I'm new to DnD, having just started 5.0 last month. So I apologize if I this is a dumb question

OP isn't asking about the "why" of ability scores, but the "why" of having them as scores instead of going to straight to the modifiers.

I guess that they could've thought it better, since they're old stuff as the other anons said, but as of now you could say they're (somewhat) used to slow and balance stat advancement.

Because they have a different name?

I know that in Pathfinder and 3.5, the Ability Scores have a reason for being around, and that's because 10 was average and 0 was dead. If any of your scores got to 0, you die. I imagine it's the same for 5th. That way, abilities getting lowered not only means you are getting worse at X, but you may also die if it gets too low.

I'm not as familiar with 5.0 but in earlier editions it was usually the case that the odd-numbered ability scores qualified you for feats whereas even-numbered scores increased your modifiers. that way you alternated between 'get new stuff' and 'get better at stuff' as you went up in that ability. but it's an abstraction regardless; if you want to think of 11 STR as +0.5STR then nothings really stopping you.

I think in Mutants and Masterminds, superhero dnd, they actually do that. Make the modifier the actual stat.

So they can give half-increments for calibration. Look at some of the feats, they give +1 to the ability score, but are less effective than a feat that does not.

(me)
Oh and obviously races often come loaded with +2/+1 in 5E, and humans come with +1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1.

Because there are attacks that target them, effectively making them a form of HP. Poisons and diseases can reduce them in small or large numbers and may reduce the score to where you have a negative modifier or reach a point where the score is negated entirely rendering the person dead, helpless, or comatose.

It's just easier to render this with a more granular system using positive numbers. It also looks better.

A vampire's attack doesn't just target HP, but also targets Constitution, which has an effect on Fortitude saves, can kill you if reduced to zero, and makes it harder to fight off killing blows from HP damage.

The only reason why they do this is because they don't have any attacks that damage attributes.

Okay, so just change it you die when you hit -5 mod and you still wouldn't need to fiddle around with it.

That'd still make all score damaging effects twice as effective.

I assume you'd design them with that in mind.

Not that damaging ability scores isn't a shit design but w/e.

But you don't die when you hit -5. An ability score of 1 gives a -5.

And then people would say "Why is the number -5 significant? Why do you die when you get below that? What an arbitrary number." 0 is a nice number to use. 0 gives a base line.

But, people are going to complain regardless of what is done.

>hurf durf im retarded
50 damage to something with 500HP is identical to 10 damage to something with 100HP. Obviously things would be rebalanced.

But what if something does just 1 damage? is it now 0.2? sure it can be rebalanced but who wants to deal with decimals, especially in a game where most of the math is done mentally.

Obviously you have everything scaled appropriately, dumbfuck.

It deals d5-4.

While you raise a good point, I think ability scores are more intuitive, in particular when you are comparing things in a way that is not strictly mechanical (this guy is stronger than that guy).
Take a look at True20, a d20 variant that did away with scores and went with straight modifiers. While the game has its merits, I find that having creatures with a negative Strength or Intelligence or whatever is inelegant.

>Obviously you have everything scaled appropriately
Without going into fractional numbers you cannot scale below 1 you fuck.
Whatever does 1 now has to either do fractional (gross) or become twice as strong when you change the scale to be half the size.

Exactly.
And if ASIs were 2 points without ability scores you'd still be progressing faster so he's not wrong

>if it deals a variable amount (say d4), the die size is halved to the nearest common die size.
>if it deals a fixed amount, that amount is halved.
>if it would deal 1 damage, and does not provide a save, you may make a save to avoid the damage.
>if it would deal 1 damage, and allows a save, you make that save with (a bonus/advantage).
That was hard.

>The only reason why they do this is because they don't have any attacks that damage attributes.
But that's factually wrong. Weaken.

>decimals

you round up

Because back in the earliest editions of the game there was a chart like this for every ability and scores were determined by rolling 3d6 (by the rules anyway, many groups had any number of variant rolling schemes but 4d6 drop lowest was the most common of these) and generally once you rolled a score it stayed that value forever, no increases (unless you found an extremely rare magic item or maybe a wish). Many magic items didn't actually increase your ability scores but set them at a fixed higher value. Even at level 20 most players were still within the 3-18 range.

When 3e came along they decided to get rid of all the individual charts and replace it with the modifier system you see today (plus charts for casters) and added in a system whereby players could increase those scores over time, because people love numbers going up. Everyone got a stat increase every four levels. It still made sense to use the 3-18 range though because people were still largely rolling for stats at character generation, though point-buy schemes were beginning to gain prominence. Also, because odd-numbered ability scores were now useless many mechanics that modified ability scores such as racial bonuses and penalties, were doubled. Additionally, magic items that used to set stats at a value now often had those values eclipsed by players rising in level so they turned into just +stat gear. As you might expect this caused scores to inflate a lot. By level 20 it wasn't uncommon for players to have stats of 30 or more.

4e was a nearly complete overhaul of D&D's basic mechanical chassis but one thing they did keep was the basic ability score modifier thing from 3e because by then it had become a sacred cow and phrases like "18 CHA" had gained some kind of measurable social capital that they didn't want to lose.

Then 5e came out and tried to cut down on the stat increases but kept the ability modifier system and you have the clusterfuck that is 5e today.

>many groups had any number of variant rolling schemes but 4d6 drop lowest was the most common of these
Probably because it was AD&D 1e's default.

youtube.com/watch?v=Uj0KwNfLUds

I wouldn't know. I started with AD&D 2e but the default in that was definitely 3d6 in order. There are a number of "alternative" methods listed in the book of which 4d6 drop lowest is one but not even the first (it's 5 out of 6).

Gurps an over-complicated shit for autisits. I'm glad you're enjoying it.

Tradition based on older methods where these values mattered more. We have a couple things which would need to be altered if we swapped over to bonus-only stats, but it's possible.

Similarly, we could make ability scores more relevant by giving more things stat-based qualifiers using the odd numbers, allowing for more half-bonuses (example: the damage*1.5 mod for 3.5 D&D when using a STR weapon two-handed) and considering the bonuses from ability scores to round up instead of down, so characters with specific specializations (to continue the example, 2H fighters) can make a lower stat investment and distribute the spare that last, often expensive point's value somewhere else when spending his pointbuy.

>we could make ability scores more relevant

But why would we ever do that? Changing things like that would be weird and hard to learn, and why even bother? Better to play it safe and keep a system that everyone already knows.

I had to think about that for a minute before I realized you were being cheeky.

I was really hoping that 5e would bring back actual attribute rolls for things, like the old nonweapon proficiency system. 5e's attribute tests seem downright awkward by comparison, especially since their skill point replacement has less of an effect on the roll than the stat itself at most levels.

But in GURPS every point in an ability matters. Going from a 12 to a 13 is actually fucking awesome, because it directly increases your chances of success

GURPS is simpler to understand for people new to RPGs than D&D is in my experience

It's a legacy issue. People went ballistic at 4e for altering skills, can you imagine if D&D dumped ability scores?

It's funny cause 5e kept the 4e skill system (except slightly worse).

Hilariously, people went apeshit over 3e ADDING them.

People just don't like change.

It fucks with min-maxxers pretty badly till they get to know the system, so until they do and calm down, they throw a hissy fit.

I've found that min max types actually seem the least bothered by change. Change is a new toy for them to play with. It's the assblasted "muh verisimilitude" faggots who get their panties in the tightest twist. However things were being done is clearly the best because they have fun with it and so this new thing is scary and unpredictable.

I think they are better than skills in D&D, necessary in a game like RuneQuest where they are immutable, and most systems shoehorn them in unnecessarily (like FFG Star Wars).

If I rewrote D&D I would make them a series of more generic skills based on what is used most: attack, damage, toughness, initiative, awareness, deduction, concentration, charisma, etc and use it like 3.5 skills but without the retarded skill points/class + INT garbage.

Thats fair, i suppose. Considering a fair portion of people in the hobby aren't very good with things outside their comfort zone to start with, its not unreasonable either.

So you're making a change just for the sake of change instead of any real improvements?

And calling other anons slow?
Teachers need to assign more homework over the weekends.

I've always thought the same thing.

It doesn't help that it's the most confusing thing to teach a new player.

I think it's a necessary vestigial part of the system at this point.

Though you could just balance around any change you wanted. But then again this is why tg has mostly left dnd behind and not every thread is a 3.5e story thread like back in the day.

As something of an optimizer myself, I don't mind change if it makes things balanced or interesting.

I just hate changes making things into non choices. Like feats that are always the best choice forever.

Or retarded feats that are only useful as pre-requisites, but you need to take them on basis of that.

Like point blank shot.

Yeah, these are boring and the pay off is rare because most games don't last that long.

I'd much rather play fucking Risus than a Campaign of DnD.

Lasers & Feelings is the only good RPG

>You do get them every 4 levels. Either an Ability Score Increase or a feat. Fighters get them every 2 levels after 4th level
That's not really a great way to describe it. ASIs are earned based on class level, just like any class feature. Most classes get five (at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level); the rogue gets six, and the fighter gets seven, each with slightly different spacing.

The traditional way to generate ability scores is by some variation on rolling 3d6 (generally roll 4d6, drop the lowest). There's not really a way to roll dice for pure modifiers without it being too swingy.

In general, it allows for a bit more granularity: the easiest example of this is in racial bonuses. For a half-elf paladin, I put 15 in Strength and 14 in Charisma, so I could start with 16 in both.

The game could certainly be remade in a way that doesn't use ability scores (that's what they did in Mutants and Masterminds), but as its currently, built, they do serve their purposes.

Legacy reasons. They really should just be the direct modifiers, but having 10 as the +0 stat and all the other garbage is a sacred cow that they refuse to kill (Even if it's a pointless extra step)