No Attributes

[Hand of Evil]

I think you have to have some form of attributes, a baseline for your stats to start from, even if it is zero. Modification will then be applied, rolls, race, skills, talents, special, etc.

 

[Thanee]

I very much like the "no attributes" approach.

While it is not D&D or Pathfinder, the Song of Ice and Fire RPG has no Attributes.

It's worth a look. Nice system.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ValhallaGH]

While it is not D&D or Pathfinder, the Song of Ice and Fire RPG has no Attributes.

It's worth a look. Nice system.

Bye
Thanee

Alternately, everything is an Attribute (or Quality). But it is definitely a worthwhile system.

 

[ComradeGnull]

I'm curious why you would want to bend D&D/Pathfinder in this direction- it seems like if what you want is a purely skill-based system, you could just grab one. There are definitely lots of systems that have a more skill-dominated rather than attribute dominant structure.

Though I will say: every game has to answer at some point the question "what do you do to resolve something that the character has never tried before?" At that point, you start creating defaults, and by then your 80% of the way to accepting some form of attribute- you're just adjusting how broad/narrow the defaults are.

Skill vs. attribute is really just a continuum, with Big Attributes at one end (like Warrior, Rogue, & Mage) and Small Skills at the other (like Harn, maybe, or something more skill based). Rather than trying to force moving an existing system up or down a couple notches on the spectrum, it seems like you could just pull something that is already there.

 

[ComradeGnull]

(grr... Double post)

 

[Janx]

This. There was a thread earlier this year I think with a similar idea. In a pure class system, class would have more effect on whether you were considered dextrous than some innate dexterity rating.

There are non-diceless games that are like this already. They are the games where your abilities are determined by descriptive elements. In RISUS they are called cliches. In FATE they are called Aspects. The point is these games exist and in them there is no way to determine if Fred's character is stronger/smarter/faster than Sue's character because there are no base attributes.

Since games like this already exist, I fail to see why a version of D&D could not be run/written using one of these systems or a similar system. I'm shocked that people here find the idea of a "no attribute" game so impossible. RPG rules are just veneer to good role-play.

Whether I'd modify D&D to be attribute-less is a seperate concern from could a fantasy RPG be attribute-less.

Dread is attribute less. It has no skills, no levels, no classes, no numbers. It works.

Fictional characters have no attributes. Yet it can be made clear that the strong guy is able to lift heavy things that the weak guy can't. As they say, the Enterprise travels at the speed of Plot. Characters are as skilled as they need to be for there to be a challenge.

In every TV show, if Dr. Crusher isn't around, one of the characters can still deliver a baby or perform an appendectomy, despite having no medical experience.

All it takes is medical problems is presented as a challenge for the PCs, and the PCs figure out how they can perform the procedure using the limited tools at hand. Then some dice rolls are maded, and success or failure is determined.

 

[jmucchiello]

It isn't enough to set all the characters to a modifier to +1 or +0 for all stats. You'd also have to remove or modify every effect from the game that modifies attributes - every spell, every magic item, every monster special ability that touches on attributes. Every feat that has an attribute prerequisite will need to be reviewed as well.

Aside from modifying those few monsters and spells that modify attribute directly, no, nothing else "changes".

In 3.x branch rules, if you do that, spellcasters won't usually be able to cast over 1st or 2nd level spells, and won't be getting many bonus spells.

Are you just being argumentative? Obviously if there are no attributes, there is no limit to maximum spell level among spellcasters. I find it silly to think you would go the direction you went. And yes, I would just eliminate bonus spells. They aren't necessary to play the game.

Any power that uses an attribute or attribute modifier (say, a Paladin's Smite Evil, a cleric's Rebuke Undead, barbarian Rage, druid Wildshape) will all call for modification or elimination.

Flat +1 bonus because you assume it is 12. This was already taken care of.

The skill system will function in this scenario, but the DCs will be off, as the system assumes some folks will have, or be able to get, increased modifiers. In the long run, the PCs will be, on average, shorter on hit points than the game normally assumes, as the average Con modifier will be low.

So what? That's what the DM is for, adjusting things. If everyone is scaled slightly lower across the board, it isn't a problem. It is certainly BETTER than the scenario where the powergamer has ability scores of 22 and the noob has nothing above 16 and they are playing in the same party. Now, the powergamer doesn't get his 22.

There are some creatures that are actually missing an attribute - usually an INT or CON - and that lack is of particular note in their mechanics. Those will need to be reviewed and modified to suit.

Why? All the mechanical effects of having no CON or INT remain unchanged. You don't give those mechanical effects to everybody. Everybody has an INT and a CON, it's 12.

In the long run, the game uses level to gauge character power - those levels imply access to boosts in attribute modifiers. So, now you've thrown off the strongest adventure and encounter design tool the GM has.

What? I've eliminated variance in party power. That should make encounter design easier, not harder. Eliminating attributes means eliminating the need to access boosts, allowing for more interesting magic items. You'll see more cloak of bat style magic instead of the "I can't give up my neck chakra for the cool item, I need it to boost my charisma." Isn't that also better than the status quo?

 

[Umbran]

Flat +1 bonus because you assume it is 12. This was already taken care of.

You might want to look again at some of those abilities - Barbarian Rage, for example, modifies attributes directly. It is a cornerstone of the class, so I expect "just eliminate it" isn't a good option. Same for Druidic Wildshape.

I named a couple of problem powers for you, and you seem to have dismissed them rather blithely, without even noting what about them broke in your scheme. So, I have little confidence you've caught all the other issues neatly.

What? I've eliminated variance in party power.

You've removed a number of high-utility spells and abilities from many classes, without much analysis. I'm not sure you haven't removed that variance, just to put imbalance elsewhere.

And what for? If I'm using point-buy, I don't have notable variance in party power based on stats to eliminate. If I'm using dice for stats, I can eliminate such variance by one-time inspection and a little negotiation with my players. If variance in power was the problem, this solution is heavy-handed.

 

[jmucchiello]

You might want to look again at some of those abilities - Barbarian Rage, for example, modifies attributes directly. It is a cornerstone of the class, so I expect "just eliminate it" isn't a good option. Same for Druidic Wildshape.

If you consider these things important, you can just grant to hit, damage and hit point bonuses that make up for the stat changes. It is fairly obvious that you believe in the letter of rules whereas I prefer the rules as guides.

You've removed a number of high-utility spells and abilities from many classes, without much analysis. I'm not sure you haven't removed that variance, just to put imbalance elsewhere.

It is also apparent that you believe 3e is actually in some manner balanced. I have no such belief. Balance only exists at the table based on what the DM sends against the party. There are games (Ars Magica) where party imbalance is inherent to the game. Absolute balance is an illusion.

As for Vancian magic "requiring" bonus spells, 1e started wizards with 1 measly spell, once per day. That was considered balanced. 4e eliminated Vancian spellcasters because they were "Too" powerful. I fail to see how removing 2-5 total spells over the lifetime of a spellcaster (where his prime stat goes from 18 to 28) is inherently "unbalanced".

And what for? If I'm using point-buy, I don't have notable variance in party power based on stats to eliminate. If I'm using dice for stats, I can eliminate such variance by one-time inspection and a little negotiation with my players. If variance in power was the problem, this solution is heavy-handed.

"A little negotiation with my players": You see, you agree. The game is not "balanced". It requires a guiding hand (the DM) to ensure balance. Since the DM must intervene at character creation and at encounter design, (We have 4 rogues and a fighter in the party.... let's see how they handle Wraiths. Bwaahahahahahaa) tweaking the monsters slightly downward to deal with no attributes is no more difficult than normal character creation intervention or encounter design.

As for point buy, the last 12 years of 3e/3.5e/4e on these boards, people have talked about running parties with players using suboptimal builds along side characters using uber-optimal builds and the DMs and players both lament the problem of creating challenges that both keep the uber builds from mopping the floor with the competition vs challenging the ubers at the expense of slaughtering the sub-opts. There must be thousands of threads about this topic on this board alone. And the only advice given to people in those situations is beef up the sub-opts or tone down the uber-opts. And all of these situations involve the use of point buy.

I named a couple of problem powers for you, and you seem to have dismissed them rather blithely, without even noting what about them broke in your scheme. So, I have little confidence you've caught all the other issues neatly.

I saw no problem powers whatsoever. As I said, the only hard issues are things like shadows that actually attack ability scores. You need to rewrite those powers from the ground up. Frankly, I don't use those kinds of monsters often because it is a pain to update a character sheet on the fly when ability scores are modified.

As for being blithe, well that is easy when my attitude is "it's no big deal". Because It is no big deal. You see, I don't consider all your little "gotcha's" as things that "break my scheme". They are merely challenges to work around and the work arounds are generally fairly obvious.

But as I said above, I suspect your worldview will not permit the loosy-goosy style that I'm advocating. I believe the FEEL of the game is merely implied by the rules. The true FEEL of the game is entirely in the hands of the DM. And a good DM will run a good game whether or not there are ability scores/modifiers.

 

[ValhallaGH]

They are merely challenges to work around and the work arounds are generally fairly obvious.

But there are a lot of such challenges. Which translates into a lot of work. And the question being asked (repeatedly) is why would you do that work when you can, instead, pick a rule set that already eliminated attributes and put all your work into making an interesting campaign? What are you getting out of this rules change? And does it come close to being worth the time and effort going into the rules (instead of into the rest of the game)?

Since the fun is in the game, not in writing rules (unless you're group is odd like that), the goal should be to make the game as fun as possible. Which usually takes a fair bit of time. Time that I'd rather spend on writing plots, adventures, and NPC motivations than on rules tinkering.
You seem to disagree with this sentiment, and I would like to know more about your disagreement.