[House Rules] Normalising ability scores and ability checks in D&D

Reading OSR blogs and various rule sets has got me thinking about different elements to the D&D game that I’d be tempted to fiddle with… One being abilities and their scores…

The Problem…

For a start, I don’t think the Holmes Blue Book rules for the first time I’ve not seen any mention of ability checks. To be honest I’m not sure if much is mentioned about them in AD&D e1 rules either (unless Gary mentions it somewhere in the ‘stream of consciousness’ or ramblings that is the DMG?) But it seems to me that a 3 to 18 range is a little too big for a standard 1d20 roll, as a character with a very high stat might potentially have a 80-90% chance of success in any given task associated with that ability… Seems a bit much for a 1^st level character. Which begs the question; who invented the ability check? Is it somewhere in OD&D? Or was this something that just grew out of the collective consciousness of gamers, like suck constructs as the Anti-Paladin?

Okay, high stats should be rare, you say, therefore stats of 17-18 will be the exception… yet your leader Gary mentions that it is “essential” that a character should have at least two stats of 15+ (e1 PH p. 9). (Strange that this is essential, Gary, yet you don’t give us a means of achieving this essential minimum, but I digress) So, if played in the manner that its inventor imagines it, then high stats are a distinct possibility. I’d also argue that a high stat game is the way many if not the majority of gamers play D&D. Indeed, the rules via ability mods, encourage it!

Another problem is a 1d20 roll vs. a 3-18 stat is hard to adjust for difficulty when the target number range is so wide. Let’s say a DM says it has a difficulty of -5 (sounds reasonable)… That would literally give a lot of characters very little (if any) chance of success, while easy tasks could be made almost meaninglessly easy against a high stat… I prefer rules that give players a chance without encouraging fudging.

In fairness D&D isn’t alone in having this problem. It’s very hard to add a difficulty mod to RuneQuest’s skill system for instance, especially when very high and very low skills might exist side by side. One solution is Rob fisher’s 3d6 check, modified to 4d6 or 2d6 or whatever for difficulty. While I like this I don’t think it entirely removes the problem as most ability checks are still going to the complicated by the high/low stat phenomenon.

Actually, there’s an ability check variant to BRP/RQ systems that I like. Stats in RQ (like D&D and seemingly every first generation RPG) tend to be on the 3-18 range, but RQ favours a 1d100 mechanic, so a standard difficulty ability check can be rolled against on a d100 as; stat x5 = %, giving the same chance of success/failure as a d20 roll in D&D. However, instead of multiplying the stat by 5, different multipliers can be used to represent different difficulties. X3 for difficult, x 6 or more for easy. This system could easily be adopted for D&D, although I’d argue that D&D isn’t a % system and doesn’t fit with its aesthetic very well. Also, lots of multiplying is a bit too mathsie for me, but maybe it could be considered…

However, I think the problem lies in the 3-18 range, which is just too big to be manageable and needs normalizing. After all, what would a Str of 3 really mean? Is it in the normal adult range of Str? If not then how strong is a 12 year old? Str; 1? Str: 2? If an adult male has a realistic chance of having a Str of 3 then it hardly makes sense that a 12 year old has a realistic chance of being significantly stronger? Same applies for Int, Con or anything else.

I realise that many players will be wedded to the 3-18 range, but frankly, I’m not. I think I prefer a more medium range of ability scores, especially for stating characters. I also think this allows room for increasing ability scores with levels (a la Tunnels & Trolls) which I think most players would appreciate. It seems strange to me that ability scores should be set in stone forever, while other numerical facets of a PC evolve over time. I see no intrinsic justification for this other than arbitrary ones. However a starting 3-18 range makes ability bonuses hard to manage without introducing power-gaming.

My solution…

So, how about this as an alternative character generation system:

Roll 2d6+3 for each ability (either in order or allow the player to allocate or some other system of the DM’s invention)? That gives us a nice 5-15 range, with an average score of 10 (compared to 3-18 with 10.5 average). This allows us to keep the 1d20 ability check (or use Rob fisher’s alternative), it gives us room to grow, yet removes the lower end of “unplayable ”scores. I’d argue that scores as low as 3-4 should really belong to children, the elderly and the severely disabled and not to the adventuring classes.

I think if this 2d6+3 system is to be used it would really only work with either White Box or B/X ability mods, as typical AD&D e1/e2 modifiers would be harder to fit in this system. I think I’m leaning towards the White Box system, as I think I’d want to make ability checks a big part of my game, thus high scores would be ample reward in themselves without giving  further  stat bonuses…

I’d also allow a +1 ability increase per level after first. I’d still cap stats at 18 (or maybe a max increase of +3 per ability) and maybe limit ability bonuses to one +1 increase ever 3 to 5 levels after name level or stop it altogether at that point. I might restrict demi-humans to lower than name level if I wasn’t playing level limits as a means of game balance too.

I like this system as it gives a standard (unmodified) d20 ability check a very reasonable 25-75% chance of success on a d20 roll (I’m not sure what the probability curse would be on Fisher’s 2d6/3d6/4d6 system, but I’m sure it would fit just as well), which seems to me to be a much more likely and playable, instead of a 15-90% range of success, which just seems too big.

It could be argued that ability bonuses per level is a little gross and would undo this medium range; however I’d argue that with the lower ability mods of White Box that this would disincentivize grosser ability-pumping. Even the standard B/X ability mod system could be restrained by ruling that an one stat can only be increased every other level or by ruling that after a stat reaches 15 it takes two ‘pips’ to raise it by one, instead of one…  I’m sure there’s many other ways to stop the players breaking it.

Either way, I’m not opposed to PCs or NPCs having very high stats, indeed I think they should. I think incredibly strong, smart or agile characters are the stuff that epic fantasy is made of and this minor revision still allows starting characters a reasonable chance of a decent-excellent stats or two, while also allowing them to develop overtime into truly heroic figures. It further limits the impact of bad rolls during character generation, by allowing a player the chance to boost their stats over time.

Also it stops stats being anomalously static things. After all, almost every other number on your character sheet will improve over time, so why should ability scores be exempt. Ask yourself, if poison resistance can improve over time, why can’t a person’s strength also improve? If you don’t assume Gygax’s rules are written in stone then there’s really no logical reason, no meta/game balance reason and no good fuckin’ reason for it. However, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Am I seriously barking up the wrong tree here?

To summarize, that’s 2d6+3:

• Bonuses as S&W or S&WWB (undecided – depending on campaign/players)
• +1 bonus to a stat of players choice per level to a max of 18 (options: up to +3 in any one stat or stop/limit ability bonuses after name level)

So, 5-15 range is better for standard d20 ability rolls and I like stat improvement with levels

Note: apologies if someone else has come up with this system and I’m repeating it. If so then it’s an unintentional rip-off.

But…

Advertisement