D&D 5E What if we got rid of stats entirely?

Reynard said:

This is just spitballing. I'm not actively advocating this. I more just want to discuss the implications, possibilities and potential problems.

Also note I am not talking about going "modifier only" like PF2 or M&M3. I mean no attributes at all.

It seems to me that since most characters of a certain (sub)class are going to end up with similar stats, you could just fold those inherent bonuses into the class abilities and skills. For example, you aren't going to find a rogue with a dex much lower than 18, so why not just have a flat +4 to "rogue class skills"? Similarly with melee types: flay 4+proficiency to damage or something?

With skill DCs almost entirely based on GM fiat and with most of the granularity of ability scores (remember those AD&D charts?) gone, what is the point of keeping those numbers at all?

Click to expand...

soviet said:

This isn't an argument for removing stats, it's an argument for decoupling stats from combat and spell resolution. Which I would agree with.

Click to expand...

I am a strong proponent of what soviet mentions. If the fundamental thing a character is good at is gated behind a specific attribute, then all members of that character-type will have that stat very high*. If other game-central components like HP and vital saves also are gated by attributes, then there will often be very little variation even in second- and third-highest stats. EDIT: And thus you end up with very little variety in character implementation, which I think is why people want attributes in the first place. I would much prefer a system where class choice and level determined 80%+ of how good you were at doing the things that class regularly did. Attributes could then be devoted to those character-defining qualities other people mention (maybe through skills, or other qualities secondary to the main game loops, such as encumbrance, natural healing, or languages known). Want a traditional brawler type fighter? Give them high Str and have them break down doors and carry everyone's stuff. Want instead a Taran the pig-handler from the Chronicles of Prydain (or a non-anthro Puss in Boots)? Give them a weak-to-moderate Str but side attributes like Wis/Cha or skills like Animal Handling/Deception. By actually decoupling the two, you can** play to type, against type, or orthogonal to it.
*with 'how high?' a question of optimization and opportunity-cost
**reasonably. I know someone has played a low-int wizard or low str/dex/con fighter in 5e and it turned out alright.

With regards to OP's idea of removing attributes and instead adding qualities, I'm not wholly against it. While I think it is important to know if your fighter is a hulking bruiser or a lithe tiger or a fighter or a thinker or a charmer, I don't know that affixing a relative numeric scale to the side of it is overly important. Things like Bugbear/Goliath's powerful build honestly speak more to me about a character's brawniness than a number does. I certainly don't feel I know what two distinct stats both in the 'low', 'mid', or 'high' bands are supposed to feel like (how does a 16 Int differ from an 18? or worse, how does 18 differ from 19?). That said, it (getting rid of the numbers and building a bunch of "qualities") is another step that maybe isn't needed. I guess my position changes based on whether we are theoretically updating 5e or theoretically making a 5e replacement.

I think the biggest advantage of ability scores is that they facilitate a system where skills can be partially linked, rather than being either identical or independent. A character who excels at Performance may not be trained in Persuasion, but will likely still perform better in that field than a similarly untrained character focused on Stealth or Arcana. Similarly (if we incorporate optional rules), a character trained in Medicine may excel in its intelligence-based aspects (identifying rare diseases), while being merely competent in its dexterity-based aspects (surgery).

This principle can be extended to combat "skills" as well, but I'll echo the sentiment that these relationships should be more nuanced than what we see in the current game. Rather than dexterity determining a Rogue's combat effectiveness, for instance, multiple abilities should contribute to distinct, but similarly important, aspects of combat proficiency.

One suggestion for converting DnD to FATE was to have Class as Approaches
so a Bard could Described their approaches as
Fighter +1, Thief +1, Cleric + 0, Wizard + 2 then go from there

Amrûnril said:

I think the biggest advantage of ability scores is that they facilitate a system where skills can be partially linked, rather than being either identical or independent. A character who excels at Performance may not be trained in Persuasion, but will likely still perform better in that field than a similarly untrained character focused on Stealth or Arcana. Similarly (if we incorporate optional rules), a character trained in Medicine may excel in its intelligence-based aspects (identifying rare diseases), while being merely competent in its dexterity-based aspects (surgery).

Click to expand...

I see how people can believe this, but I don't think that's how things really work in real life. For every flamboyant Freddie Mercury, there's an introverted nerd John Deacon who's still a great artist but not particularly charismatic. Or, look at any of a thousand TechBros who are really good at a particular bit of engineering and therefore believe they must be good at everything brainy. Or if you look at the other members of Queen, you have Brian May who's both a rock star and has a PhD in astrophysics – wildly different skills, and he's clearly good at both.

soviet said:

This isn't an argument for removing stats, it's an argument for decoupling stats from combat and spell resolution. Which I would agree with.

Click to expand...

that is even simpler.

just replace ability modifier with proficiency bonus for AC, DC, attack, save and damage

@Reynard this is one we are in agreement on.

D&D does it backwards IMO. If you are a fighter you should by default be good at fighter things. If you are a cleric you should by default be good at clericy things. Etc.

The trick to keep everything from being samey is to add minor/major feats and minor/major flaws. You might even want to cost things differently by class.

For example a feat called heroic strength might cost a fighter more than it does a wizard because for a wizard it’s more of a characterization ribbon but for a fighter it also provides a noticeable increase to his combat prowess.

A major flaw might be ‘Slow to Act’ take a -5 penalty to initiative checks. But that might free up enough character build points for you to take the lucky feat.

This is what I've been contemplating in my nascent heartbreaker. Roll the ability score math into proficiency bonus, and have skills be background based.

Staffan said:

I see how people can believe this, but I don't think that's how things really work in real life. For every flamboyant Freddie Mercury, there's an introverted nerd John Deacon who's still a great artist but not particularly charismatic. Or, look at any of a thousand TechBros who are really good at a particular bit of engineering and therefore believe they must be good at everything brainy. Or if you look at the other members of Queen, you have Brian May who's both a rock star and has a PhD in astrophysics – wildly different skills, and he's clearly good at both.

Click to expand...

It would guess that lots of "positively viewed attributes" of a "semi-related type" have a reasonably strong correlation in real life when looking across the population as a whole; but the comparison is often made in subsets of the population thus reducing the observed correlation. In a college there might be a group much better at math than the humanities and a group much better at humanities than math. Are a great many of them better in both than most of the folks who didn't go to college? One study found a negative relationship between explosive strength and agility among college soccer players. Would it still be negative across the population of all college age people?

I also wonder if people take something having a moderate correlation to mean that there aren't still quite a few folks that don't fit the pattern or who are outliers (even if the majority do fit the pattern). Conflating correlation with causation probably doesn't help too. (Looking at some studies, are they getting better grades because they're in better shape? Or is poor sleeping habits or poor home life or some underlying illness tanking both exercise and grades for folks?).

For D&D, are most of the PCs in the point buy/standard array era in a restricted range case? (We've lopped off the bottom of the distribution of all of the abilities). At low levels of training do the equivalent of abilities dominate? (Are some students more athletic, some more bookish?). As training acrues does the level of ability quickly stop mattering nearly as much for the vast majority of people? (How does a fairly average "intelligence-and-dexterous-if-you-believe-in-such-things" person trained in pioneering (knot-tying) do against a really smart and dexterous one for lashing a safe bridge?). Will the true outliers in most fields usually be the ones who seem to combine something innate with lots of practice/training? (It doesn't feel conroverisal to say that some people will simply never be a successful professional athlete in some things no matter how much they practice -- and it has nothing to do with their effort.) Should D&D allow for training to have a bigger impact? How broad should the things people are trained in be? (Why is athletics general but knowledge siloed?).

Staffan said:

Troubleshooters is a skill-based game though. Having 30ish skills, plus access to a bunch of Abilities (sort of like feats), means there's plenty of room for differentiation between characters.

Click to expand...

<Argument that stat-based mechanical differentiation is overrated goes here>

Staffan said:

With a class system, there's so much that's determined by your class that you kind of need something else to give definition beyond being a cookie cutter.

Click to expand...

One of my favorite games at the moment is Fate Accelerated.
No classes, no skills. You have 5 Approaches, 3 to 5 Aspects, and a couple of stunts. That's it.

There is no difficulty differentiating between my former non-commissioned officer in Her Majesty's service from my wife's super-science botanist noblewoman. Really. You won't get them confused at all.

FrogReaver said:

@Reynard this is one we are in agreement on.

D&D does it backwards IMO. If you are a fighter you should by default be good at fighter things. If you are a cleric you should by default be good at clericy things. Etc.

The trick to keep everything from being samey is to add minor/major feats and minor/major flaws. You might even want to cost things differently by class.

For example a feat called heroic strength might cost a fighter more than it does a wizard because for a wizard it’s more of a characterization ribbon but for a fighter it also provides a noticeable increase to his combat prowess.

A major flaw might be ‘Slow to Act’ take a -5 penalty to initiative checks. But that might free up enough character build points for you to take the lucky feat.

Click to expand...

I hadn't even considered flaws, tbqh. I think that's a really good addition to help add some more character.