The Boringness of D&D's Ability Scores

With the release of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, the game's ability scores have become almost entirely vestigial. That is, more and more they serve minimal function in meaningfully differentiating characters. A number of factors have contributed to this. Almost all of them stem from a shift in ability scores' purpose in the game, from descriptive to prescriptive.

In the latest edition of the game, Fifth Edition, the shrinking of level-based bonuses (representing training and experience), to achieve the game's intended "bounded accuracy," made ability scores perhaps more important than ever before. In a game where a +1 bonus can be very important, where a fighter's attack bonus barely increases relative to previous editions (an average of +5 at level 1 to +11 to +14 at level 20, compared to D&D 3.5 where from levels 1 to 20 it often spanned between +4 and +35 or more).

As a result, ability scores matter more than ever in 5e. Yet they also matter less. The proliferation of ways to increase ability scores, as well as their cap at 20, means that there is little differentiation between high level characters. Nearly every rogue ends up with a 20 Dexterity, even with feats as a tempting alternative to ability score increases.  

Yet ability score increases are not solely to blame. Point buys and standard arrays further aggravate this condition. Evidence of this can be seen on character optimization forums where some scores are left at 8 so that others can be pumped to 15 (and more severely in Pathfinder, where scores drop as low as 7 so that their favored ability can reach 18). And due to the nature of classes and their dependence on one or more scores, this is the optimal solution. "Standard arrays" also exist as a quick way to make NPCs and even player characters. They drag ability scores further toward meaninglessness. 

The classic method of character generation, rolling, is still commonplace and in fact forms the underlying framework of the entire ability scores rules structure (else it is likely that only the modifier would exist, not the score. Other d20 games, such as True20, that do not have rolled abilities, choose to implement this). But the cap at level 20 and abundance of ability score increases is still at work here. 

This results in characters who begin their careers exceptionally talented but watch their peers quickly catch up. Between racial modifiers and a +2 every four levels, there will be little difference between Grog who started with an 18 strength and Brog who started with a 14. Both now have a 20. (Grog will likely have an extra feat, however, possibly one entirely irrelevant to his Strength). 

In fact, almost every character in 5e ends up with a 20 in at least one score. Ability scores are simply another advancement mechanic, having no purpose in differentiating characters or giving them uniqueness. Ability scores could be replaced simply by rebalancing the numerical structure of the game. Few fighters do not have Strength or Dexterity as their top score. With point buy or standard array available (and the only option in "organized" play such as Adventurer's League), all but identical characters will result. They become standardized, standard-issue heroes. 

The root cause of this is that high ability scores are now a requirement, not a benefit. In the interest of preventing envy of he who rolled the 18, or perhaps to homogenize and predictify the game, ability scores now follow an all-but-set path. High scores are not a lucky boon; they are the price of entry. Without a good strength score, a fighter falls behind his "expected" hitting power. Without a good Dexterity, a rogue is all but useless. Perhaps this makes sense, but the entitlement created by the standard array, the expectation to have at least a 15 and 14 to your two highest scores, makes any character who doesn't measure up a disappointment, and a prime candidate for rerolling (eventually defeating the purpose of rolling in the first place, or simply bloating the average character stat level).

The old method of character generation seems like an exercise in masochism to modern players. Rolling 3d6 for each stat, in order, gave you an average, flawed character. But it was also yours, and the game did not require you to have a 15 in your class main stat to function effectively (that came later, with AD&D). This allowed you to have a unique character, your own set of scores out of 16,777,216 possibilities. To be fair, many of the resulting scores were unplayable, and far more would be considered so by today's standards. But that is a matter of perspective. An 18 would, statistically-speaking, represent 1 out of every 216 people in the world. A 20, outside the realm of normal possibly, would represent even fewer. Is it really necessary for every hero to be the strongest, fastest, and so on? If so, what of those heroes who truly are special? 

Basic D&D's expectations were balanced around the 3d6 ability score. Characters weren't expected to be gods of war and masters of the arcane at level 1. They were expected to die quite often, the range of hit points and damage was much smaller, and ability scores modified far fewer aspects of a character, thus mattering less overall. In fact, one might eventually get the feeling that basic D&D doesn't need ability scores at all. Class-based saving throws, a rough equivalency between attack die and damage die, and Armor class that mostly depends on armor, leave little purpose for ability scores beyond extra credit. Some people are just a little more talented, and that gives them an edge: but doesn't guarantee survival. Contrast that with newer editions' endless ranks of copy-pasted standard-arrayed wizards with a 16 Intelligence that invariably ends up at 20, and one begins to question why ability scores stay in the game at all.