -1, Rath would have been given the suggestion/option of an abortion in 3rd ed as well as 4th ed.
Really, it depends on the feel you (and your players) want the game to have. If everyone wants a zero-to hero campaign, roll it out and play with what you have. If you want a strong adventuring team out for quests and glory, go with the 4d6 and make sure everyone is basically around the same strength. If you want wo/men among wo/men boldly stepping through the countryside, give a 5d6, drop 2, ability score generation, or follow the +4 as a lowest total ability score mod suggestion. All of them can include roleplaying and background; each will just have subtly different executions of roleplaying and background.
kaeosdad
May 6, 2009
Heh, you should check out our campaign. It’s called ‘No Heroes’.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/no-heroes
When creating a character you can roll for it using this:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfvkqjnd_201g2hgx3kk
or do a standard point buy. The advantage for rolling your character vs. the point buy method is that if your character dies/retires/or is captured and you have to start a new character you start off with a bonus equal to 75% of their previous characters final xp total if your previous character was a rolled one. If your previous character was created with the point buy method you start off with a bonus to your new characters starting xp equal to 50% of the previous characters final xp.
Rob G
May 6, 2009
I think PCs should start mediocre and develop (through ability score increases) through levels. The PCs should only have mind advantages at the beginning – a +1 here and there.
Rob G
May 6, 2009
Not mind – mild.
the Recursion King
May 6, 2009
I agree with this article completely. Too much focus on mechanics leads to the dreaded Monty Haul campaigns. WOTC would do well to read some old Dragon magazines and learn from the mistakes of the past in these regards.
Lurkinggherkin
May 6, 2009
If a party isn’t balanced then so be it. Life isn’t balanced.
I salute you, sir. You have just gone up in my estimation!
(Not that you were on the floor to begin with)
Ameron
May 6, 2009
I think removing the possibility of having characters with low ability scores was a really good move by WotC. I’ve run into a lot of problems in the past when guys in my group try Playing Characters With Low Ability Scores. They crunch the numbers to get the most out of them, but don’t role-play the down sides of low scores. By minimizing the possibility for REALLY low scores it forces them to introduce some balance.
Mike Mearls
May 6, 2009
I think the underlying issue is that the range of modifiers from 3 to 18 is too big. Having an 18 is a big advantage over a 12 or even a 14.
I sometimes wonder if bigger steps would help this out:
12 – 15 = +1
16 – 19 = +2
And so forth. Have a really high stat is still useful, but you aren’t so much better than lower score dudes that it distorts things.
In that system, you can afford to allow for rolling ability scores. 4e uses point buy as the base, because having all 12s is crippling in the game.
The negative scores really aren’t much of a problem, unless you have 2 bad scores in the same defense pair. Then things get ugly.
kaeosdad
May 6, 2009
@Mike: nah, I don’t like the bigger steps, if you do that why even have the range be between 3-18? May as well be 2-12 at that point.
The difference between a 12 and an 18 isn’t crippling, there is a base 15% difference but I think that the player with the 18 is going to be much tactically lazier than the 12. The 12 will look for any slight advantage and it will improve the player’s skill over time.
On the DMs side they could work to support out of the box ideas that the 12 may have to give more opportunities to compensate for their lower ability score.
Swordgleam
May 6, 2009
“Of course, today’s min/maxers will take that crappy guy and hit re-roll on their automatic character generator, thereby deniying themselves the opportunity to flesh out a great story-arc of survival and zero-to-hero adventures for their character. ”
Except, that’s not what happened in 1e. What happened was my cleric with 5 dex (I rolled 3 1s and 2 2s, we were dropping lowest 2 dice) was a hazard to herself and others and mostly dragged down the party while the fighter with 18 str could demolish any opponent.
It’s a game very based on luck, but when one character is fundamentally worse than another from the get-go, it is simply impossible to catch up. And being useless to the party isn’t the kind of “fun roleplaying opportunity” that makes D&D enjoyable for me. I much prefer point buy for anything longer than a one-shot.
the Recursion King
May 7, 2009
Here’s a way to fix this… shift the focus from stats!!!
While ever the adventures are focussed on mechanics you will always find this, whether the range is 3-18, 2-12, 1-6 or 1-2!
Diminish combat… lose skill challenges that are based on testing against stats… inject more rolelpay, creativity and imagination into the adventures and pretty soon, 18 or 12 or 5 in a stat will matter much less…
Pangalin
May 9, 2009
If I wanted to play a roleplaying game without any mechanics or statistics, I’d buy a cap gun and play Cops & Robbers.
The Recursion King
May 10, 2009
That’s a straw man argument as no one suggested that RPG’s do not need mechanics lol