Missing Ability Scores

[arkanis]

Missing Constitution Scores
I never really saw any reason to eliminate a creature's constitution score simply because they are undead or a construct.

They gain all the immunities of a creature without a metabolism, but why not retain the toughness associated with a creature of appropriate size or durability?

Seriously, why not just let undead retain their con score, don't change the hit die and let the rest be? After all, a creature that was tough in life is likely to be just as tough in death, although now the vital organs are useless and a construct built to be powerful would remain powerful for its level without a dwindling HP as they grew in HD.

I figure becoming undead or a construct would actually make a creature tougher and add a Con bonus instead of a lack of.

Missing Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma
Intelligence is a creature's ability to reason and remember. So why do robots, who tend to have great processing power and perfect memories much better than humanoid memory, lack Intelligence scores? Doesn't seem to make much sense. Just because the robot is not sentient doesn't mean it lacks intelligence, it just means that its intelligence is artificial (thus artificial intelligence). Also, I don't see why vermin lack an Intelligence score, even the dumbest of animals has some basic processing power. Same argument for Wisdom.

I've never seen anything lack a Charisma score, not even zombies. Which is wierd.

[Mee]

Con: the zombie's heart stops, (right?) robots have no living part, so no con for them, same for a construct.
Int: .... I'm at a loss for.

[arkanis]

Ah but robots do have functioning parts and wires and components which make them tick. There are vital spots which can be damaged to a machine.

Not so much for a golem which function purely by magic, but a golem is still made up of materials which function together to produce effects. There is no sense completely changing a rule used for determining toughness when you can just give the creature an immunity to effects which require organs and metabolism and leave it be from there.

[Lappy9000]

I've never seen anything lack a Charisma score, not even zombies. Which is wierd.


I don't know much the other stuff (lack of Con, Int, etc.) but a creature with zero charisma wouldn't even know that it was a being unique to itself. A creature (construct, whatever) with any charisma has a sense of self, even if that sense isn't very powerful.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

There aren't many robots in the world of D&D I think, golems and constructs in the D&D sense don't have real brains, they have the vestiges of elemental spirits in big solid cases(or other thing not associated with a mind), but there are tons of intelligent constructs(warforged anyone?).
I've also seen things that were robots, such as the tachikoma unit from ghost in the shell, and it had an Int somewhere in the high 10's I believe.

[Vaynor]

Constructs are just certain materials animated by magic. No technical gizmo of any kind is involved. Creatures without brains or free thought cannot be intelligent. A construct gets bonus HP based on size, so durability based on construction is a factor. When creating a monster you could just say it's made particularly strong and give it bonus HP or something.

[boomwolf]

Constitution:
The creature has no vital part, no metabolisem or any of that sort, he is jest a lump of maritial (dead bodies, rocks, metals.) that move by force of magic, therefor they cant "get stronger" or anything, they are bound to what they are.

Intelligence:
The creature lacks the ability to THINK, not memory. it can remember, but cannot understand. machines and undead have it because they only do a certain function they are told to, they cannot think of a better thing to do, nor can they consider the consequent of their action, they simply move as instructed. some undead and machines have this ability, and therefor have intelligence. (warforged, I think lichs. stuff like that.)

Wisdom:
The creature cant understand his surrounding nor can remember. he only function of instinct, such as a flower following light. he does not understand the meaning of it, but he does it.

Charisma:
The creature cannot understand the meaning of "self", he cannot understand that a mirror show his reflection, he cannot understand that his hand moved becuase he made it move. he sees no diffrance between him and another of his kind.

[arkanis]

CONSTITUTION
But it’s a useless rule though. Yes you can add bonus HP at your leisure and say it's "tougher" but why go through all the trouble of changing HD, eliminating a score, adding a new set up for a save, changing a skill, and whatnot? Why not just take the rules as is and slap a list of immunities on it for having no organs? That's what they did for warforged (which is somewhat hypocritical as far as abiding by ones own rules).

Even a piece of wood has a constitution. It is constituted of material of certain density and thickness and durability and resilience. Certainly we can be reasonable and say there is no reason to add a rule where the standard rules would've worked just as well. It seems as if people have confused the word “Constitution” with “Health” or “Lifeforce” or even “Metabolism” which is not the case:

CONSTITUTION
–noun
1. the way in which a thing is composed or made up; makeup; composition: the chemical constitution of the cleanser.
2. the physical character of the body as to strength, health, etc.: He has a strong constitution.
3. Medicine/Medical, Psychology. the aggregate of a person's physical and psychological characteristics.
4. the act or process of constituting; establishment.
5. the state of being constituted; formation.
6. any established arrangement or custom.
7. (initial capital letter) Constitution of the United States.
8. the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed.
9. the document embodying these principles.
10. Archaic. character or condition of mind; disposition; temperament.

Merely because a creature has no organs doesn't mean it isn't solid and doesn't have varying toughness. I see no reason to define it that way since doing such just adds in more rules to an already complicated system. Why not just leave it be like Knights of the Old Republic did with their machines?

The question here isn’t “why” it’s “why not”.

INTELLIGENCE
"Thinking" is exactly what modern computers do. They compute data and come to logical conclusions, solve problems, store data with perfect accuracy, and even make decisions. What they can't do is "desire" or "wonder" beyond these algorithms. These things are marks of sentience. If it can process anything at all, logically, it should have an Intelligence score.

WISDOM & CHARISMA
Same. Plus, don't 3.5 rules determine plants to be objects lacking any score at all because they aren't creatures? By your reasoning plants should have a wisdom score, yet they don't. Only creatures have that. That's somewhat contradictory to itself.

[Fiery Diamond]

I think part of the problem is that WOTC redefined some of the words when applying them to the system.

1) Truly, I agree with you about the Constitution business - I fail to see their reasoning.
2) However, they redefined Intelligence to suit the game. You correctly said the following:

Intelligence is a creature's ability to reason and remember.
Also, I don't see why vermin lack an Intelligence score, even the dumbest of animals has some basic processing power.

Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of Intelligence that WOTC is using with respect to missing ability scores. They aren't talking about processing power, they are talking about capacity for individual thought (i.e. not reliant on an "outside source", such as control by another person, magically granted and not inherent, or specific programming ). For their purposes, reasoning and processing power are a non-issue for determining whether it has intelligence - a creature with Intelligence has those, but a creature with those doesn't necessarily have Intelligence.

3) On the issue of wisdom, I'm gonna have to agree with what boomwolf said. Your response to boomwolf's post indicates you didn't really pay attention: each of the discriptions were what a creature [I]without those ability scores would be like. Boomwolf's reasoning would indicate that plants would not have wisdom.

Wisdom:
The creature cant understand his surrounding nor can remember. he only function of instinct, such as a flower following light. he does not understand the meaning of it, but he does it.
Surely you don't think that plants operate on anything more than "instinct," a sort of natural programming. They don't even have brains!

4) Charisma: pretty much what boomwolf said. Zombies have a Charisma of 1- because they are barely aware of their own existence - they recognize a command ("attack that human") and can move their own bodies to obey that command. At least, that's what I think WOTC's reasoning for giving them Charisma is.

Did that answer your questions?

-Fiery Diamond

[arkanis]

1) Okay we're agreed on Con, that I'm glad for.
2) But even then, if they're using their own definition of intelligence as the capacity to function without an "outside source" as you say, then there are still arguments for creatures that mentally operate to have it. Even if they can only BARELY operate with an Int of 1, much like a zombie is only BARELY aware of its existence with a Cha of 1. See the logic there? The only things that would lack Intelligence are automotons that CAN'T think or remember or process information of any sort aside from being directly puppeteered by another force. However, as we can see with vermin, they CAN act on their own, implying at least some kind of Intelligence, even if only at the utterly most finite of it, it would still exist. This agrees with your reasoning for zombies to have Charisma. If they are capable of performing something based on the score, no matter how poorly, they should retain the score. That is pretty much your argument yes?
3) I was arguing that plants WOULDN'T have wisdom. Boomwolf's argument implied they would by his wording. Perhaps that's not how it was meant, but that's how it appeared so I responded accordingly. I agree with you that it is a ridiculous notion to grant wisdom to anything that cannot percieve anything else.
4) I wasn't arguing that they SHOULDN'T have Charisma, only that like Intelligence its function should be considered before using it or losing it. See #2.

[magic_unlocked]

In the D&D universe, constitution reflects physical, living vitality. Intelligence represents sentient thought, wisdom perception of its surroundings and charisma is the same. I've never been too familiar with the meanings for cha and wis.

To reflect that constructs have sturdiness, they get bonus HP based on size as well as DR based on their materials. So, a large construct made of iron should have +30 HP [i think] and Hardness 10. Since it is essentially, an animated object, it follows the rules of energy damage vs objects, i think.

Undead, however, should have some boosting. You could give them a Negatice Energy rating. Like, give them +X% HP at each level or something so that they get extra HP. I just say that they should get HP = 1d12 + 1d20 to reflect that the negative energy they are bound to can be random in boosting their resilience.

Or you could simply give them DR 5/-- on top of the DR they already have (if any).

[Peregrine]

First, a few clarifications on the rules, and what the names of ability scores mean within those rules. (If you find yourself saying, "But that's not what that word means!", then you're arguing over labels rather than rules. :smallsmile:)

Constitution represents a living creature's vitality and metabolism. Creatures that are not alive in a biological sense (either they lack a body, or their bodies are animated masses of unliving material) do not have a Constitution.

Intelligence represents a creature's ability to think, reason and learn, in qualitative, logical terms. Creatures without an Intelligence score act only as 'programmed', whether by natural instinct, or by literal programming or outside direction.

Wisdom represents a creature's perception of things around it, things other than itself. Something without Wisdom cannot perceive anything in any meaningful way; a flower might turn to the sunlight, but it has no more 'idea' that it's doing so than it knows that the wind is pushing it.

Charisma represents a creature's sense of self as a distinct entity, and in a sense, its 'confidence', or recognition of the fact that, being distinct, it can affect its environment. A thing without Charisma does not know that it is. It does not realise that it can do anything.

Every creature in the game has both Wisdom and Charisma. If something lacks one of these, it lacks both, and it is an object, not a creature. Every creature has at least some notion of 'self' and 'not-self', Charisma and Wisdom. To put it another way, a creature (as a game term) is a thing with Wisdom and Charisma. Otherwise, it would be unable to interact with its environment, because there would be no sense in which it 'knew' or perceived what its environment was. And in D&D, a creature is fundamentally a thing that can take actions.

That's the rules as written, with perhaps a pinch of editorialising by me. :smalltongue: Now onto my opinion on the question.

As I hinted at the start, I think this all comes down to words. Several people posting have argued that several creatures should have a Constitution, based on what "constitution" means in the dictionary. But this is just a matter of labels. The dictionary meaning of "constitution" translates in game terms into hit points, and everything in the game (creature and object) has hit points.

If it bothers you that unliving creatures lack a constitution, then rename Constitution to something that bothers you less, like Metabolism or Health or something. (Beware, though; you probably won't find a perfect match for the game concept, at least not without reusing words that mean something else in-game, like Toughness.)

I likewise agree with the game's use (or disuse) of Intelligence and the other mental ability scores. I agree they're not perfect, but they make enough sense to me that I'm happy with them, and I don't think I could come up with a better system. Of all of them, I can see the strongest argument being for things like flowers, that can react to their environment (with something more significant than falling over when pushed), having Wisdom. But probably not.

[magic_unlocked]

First, a few clarifications on the rules, and what the names of ability scores mean within those rules. (If you find yourself saying, "But that's not what that word means!", then you're arguing over labels rather than rules. :smallsmile:)

Constitution represents a living creature's vitality and metabolism. Creatures that are not alive in a biological sense (either they lack a body, or their bodies are animated masses of unliving material) do not have a Constitution.

Intelligence represents a creature's ability to think, reason and learn, in qualitative, logical terms. Creatures without an Intelligence score act only as 'programmed', whether by natural instinct, or by literal programming or outside direction.

Wisdom represents a creature's perception of things around it, things other than itself. Something without Wisdom cannot perceive anything in any meaningful way; a flower might turn to the sunlight, but it has no more 'idea' that it's doing so than it knows that the wind is pushing it.

Charisma represents a creature's sense of self as a distinct entity, and in a sense, its 'confidence', or recognition of the fact that, being distinct, it can affect its environment. A thing without Charisma does not know that it is. It does not realise that it can do anything.

Every creature in the game has both Wisdom and Charisma. If something lacks one of these, it lacks both, and it is an object, not a creature. Every creature has at least some notion of 'self' and 'not-self', Charisma and Wisdom. To put it another way, a creature (as a game term) is a thing with Wisdom and Charisma. Otherwise, it would be unable to interact with its environment, because there would be no sense in which it 'knew' or perceived what its environment was. And in D&D, a creature is fundamentally a thing that can take actions.

That's the rules as written, with perhaps a pinch of editorialising by me. :smalltongue: Now onto my opinion on the question.

As I hinted at the start, I think this all comes down to words. Several people posting have argued that several creatures should have a Constitution, based on what "constitution" means in the dictionary. But this is just a matter of labels. The dictionary meaning of "constitution" translates in game terms into hit points, and everything in the game (creature and object) has hit points.

If it bothers you that unliving creatures lack a constitution, then rename Constitution to something that bothers you less, like Metabolism or Health or something. (Beware, though; you probably won't find a perfect match for the game concept, at least not without reusing words that mean something else in-game, like Toughness.)

I likewise agree with the game's use (or disuse) of Intelligence and the other mental ability scores. I agree they're not perfect, but they make enough sense to me that I'm happy with them, and I don't think I could come up with a better system. Of all of them, I can see the strongest argument being for things like flowers, that can react to their environment (with something more significant than falling over when pushed), having Wisdom. But probably not.

A good enough explanation if there ever was one. You have my full support on this matter.

[Baron Corm]

You could make it so undead have Desecration (negative energy potency) instead of Constitution, and constructs have Durability (instead of a non-scaling size bonus). Neither of these things could be damaged by effects which damage Constitution, but there would be spells and stuff which did target them, and I think it makes sense to do this. WotC already gave undead a sort of Desecration with their Unholy Toughness ability; this could be a sign that in 4e they will have some form of Constitution.

Myself, I can see why an ant would have no Intelligence score, but a rat? I think that should go more on a case-by-case basis instead of applying it to a whole type.

Edit: Wow why did I think rats were vermin... so much wrongness. Still, case-by-case basis, yeah.

[Rigon]

Missing Constitution Scores
I never really saw any reason to eliminate a creature's constitution score simply because they are undead or a construct.

They gain all the immunities of a creature without a metabolism, but why not retain the toughness associated with a creature of appropriate size or durability?

Seriously, why not just let undead retain their con score, don't change the hit die and let the rest be? After all, a creature that was tough in life is likely to be just as tough in death, although now the vital organs are useless and a construct built to be powerful would remain powerful for its level without a dwindling HP as they grew in HD.

I figure becoming undead or a construct would actually make a creature tougher and add a Con bonus instead of a lack of.

Missing Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma
Intelligence is a creature's ability to reason and remember. So why do robots, who tend to have great processing power and perfect memories much better than humanoid memory, lack Intelligence scores? Doesn't seem to make much sense. Just because the robot is not sentient doesn't mean it lacks intelligence, it just means that its intelligence is artificial (thus artificial intelligence). Also, I don't see why vermin lack an Intelligence score, even the dumbest of animals has some basic processing power. Same argument for Wisdom.

I've never seen anything lack a Charisma score, not even zombies. Which is wierd.

constitution is toughness gained from your organs when they are working. undead are considered to have no working organs. as far as i can tell most of the "eat the living or at least drink their blood" is explained by the lack of vital functions. but i didn't read that part. this is your ALIVE-N-KICKIN'-POWER.

uhm the intelligence problem should be explained with the "lack of the ability of learning/problem solving". vermins and robots (in dnd terms) don't learn. they are basically hardwired automats (as for vermins/insects i believe they are hard wired automats in real life too). they might know something but they'll never learn anything. and when you make a construct which can learn (thus attain new skills) then you should give it an intelligence score. this your KNOWLEDGE-IS-POWER.

wisdom is ... harder to explain. creatures without wisdoms are creatures without a will. mental zombies. e~w. with a high wisdom you can ... reject things. "i do not believe this", "i don't wanna" (or simpy "DO NOT WANT"). strength of belief. people who are strongly tied to their belief will reject truth even if it's explained from the basics. wisdom equals WILL-POWER. scissor beats rock because you don't accept it otherwise.

charisma is the color of the soul. these colors are like: beautiful, scary, horrific, outstanding ... and so on. it can also be explained as EGO-POWER. if a vampire wants to persuade you into revealing your neck then he uses his ego-power saying "i want it to happen". in case of the PCs the vamp would need spell-like abilities to overcome the drastic saves but still it's just the use of ego-power. creatures without charisma have no ego-power. this might harden persuade attempts BUT it should also make disguise attempts more easy.

and if you master all six powers then you can be a power ranger!

[arkanis]

Hmm Peregrine makes a convincing argument, but my point wasn't on literal terms as much as this thread seems to have faltered that way.

CON
The whole point in this was actually questioning the notion that the rules added more complexity to the game when it wasn't necessary. Whether we rename Constitution or not didn't matter to me, what mattered is why add in new rules (such as the increased HD, loss of an ability score, altering of a save and a skill, etc.) when you could have left it alone and just added immunities? That was the fundamental basis of this thread.

INT
I wasn't arguing that things should or shouldn't have Wisdom and Charisma to begin with, I rather liked the way the game works with these but I mentioned them because I believe they are tied to Intelligence just as much to each other, meaning anything that operates with some mental processing power SHOULD have some Intelligence. Argue for it to be very small or big, the point was just that it should BE there. That was my actual case.

[magic_unlocked]

The reason why undead have a d12 HD is because objects have a d12 HD. They don't have hardness or bonus HP because they aren't made of a durable material.

[arkanis]

Since when did objects have HD? :smallconfused:

[magic_unlocked]

All objects have HP. Look up sunder rules, i think that has a better description of it. But as for constructs having HD, i think they did that for spells and the like that depend on HD and for BAB calculations, as well as for other calculations based on HD.

[Draco18s]

Every creature in the game has both Wisdom and Charisma. If something lacks one of these, it lacks both, and it is an object, not a creature. Every creature has at least some notion of 'self' and 'not-self', Charisma and Wisdom. To put it another way, a creature (as a game term) is a thing with Wisdom and Charisma. Otherwise, it would be unable to interact with its environment, because there would be no sense in which it 'knew' or perceived what its environment was. And in D&D, a creature is fundamentally a thing that can take actions.

I believe there is only a single creature in all of the printed material that has nothing BUT wisdom and charisma (and both of those almost 0). Don't remember what it was though.

[magic_unlocked]

Draco18s, you made a double post. And i would like to see that creature. I don't think it would be an object, or a moving thing for that matter. *ponders*

[Rigon]

Draco18s, you made a double post. And i would like to see that creature. I don't think it would be an object, or a moving thing for that matter. *ponders*

an ethereal monocell organism? the spirit of an insect larva? the automated intelligence of a wizard's tower?

EDIT: correction to my bad language.

[Draco18s]

Draco18s, you made a double post.

I had trouble connecting to the site at the time I made that. I had to "post" about 12 times before I didn't get a 404 from FireFox (nothing was loading, not even google). Appartment's Verizon service is...less than optimal.

As for the critter, I believe it was an undead. One of our players who enjoys perusing the monster manual to do demonic things found it (and by demonic, I mean do things like play a teifling rogue who isn't evil or chaotic, no, really. Best friends with me, the silver half dragon too--sigh, two half breeds stuck in this lousy "Largest Dungeon" with a bunch of purebreed hominids and a robot).

[magic_unlocked]

Ah. Ok, i guess that's alright. Still, i think yer able to delete the double post.

[Draco18s]

Hadn't even occured to me to try! I'm not used to having that ability on forums.

*Attempts, gets lovely 404, attempts to reply, gets 404, retries...*

[Maldraugedhen]

Intelligence represents, among other things, your ability to learn. Robots do not have an ability to learn--they must be specifically instructed what to do in a given situation (same as comps--even generalized rules follow this). Therefore, they should not have an intelligence score.

[Peregrine]

CON
The whole point in this was actually questioning the notion that the rules added more complexity to the game when it wasn't necessary. Whether we rename Constitution or not didn't matter to me, what mattered is why add in new rules (such as the increased HD, loss of an ability score, altering of a save and a skill, etc.) when you could have left it alone and just added immunities? That was the fundamental basis of this thread.

In contrast, I think having no Constitution is easier. Having no Constitution leads to a generally applicable set of immunities that are reasonably intuitive: you're immune to anything that offers a Fort save and can't target objects, or in other words, no Constitution = treat as an object for Fort purposes. Your has-Con-but-also-some-immunities idea would make every creature a special case (even if they're all the same 'special case', the fact that you've removed a general rule means it's no longer predictable). Likewise, Con-based skills and abilities have general rules for what they become based on (Concentration, conveniently, is the only Con-based skill, and the general rule is that undead use their Cha instead; special abilities normally also use Cha as well).

To me, losing an ability score doesn't seem complex at all. It makes sense, and the necessary adjustments seem to follow logically and so are easy to remember. Specifically listing immunities for each creature wouldn't be nearly as simple, IMO.


INT
I wasn't arguing that things should or shouldn't have Wisdom and Charisma to begin with, I rather liked the way the game works with these but I mentioned them because I believe they are tied to Intelligence just as much to each other, meaning anything that operates with some mental processing power SHOULD have some Intelligence. Argue for it to be very small or big, the point was just that it should BE there. That was my actual case.

Ah, but here, you are arguing from what you believe "intelligence" means, rather than what the game defines it as. Well, mostly. I agree that a case could be made where even the simplest of minds can "remember" and even "learn" in some sense of the word... but then so can crystals and plastics and such. This looks a lot like a slippery slope fallacy to me. At some point you can no longer say that a creature or thing truly "learns" or "remembers", and the game makes this fuzzy point very clear, at the transition from Int 1 to mindless.

[arkanis]

I find it odd you'd believe adding in MORE rules with loads of exceptions to standard rules would make something simpler. That seems horribly confused and contradictory to me, but everyone has their opinions about what they like. However, you make no case for your opinion, I think its rather obvious the rules are more complex when there are more of them added in along with exceptions to themselves without any real purpose or ambition. More rules, more exceptions, more networks, more complexity. See the connection between these things? So again:
Missing ability scores = more complex rules (not necessarily "wrong" rules, just unnecessarily complex).

The game defines intelligence as the ability to reason and remember. The definition I used was from the game, not a dictionary. So sadly, you're mistaken in that assumption. However, like I said earlier, you may have to judge that based on whether the creature actually can function. Afterall, I think even a creature that operates mentally, if only operating by puppeteered commands probably shouldn't have Int. My argument was that many creatures lacking Int DO act without a puppeteer or preprogrammed set of operations.

Perhaps if a list of preprogrammed operations were included with such creatures, the lack of Intelligence would make sense and the creatures could only follow those programs and no actual reasoning or memory to speak of. Now THEN I could accept a total lack of Int (but it would make the game more complex requiring preset actions on all creatures lacking Int that aren't directly puppeteered by something).

So it all comes down to rule complexity again (which was the point in this thread to begin with).