The case for base-zero ability scores

[hedgehobbit]

I consider D&D's classic six 3d6 ability scores to be an historical anomaly. Throughout it's short pre-publication history, the list of abilities constantly changed; new ones added, some renamed, switching from 2d6 to 3d6, skills imported then removed, etc. Even in early games, such as Metamorphous Alpha and EPT, the list was changed as needed by that particular campaign. But, somewhere along the line this list of six became set in stone and survives, virtually unchanged, all the way up to 5th edition.

All that being said, here are the two changes I've made to ability scores:

1- Switch from 3d6 to Base-Zero, where 0 is average and good scores are +X, bad scores are -X. This is essentially just using the ability score modifier and not the score itself. The primary reason I like this method is that you can simply list the non-average scores and not all six. So, let's say Hodo has a high strength and dex. I can write this character as:

Hodo - Fighter 3, AC 4, +1 Str, +2 Dex 

I have all the information I need without a list of number that don't matter. Because of this, I can add an ability score to an NPC or monster simply by listing his non-average stat.

Orc leader - 2 HD, 12 HP, AC 5, +1 Str, +2 Cha

By just adding a "+1 Str, +2 Cha" to his normal monster stat line, I can give the monster some added variety and, because everything not listed is considered to be average, I know know enough about this character that I could use him as an NPC or even a PC should events go in that direction. This blurs the line between monster, NPC and PC which is something I always like to do.


2- OK, once we've turned the list of ability scores into a smaller list of bonuses, the original set of six scores isn't fixed anymore. So you aren't limited to just the six, and, since each character will have just a handful of abilities, there's no need to even restrict the number available. Different races could have their own lists; elves have an ability called Luck, dwarves have Grudge, etc. The same is true if your games aren't fantasy. You might have a set for a sci-fi game, combining Str and Con into one ability while adding a Tech-type ability. Your musketeer game could have a Wit ability for clever insults. etc.

Since you don't have a consistent list for everyone anyway, all these characters can play together at the same table. Your fantasy characters, sci-fi characters, and Tekumel character (with psionic magic) can all interact without any stat conversion. Just pick whatever ability makes sense for each roll (or nothing if none do). 


That's why I prefer Base-Zero ability scores.

[Note: If you like d20 rolls under the old 3d6 ability scores, using 2d6+Mod with a target number of 7 produces almost the exact same probabilities as the d20 roll. Assuming B/X +3 to -3 modifiers]

[monk]

Interesting! Like a lot of people, I have a whole system of ability checks wherein I use the six classic scores to quickly let players try out their hairbrained ideas. So I can't see dropping them for my game, but I like your system for the ease with which you can throw a "bonus" onto a normal monster to give it some character. I also like the addition of new abilities, which I find helpful in my own campaign (thinking about dropping WIS and adding something more useful for us).

[tetramorph]

hedgehobbit, very nice and it makes sense.

I'm still with monk, however. I like rolling 3d6 against ability score for a lot of checks. I also like the curve and the granularity.

But I would play in your game too!

[hedgehobbit]

In the last line I mentioned how you can use these base-zero ability scores and a 2d6 roll to simulate the common d20 roll under test that many people use. But it only works with relatively high B/X level ability score modifiers and not OD&D's more modest +1/-1s. The probabilities are very similar, differing by more than 10% (in the player's favor) only in the case of 6 and 9. 

[Von]

Interesting concept, leaning toward Ars Magica almost (which I like - it's a very elegant system once you carve through the bad habits of White Wolf writers and developers). Given the way in which I use the stats and modifiers in play, I can see no particular reason not to adopt this as standard practice.

[hedgehobbit]

When creating a character, each player will roll six dice. Four positive (or green) dice and two negative (or red) dice. Compare the results to the following chart:

1-Strength
2-Intelligence
3-Dexterity
4-Constitution
5-Charisma
6-Player Choice

Each positive die adds +1 to the listed ability whereas each negative die subtracts one. The end result is that all character, though randomly generated, will have a total +2 modifier. Modifiers as high as +4 or as low as -2 are possible. The listed chart is the one for humans. Each race has it's own chart with different possible values. For example, IMC there are bunch of Synthetic Men, ancient androids hiding among the human population. On a roll of six, they get either a Gadget (if positive) or a Design Flaw (if negative). A gadget might be a built-in secret weapon or improved night vision whereas a Design Flaw might require the player to shut down to recharge or make it move slower than normal.

So, overall, it's a way to have random characters without worrying about balance and bad rolls. Other rolls can be used. For example, you could roll 1 green and 1 red die for normals and 2 green, 1 red for man-at-arm types. I've tried making these rolls cumulative with my 0 level funnel game. You start with 1 green and 1 red. Roll an additional green and red when advancing to man-at-arm status (and reroll hit points). Finally, when the character achieves first level you roll 2 more green. This was supposed to represent the character discovering his true potential through contact with danger but my players didn't really see it that way.

[Vile Traveller]

Have you tried combining this with FATE dice?

By the way, not really for D&D specifically but in general these days I am leaning to having ability bonuses start at zero and work upwards (in relatively large steps), the reason being that the 3-18 range is based on the human average, but it doesn't translate at all to smaller or bigger beings. I like to keep ability bonuses quite low in relation to "skill" bonuses (i.e. levels), because I believe training is far more important than natural aptitude in the kind of games we play.

[hedgehobbit]

May 4, 2015 4:17:55 GMT -5 Vile Traveller said:

Have you tried combining this with FATE dice?

No. I like having the option to adjust the importance of the ability to the roll based on the die used. So if the ability is of prime importance (a test of raw strength or reaction time) then I'll use d8 or d6+ability. When it is of lesser importance I'll use d12s or d20s.

By the way, not really for D&D specifically but in general these days I am leaning to having ability bonuses start at zero and work upwards (in relatively large steps), the reason being that the 3-18 range is based on the human average, but it doesn't translate at all to smaller or bigger beings.

The main issue with small and large creatures is Strength. The rest scale OK. For a test of strength, I'll use my size-based dice values (from my hit dice thread). A hobbit will roll d6 whereas an ogre will roll d10. So a hobbit and an ogre both with a +1 Strength will roll d6+1 vs d10+1 if wrestling or trying to shove one another.

The other issue would be poisons or potions affecting giant creatures. I haven't tried to address that yet.

[Vile Traveller]

That's also an interesting approach, I've played something similar in an SF skirmish game called Tommorrow's War. You have raw recruits and levies that use d6, with tougher and tougher troops going all the way up to d12. The number of dice depend on the weapon used, the type on the user's training. It worked really well in practice.

[The Bear Hawk]

Neat idea, but not to my taste. I like having the stats 3d6 rolled in order. I don't find them meaningless at all. To me there is a world of difference between a 9 and a 12 and a really wide gulf between an 8 and a 13, regardless of which stat you are talking about STR, INT or CHA ,etc.

[The Semi-Retired Gamer]

Feb 26, 2015 13:23:31 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

I consider D&D's classic six 3d6 ability scores to be an historical anomaly. Throughout it's short pre-publication history, the list of abilities constantly changed; new ones added, some renamed, switching from 2d6 to 3d6, skills imported then removed, etc. Even in early games, such as Metamorphous Alpha and EPT, the list was changed as needed by that particular campaign. But, somewhere along the line this list of six became set in stone and survives, virtually unchanged, all the way up to 5th edition.

All that being said, here are the two changes I've made to ability scores:

1- Switch from 3d6 to Base-Zero, where 0 is average and good scores are +X, bad scores are -X. This is essentially just using the ability score modifier and not the score itself. The primary reason I like this method is that you can simply list the non-average scores and not all six. So, let's say Hodo has a high strength and dex. I can write this character as:

Hodo - Fighter 3, AC 4, +1 Str, +2 Dex 

I have all the information I need without a list of number that don't matter. Because of this, I can add an ability score to an NPC or monster simply by listing his non-average stat.

Orc leader - 2 HD, 12 HP, AC 5, +1 Str, +2 Cha

By just adding a "+1 Str, +2 Cha" to his normal monster stat line, I can give the monster some added variety and, because everything not listed is considered to be average, I know know enough about this character that I could use him as an NPC or even a PC should events go in that direction. This blurs the line between monster, NPC and PC which is something I always like to do.


2- OK, once we've turned the list of ability scores into a smaller list of bonuses, the original set of six scores isn't fixed anymore. So you aren't limited to just the six, and, since each character will have just a handful of abilities, there's no need to even restrict the number available. Different races could have their own lists; elves have an ability called Luck, dwarves have Grudge, etc. The same is true if your games aren't fantasy. You might have a set for a sci-fi game, combining Str and Con into one ability while adding a Tech-type ability. Your musketeer game could have a Wit ability for clever insults. etc.

Since you don't have a consistent list for everyone anyway, all these characters can play together at the same table. Your fantasy characters, sci-fi characters, and Tekumel character (with psionic magic) can all interact without any stat conversion. Just pick whatever ability makes sense for each roll (or nothing if none do). 


That's why I prefer Base-Zero ability scores.

[Note: If you like d20 rolls under the old 3d6 ability scores, using 2d6+Mod with a target number of 7 produces almost the exact same probabilities as the d20 roll. Assuming B/X +3 to -3 modifiers]

I've been thinking this over off an on for a few months and I think I'm going to run a test-drive mini-campaign using your ideas. Only listing the abilities outside the base of 0 reduces clutter in the write ups.  I'm digging the freedom to modify abilities to make each PC, NPC, or monster unique.  This same freedom also allows for much easier cross genre play and mashup games - great job! I'm up early so I might not be having the greatest clarity of thought right now but do you roll the checks on D20 or 2d6 in your game?

Have an Exalt for a great idea!

[hedgehobbit]

May 10, 2015 6:36:33 GMT -5 The Semi-Retired Gamer said:

I'm up early so I might not be having the greatest clarity of thought right now but do you roll the checks on D20 or 2d6 in your game?

My ideas always sound the best when you've had too little sleep (or too much alcohol). I don't really do that many ability checks when running my game. Usually I'll do skill checks using my to-hit table (from the other thread) instead. When doing a raw ability check I'll pick a die (usually a d6) and the PC will roll+ability. I have a habit (good or bad depending) where I just interpret the roll rather than tell the player the target number. So a 5 or 6 will be something good, a 1 or 2 will be bad, and in between will be something in between. I'll give the player one chance to explain why his 4 should be a success based on some piece of equipment, some training or experience from a previous adventure, or some particularly good idea.


So, high numbers good, low numbers bad, middle number bad unless you can convince me otherwise. Not very scientific, I know.

[The Semi-Retired Gamer]

May 11, 2015 13:45:51 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

May 10, 2015 6:36:33 GMT -5 The Semi-Retired Gamer said:

I'm up early so I might not be having the greatest clarity of thought right now but do you roll the checks on D20 or 2d6 in your game?

My ideas always sound the best when you've had too little sleep (or too much alcohol). I don't really do that many ability checks when running my game. Usually I'll do skill checks using my to-hit table (from the other thread) instead. When doing a raw ability check I'll pick a die (usually a d6) and the PC will roll+ability. I have a habit (good or bad depending) where I just interpret the roll rather than tell the player the target number. So a 5 or 6 will be something good, a 1 or 2 will be bad, and in between will be something in between. I'll give the player one chance to explain why his 4 should be a success based on some piece of equipment, some training or experience from a previous adventure, or some particularly good idea.


So, high numbers good, low numbers bad, middle number bad unless you can convince me otherwise. Not very scientific, I know.

LOL...fair enough.   That may not be very scientific but it makes sense to me.  I'm going to start doing it this way.