Eliminating ability scores from the hit mechanics

[Kzach]

The concept behind using a primary stat for each class build as the basis of the attack bonus has really turned the notion of using logically applicable abilities (dex for ranged, str for melee) entirely on its head. Now you can hit someone with a melee attack solely through wit and good looks as well as you could if you had a high strength.

Combined with a trend towards granting free Melee Training as a house rule, and the entire concept of using abilities for attack bonuses basically becomes meaningless.

So why bother to complicate the math of the game with them at all? Why not just assume a BAB system for all classes and divorce attack bonuses from abilities wholesale?

Then the only importance a stat would have on an attack would be the damage or the rider effect. This would also go a long way towards rebalancing the wonky math of attacks across the tiers as you could automagically assume the fixes into the BAB system.

What say you?

 

[willows]

Why bother having ability scores at all?

I don't think the game would suffer noticeably if you just dumped them and built level-based progressions where ability bonuses used to be.

 

[ravenheart]

I worked on something like this once, found a pretty good formula for it too.

Here it is. A bit outdated, and it doesn't remove ability scores from the math entirely. Still, it's something.

On a related note, I've also worked on making a system with more broadly defined attributes instead of ability scores, skills, defenses etc., with the intent of using unified attack mechanics separated from these. Haven't gotten very far though, but this post inspired me to give it some more thought.

 

[Gorgoroth]

One of the veteran posters here

mentioned an idea, quite convincingly, that having your attack bonus increase as you level could be done away with. But in that case, your stats become very important, indeed. I think it's probably best left to another edition, one that was more simulationist where experience grants you special attacks, combos, and so on, but you can still hit a dragon (though come nowhere near close to killing it before it mauls you) at level 1, or even be killed by an angry mob of level 0 villagers. DMs don't put you up against monsters way below your level....so why do you they still exist?

Much better is to have a +1 to-hit per tier, and everything else comes down to your combos of which you can have many. I don't like dailies though, but would prefer something like stamina points or mana points where you can essentially do a few powerful combos a few times a day, at the expense of sustained impact.

Someone told me Iron Heroes was the best thing to try. I DMed an Arcana Unearthed game once and I'm quite fond of Monte Cook's style (not to mention Mike Mearls...man, I can't help but feel like his skills are wasted on 4th ed, honestly).

 

[the Jester]

Actually, my homebrewed D&D goes farther than that: ability scores have virtually no mechanical impact on the pc in combat except that they serve to help set base defense values and function as prerequisites. This allows me to use a heavy emphasis on ability damage as long-term wounds without forcing a lot of at-the-table recalculation.

Skills still go off of ability scores, though.

 

[Rechan]

In my game when I DMed, the rule was that instead of using the ability score to measure to-hit, everyone had an automatic 5 in any sort of attack they did (so the formula assumes they have a 20 in that stat for the purposes of the attack). So setting aside class/feat bonuses/weapon proficency bonuses, all attack rolls were identical.

The damage depended on their ability score.

The argument is that a Fighter and a Wizard of the same level have the same chance of connecting with a melee attack. The fighter simply is going to do more damage because he's stronger, and he has powers that help differentiate his expertise.

My big motivations for doing this was to 1) remove the urgency to have high primary scores, 2) remove the urgency to have the race that best fits that class for the ability mods, and 3) encourage multi-classing outside of classes that have the same primary scores so you can actually hit with attacks from a secondary class.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, I ran a game in which PCs were assumed to have a 20 base stat and a feat bonus to attack = expertise automatically. And damage was still based on actual stat. Worked great, let people MC more, dual stat class handle better, etc.

 

[RangerWickett]

In my 'New Box Hack' (wherein I'm hacking Kiznit's ENnie-winning 'Red Box Hack' game), PCs just roll flat d20 vs. defense, and defenses never scale, and ability scores don't affect attacks or defenses.

What does scale is hit points. You start with 5 HP at 1st level (and attacks do 1, 2, or on very rare occasions 3 damage). You get an extra HP per level; at 6th level you're paragon, and at 11th level you're epic ("This one goes to 11").

For every 5 levels you are higher than someone, you ignore 1 point of damage from each of their attacks, and deal 1 extra damage to them. So it's possible to hurt an epic PC if you're a commoner with a giant two-handed sword, but he could still easily kick your butt.

 

[Umbran]

What say you?

I everyone has exactly the same number (like an 18) in their "primary" stat, then I can see the argument. But if you're playing with races that go above that limit, and/or have folks who tend to spread their stats around some, then the I think there's still a point to having the stats in the equation.

Plus, if you have some classes that have attacks that base off different stats (like some off Dex and some of Cha), then you may well see differences in how those attacks play out, depending on player stat choices.

 

[Kzach]

You know, I think I just realised what one of the greatest weaknesses of D&D is: the d20.

I think I've known this for awhile but I didn't want to admit it. I wonder what D&D would be like if it was based around d100?