Ability Scores at 2, 1 and 0

[Hungerstriker]

What happens when a character's Abilities are reduced to an extremely low number? This seems like an especially important question for DCC-- not only are the usual ability-draining enemies around, but Spellburn and luck-burn can also put a character's scores into this range.

I checked the chapter on character creation (where the book gives in-detail explanations of what every ability score does. Apparently, having 5 or less stamina means you take double damage from all poisons and diseases-- who knew?!) and couldn't find anything in the RAW for covering these situations. The table only even gives the modifiers for scores as low as 3.

So, assuming there isn't anything in the RAW covering these circumstances...

How do you handle characters having these low scores in your home games? (I'm especially curious about Luck)

[oncelor]

The only rule for a score below 3 that I've had to come up with is for the cleric who has been wearing a ring of regeneration that causes an uncurable -1 PER after every 33 HP it heals (turns you purple and pustulent). His PER is now down to a 4 or 5. I've ruled that when it hits 2 he starts casting all his cleric spells with a 1d16, and when it hits 0, no more spells or cleric abilities (I'll give him some weird monstrous abilities from his mutations, I think, as a small compensation). I've also decided that a 0 PER causes fear in creatures of less than 1 HD.

[Exedor]

I allowed a player to burn their lucky halfling to 1. Since we had to end the session right after that, and I wanted to see the plot move along, they returned home from the lizard man lair "off camera". On the next excursion, against the orc-cult of Yutrus, they burned the halfling down to 4. The orcs took a shine to him and he was quickly put under, and the recovery roll was an "11". So I think they might be a bit more careful if they recruit another halfling.

I think I will let luck go below 3, but something awful, preferably comedic, will ALWAYS happen to that character.

I think a good penalty for burning scores other than luck to 2 or 1 or 0 is that each "low" below 3 knocks a point of the maximum, forever.

[cjoepar]

I've only had this happen once so far and I increased the modifier by one point each, so 2 was -4, 1 was -5 and 0 would have been -6 if the character got there. I also ruled that if a physical ability score (STR, AGL, STM) is at 0 for more than a day, the character dies, and while at 0 the character is completely bedridden, incapable of doing anything but resting and sleeping. If INT ever hit 0 I would rule that the character essentially had the mind of a newborn and would probably walk off a cliff or into a tiger's den, if PER ever hit 0 I would make the character so loathesome that any living creature would attack him (including the rest of the party), and a LCK of 0 would incur nearly constant bazaar mishaps like tripping down stairs and dropping weapons and other tools into hard to reach places.

Incidentally, if ability scores were ever increased above 18 temporarily, I would not treat it the same way. I would cap the bonus at +3.

[Zargon]

Good question. Here's where I'm at with ultra low ability scores, I hope it inspires some wonderful ideas for judges to adjudicate how dwindling ability scores begin to rot the destiny of their characters.

| STR | 0 | You’re prone, bed ridden, helpless and dependent.
| STR | 1 (-5 Mod) | Able to carry very little weight; all heavy gear, cumbersome equipment, weapons and armor must all be discarded in order to function. Base movement halved.
| STR | 2 (-4 Mod) | You’re very weak, and easily exhausted attempting prolonged physical exertion. -5’ to base movement. Characters with a strength of 5 or less can carry a weapon or a shield but not both.

| AGI | 0 | Completely stiff and rigid, helpless and unable to move.
| AGI | 1 (-5 Mod) | Extremely poor mobility, balance, and hand/eye coordination. Melee and Ranged Attacks -1d. Base movement reduced to 5’.
| AGI | 2 (-4 Mod) | Very poor mobility, balance, and hand/eye coordination. Attacks suffer a -2 modifier. Characters with agility 5 or less are unable to fight with a weapon in both hands.

| STA | 0 | Dead
| STA | 1 (-5 Mod) | The Grim Reaper stands at your side, HP of 0, refer to the Bleeding Out rules. Only a very limited amount of healing possible, perhaps a paltry 1HD-5.
| STA | 2 (-4 Mod) | Your immune system attacks you. HP reduced and limited to 1 HD. Characters with stamina of 5 or less automatically take double damage from poisons and diseases.

| PER | 0 | Comatose and helpless
| PER | 1 (-5 Mod) | Your party robs you, and abandons you for dead
| PER | 2 (-4 Mod) | "Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable mangled up in tangled up knots" annnnd you hate Christmas! Characters with personality 5 or less are treated as 2nd class citizens and worse. At best they pay double, and are paid half the normal rate for all things, and at worst inspire a lynch mob for the most passive offences, including those committed by other people.

| INT | 0 | You’ve lost all consciousness, and are even more helpless than an infant, perhaps a grave digger will hand you over to his master so he can place your brain in a jar.
| INT | 1 (-5 Mod) | Walking Dead
| INT | 2 (-4 Mod) | Pathogenesis of AD, your brain is producing deposits of the Amyloid Beta Peptide at a crippling rate and you now have dementia. Characters with an intelligence of 5 or less cannot read or write, and may be treated in a similar manner as a person with ultra low personality.

| LUCK | 0 | Dead, the gods revoke your existence with a death of such humiliating magnitude, the bards shall spread stories for generations of your unfortunate end.
| LUCK | 1 (-5 Mod) | You're going from the frying pan, straight to hell on a one way ticket...
| LUCK | 2 (-4 Mod) | Vultures circle overhead, everything that can go wrong does. See consequences of low luck on page 361.

[Hungerstriker]

Thanks for these replies, I find the variety of rulings fascinating!

In particular, I like the variety of rulings for low-Personality characters. I'm not sure I would force party members to rob and murder their zero-Personality PC, but I like the idea that they attract lynch-mobs or frighten other living things away. Very cool stuff, guys!

Incidentally, if ability scores were ever increased above 18 temporarily, I would not treat it the same way. I would cap the bonus at +3.

Aaaactually, there are mentions in the RAW for what happens if your Strength score goes above 18 (but not for any other scores that I remember). On page 198, the spell 'Strength' can grant a score of 20, which apparently gives a +4 bonus. Then on page 422, it says Ogres have a Strength of 22 (+6).

Sooo, the RAW seems to imply that Strength (and probably other scores too) scale up like this:

18....+3
19....+3(?), maybe other benefits from being 'super-human', like you can use a two-handed weapon with just one hand.
20....+4
21....+5
22....+6
???...+10 (the Strength spell can give you a +10 Strength modifier, but doesn't say what score grants such a high modifier.)

Of course, I don't expect this to change the way you run your games, and scores as high as this should only be achieved through some very powerful magic, if at all. The rulebook is very unclear about this sort of thing, probably to discourage players from pining away for ever-higher ability scores.

[DCCfan]

I don't ever let any score go below 3. To me at a 3 your like a 90+ year old that can barely move think or even keep your balance. Add to that a luck of 3 and you become the 90+ year old with a red shirt on. Your just asking for it at that point.

[GnomeBoy]

I love the ideas here, but I too am inclined to think that 3-18 is "the range" and just like there are no hp below 0, there are no Ability scores below 3. Once you hit or exceed that limit, your condition is in the hands of the GM, and the GM should do with it however he or she sees fit. The codified descriptions are nice, but I'd rather do whatever seemed right at the time to serve the situation.

[Hungerstriker]

I don't ever let any score go below 3. To me at a 3 your like a 90+ year old that can barely move think or even keep your balance. Add to that a luck of 3 and you become the 90+ year old with a red shirt on. Your just asking for it at that point.

I agree with you DCCfan, but I hardly thing a person hits 'rock bottom' at 90 years. Sure, a 90 year old might suffer from dementia, be unable to walk without a cane, be hard of hearing, and so on-- but why should that be the limit? Worse than dementia, they might have the memory span of a goldfish. Worse than needing a cane, they might be unable to even stand up! Worse than being hard of hearing, they could be completely deaf!
It's not something I'd want my games to revolve around, but it seems like these debilitating weaknesses would be memorable, comedic, and potentially pave the way for some great roleplaying.

I love the ideas here, but I too am inclined to think that 3-18 is "the range" and just like there are no hp below 0, there are no Ability scores below 3. Once you hit or exceed that limit, your condition is in the hands of the GM, and the GM should do with it however he or she sees fit. The codified descriptions are nice, but I'd rather do whatever seemed right at the time to serve the situation.

There's nothing wrong with that, but as a player I would want things to stay consistent. Especially if I'm playing a class like Wizard or Thief which regularly burns away ability points, I want two things:
A) to know that having a score of X will carry consequence Y, regardless of circumstances. If the GM is going to say my zero-strength Wizard can only crawl at 5' per round, I'm completely okay with that. But if next time my Wizard spellburns down to zero strength he instantly falls into a coma, because 'it seems right to do at the time to serve the situation', then I'll be very frustrated.
B) I want to have those extra three points to burn if I need them!

[Tortog]

My list looks really similar to Zargon's. The only differences for my games being at the level of 0...

0 STR= dead, heart and lungs stop working.
0 Agility = Inescapable Paroxysm (Seizures) Character dies in 1d3 hours without treatment.

But I also don't let characters burn their scores to 0 unless they can succeed at a DC15 willpower save because most of the "0" results are tantamount to committing suicide and the survival reflex is hardwired. (though I've been known to ignore this rule to allow for heroic/interesting character deaths)

I also codified the other end of the scale,

Ability score 19 =+4 bonus
Ability Score 20= +5 bonus

Because magic spells, magic items, (mutations) etc. can take things beyond 18 as well... even in the core rules.

I also threw this into the mix:

Characters and critters need and INT score of at least 5 to use weapons and armor normally. An INT of 4 means they can only use shields and clubs; and INT of 3 means they can only use a club. INT < 3 = natural weapons and armor only. Additionally, Characters need an INT of 3 to understand and use language; and an INT of 4 to understand the concept of written language. I've had people tell me they think that last part is too harsh, but then I point out to them that the character (or creature) with an INT score of 4 or less are highly resistant (or even immune) to magic runes or any other symbol or language dependent spell damage/mechanics.
-----

I fully agree that one of DCCRPG's design strengths is the flexibility of the rule set brought on by deliberately leaving many things vague and undefined. However, I do feel that certain things should be codified: and ability scores are too important to the system's function to leave them undefined.

[GnomeBoy]

...There's nothing wrong with that, but as a player I would want things to stay consistent...

And I think you're right in there with most players, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But as a player, I want to be surprised. The fewer things that are codified, the more I have to be creative to overcome them, and I like it that way.

As a GM, I can see two things: one, that if it's codified, I will encounter players who don't take the codified threat seriously, since they have a work-around in mind (whereas, I don't imagine most people are going to casually throw themselves into a near-death experience). And b, if one codified result is just as 'accurate' or as 'good' as another, I'd hate to see players boxed in a corner because the rules say they can't move, when not being able to aim in the slightest is just as good a result, and doesn't mean they're holed up in a foxhole just waiting to be taken out by a random shell. I'd rather be able to choose which affect the low ability has, so as to keep options open for them, and to keep them guessing as to whether it is a good idea to even burn that low or not...

Maybe that's just me. Like I say, the lists and such have nothing wrong with them, and I like the ideas behind them -- I just like what the unknown offers.

[dmcolby]

I ran into this last week, when a party member was dropped to 0 agility after several asp bites. Borrowing from 3rd edition D&D, I ruled that they were incapacitated and that further damage impacted their stamina.


I had a question about the cleric lay hands ability though. For 3 dice, lay hands says it can cure poison. As a Judge would you allow this to cure all of the poisoned ability scores, or just remove the poison from their system?

[Tortog]

...
I had a question about the cleric lay hands ability though. For 3 dice, lay hands says it can cure poison. As a Judge would you allow this to cure all of the poisoned ability scores, or just remove the poison from their system?

For my games I ruled that the cleric can remove the poison and any extra dice remaining for healing can be applied to HP; but the cleric must use the 2nd level spell Restore Vitality spell or resting for the night to heal any ability score damage.