D&D 5E D&D without ability scores and separating Ancestry & Culture

[CubicsRube]

Something needs to be done to further differentiate armors, or you might as well reduce it to one per AC. You've also killed the idea of concepts such as Swashbucklers, who depend on their quickness instead of heft of armor.

I haven't killed them, but I have made the low armor high dex warrior less viable without magic items or spells. But personally I'm ok with that, as heavier armor should be more of a boon IMO (I address this in the document). It also has the effect of limiting the "God stat" of Dex that some people do not like.

Sounds like this variant is not for you, and that's fine.

 

[CubicsRube]

That's all well and good, I guess I just have never had an issue making a fighter who is good at history. It is hard for people who want to be the best in their more "normal" fields, certainly, but possible.

LOL I am all for making rolls quicker! I know what you mean about the process and it does still slow some players down a bit.

I think there is some merit in what you are trying to do, so I'll be interested when you are playing it out. I'll talk to my table about the ideas and see if they have any feedback to offer.

Cheers.

That's kind of you. This is mostly a thought experiment to see if it could be made to work without too much rebalancing/re writing being done.

I've heard people on this very forim even say they sometimes feel constrained by their stat choices. In the fighter example above, they might feel that to bump up their INT to have a good history bonus, they have to reduce the effectiveness of their main class function.

The cost to specialise in a unrelated skill without ability scores is higher due to that decoupling.

Most people have no issue with that. For some that do, a variant like this might work for them.

 

[CubicsRube]

Not a fan of most of what is presented. I prefer the 5e method of ability checks: with untrained being without proficiency, trained = with proficiency and expert being expertise. In short I like the 5e design in this space. Where I think that 5e went wrong was not giving expertise to one skill for all classes. I am fine with the rogue with multiple expertise.
However, fighter should have got Athletics/Acrobatics, Wizard Arcana and so forth. That way the rogue or Bard do not outshine other classes in their shtick.

I agree that every class should have at least one expertise. That would be the other way i would use implement a variant as it then makes the skill bonus more relevant than the ability score.

I'm personally fine with allowing free choice with the understanding of discussion within the group (so you could have the fighter with history expertise for example), but class niche protection is much more in theme with standard d&d design philosophy for sure.

 

[CubicsRube]

Needs something other than proficiency to add to skill checks. Even if it’s a thing where for each skill training you get, you also get a half training in a different skill? It’s good design that in 5e you have two vectors for how good you are at something. If you’re dexterous, you have some degree of bonus to all Dex checks, even untrained.

I’d add a few skills in for good measure if doing this, like Endurance, Streetwise, and maybe Riddle or something similar for deciphering and communicating in coded language.

How would you handle ability checks for things like Counterspell?

The whole idea of this was to have a single vector approach to see of that could be made to work. I'm not really aware of many RPGs that really do it (savage worlds has a hybrid model).

Sonetimes this may not make sense, but ability scores are an abstraction that don't always make sense either (like an acrobat being good at picking pockets).

The rule 0 is this, if something asks for an ability check and your class should be good at that ability, use the Trained level (normal prlficiency bonus). If something would normally be an ability modifier+proficiency and both are relevant, use the Expert level.

Mathematically, it assumes you'll only have a +2 in an ability modifier to level 4 and so will have a lower overall bonus for most things at lower tier but this picks up to a normal range in mod tier and tops out later.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Maybe you addressed this and I missed it, but what about classes with the Expertise feature?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'd add a master level (to cover expertise), but only allow that a certain number of times, with certain skills, depending on class. Bards and rogues (and rangers) should obviously get the most (maybe even uncapped), but other classes could choose certain skills, possibly level locked. A wizard can gain mastery with Arcana, but not Athletics.

The light armor rules aren't good - they make very broad, popular and normal concepts (and practically entire classes) magic-item dependent, which is not a good idea. I'd link them to training or level somehow. Maybe a base + trained bonus? (which is how PF2 does it)

Half-plate should be AC 17. I assume this is a typo.

I don't like linking saves to skills. Those are now the "must have" skills for basic survival, and all other skills are massively less useful. Every character will take Athletics, Acrobatics, and Perception. This kills the variety in skills you were going for in the first place. I don't have a good alternative to propose, but this is counterproductive to the goal of encouraging diversity.

Edit to add: I'd use the untrained number for stuff that calls for the ability mod and not a d20 roll. Things like weapon damage, class feature uses (ie bardic inspiration, divine sense) and class feature power (ie spells, auras). You'll still need to pull a number for proficiency bonus in some odd cases (ie hexblade's curse) but those are rare enough to be dealt with case-by-case without needing a general rule.

 

[mordenkainendogpissbeer]

Amber Diceless has been out of print for awhile now.

No need to re invent the wheel

 

[mordenkainendogpissbeer]

Serious Post

You should check out Chronicles of the Outlands by Better Games

No Str, Dex, Int, or Cha

Bold: Each level advancement select one personal Swaggering; or lock an understood Swaggering as Glorious. Ignore the first forced Escape Method Surrender from failed events. Sacrifice, once per adventure, any Swaggering (including Longboat, not Glorious) to gain Fury Pip for one situation/battle. This bonus must be declared before rolling. Character is Shaken for one round, not for duration of combat.

Clever: Each level advancement gain an extra skill (must have the corresponding Trait). Party shall collectively count the Clever, and Ignore one lost Swaggering forced Irregular or Quest Pip penalty each adventure per Clever character. Unlike other traits, there is no option to pass and accept the foul result. A single bad result that effects multiple player characters counts as a single event to cancel.

Energetic: Gain Fury Pip bonus for any one situation or battle each adventure. This need not be taken at the start of the fight. The bonus does not require a Swaggering sacrifice. At level five, the Trait will additionally create a Command Pip bonus anytime in a single combat.

Gifted: Each level advancement gain one Wizardry, Blade or Mount Swaggering, or lock an understood Swaggering as Glorious. Character may sacrifice, once per adventure, any Swaggering (including Longboat, not Glorious) to cancel a forced Warped Outcome. Result may be gifted to another player.

Methodical: At the start of any adventure, add one longboat Swaggering for every Methodical character. Swaggering do not lock as Glorious. Character may also ignore defensive modifier of enemy once each adventure. At level five, character my gain Catbird Seat at start of one battle during an adventure.

Rugged: Ignore the first Vicious each adventure. At level five, this trait may instead be used to cancel anyone’s wound.

 

[CubicsRube]

Maybe you addressed this and I missed it, but what about classes with the Expertise feature?

It3s in the document. Expertise grants another skill choice.

 

[GreenTengu]

I don't know that the specifics are entirely balanced, but-- I will say that I like the general idea.

I notice that there is no Half-Elf ancetry, so why not just turn the half-orc one into "Orc". It is so very difficult to create a balanced PC Orc as long as there is "Half-Orcs" that are not being acknowledged as "Half-Human" (i.e. unlike half-elves, there are no traits clearly derived from the human parent.)