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

[Reynard]

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?

 

[Cadence]

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?

The stats help me visualize the characters.

Cleric is my go to class. Maybe it was bigger with the specialty priests in 2e or the archetypes in PF, but it feels like there have been big differences between them based in part on on their secondary stat(s) - str vs. chr vs. dex vs. int and how that tied into their focus.

I think I like the idea of playing someone who isn't optimized for the class (at least in the stereotypical way).

If you allow a lot of customization - will part of that essentially end up mimicking the stats?

 

[Reynard]

I think I like the idea of playing someone who isn't optimized for the class (at least in the stereotypical way).

If you allow a lot of customization - will part of that essentially end up mimicking the stats?

I think I would use feats or "traits." You could take Strong as an Ox no matter what class you were, just as an example.

I think eliminating stats might help visualization because the character can be whatever you want. It does put a lot of emphasis on class (and heritage I guess) but I think that is already true.

 

[soviet]

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.

 

[LordEntrails]

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?

This is only true if players optimize their characters. If players don't use arrays or point buys, or don't assign scores to optimize a character and instead make the character based on some other idea, then this statement doesn't hold.

Also, even when using arrays or point buy and optimizing characters, doing this would take away from the feel of control a player has during character creation. "You mean all I do is pick a class and I can't chose anything else? How boring"

 

[Cadence]

I think I would use feats or "traits." You could take Strong as an Ox no matter what class you were, just as an example.

I'm missing how having a different feat for something that was formerly an ability would be that much different? Or would it simply massively decouple traits that are often highly correlated in the real world and make everyone have to track a bunch of separate numbers for doing different things?

 

[payn]

This thought experiment highlights my issues with 5E. Looking back at the MAD thread you can see folks have an issue with every x class having A&B priority, and every Y class having C&B priority as their stats. Add proficiency and expected arrays on top and what is the point? I dont think one has to wonder what if here. Everything would just be baked into the character progression charts. Probably lead to even better results of D&D being the most accessible casual RPG, but thats not the direction I want it to go personally.

 

[Umbran]

Well, there are already other games that don't have what we think of as "stats", so it probably pays to look at them.

Gumshoe games, (Ashen Stars, and Swords of the Serpentine, for example) are skill-based systems, that have no flat scores defining character strength, dexterity, or the like.

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.

If you are not using stats in combat or spell resolution, in D&D's structure that leaves them having impact on skill use resolution, right? Why not then just wrap them into the skills and get rid of the separate number.

If the game uses Athletics skill for everything left that covers use of Strength, you no longer need a separate Strength score - it is assumed in Athletics.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

This thought experiment highlights my issues with 5E. Looking back at the MAD thread you can see folks have an issue with every x class having A&B priority, and every Y class having C&B priority as their stats. Add proficiency and expected arrays on top and what is the point? I dont think one has to wonder what if here. Everything would just be baked into the character progression charts. Probably lead to even better results of D&D being the most accessible casual RPG, but thats not the direction I want it to go personally.

Admittedly you lose granularity by doing this, but I'm not sure it's really valuable granularity. I don't think we gain anything from, for example, enabling someone to play an 18-strength fighter vs a 16-strength fighter. They could be the same.

The only real loss is it prevents people from rolling stats.

 

[payn]

Admittedly you lose granularity by doing this, but I'm not sure it's really valuable granularity. I don't think we gain anything from, for example, enabling someone to play an 18-strength fighter vs a 16-strength fighter. They could be the same.

Well, there is no reason for the variance at the moment other than results of rolled dice. In the past, if you prioritized stats differently, you could make a fighter that had disparate fighting styles, defense, and skill options. So, the valuable granularity was already lost when 5E hit the printers.

The only real loss is it prevents people from rolling stats.

I wouldn't say the only, but yeah a traditional feel would be lost by long time fans. Though, as time passes, I think you can see that hardcore traditional element fading. Look at PF2 going stat mods only. The clever PF2 A-B-C system comes out in the wash to being 2-3 possible arrays that work in the system. For the record, I dont like that either.