D&D (2024) Pie in the Sky 6E

[Dausuul]

Now that is pie in the sky!

But in seriousness, can you explain everything being "folded into a single proficiency?" Wouldn't that make everything the same score, no matter what you are doing?

Not quite. There would be two scores: Proficiency bonus, and zero. Whenever you pick up a d20, you are either going to add your proficiency bonus to the roll, or use the result straight-up*.

This would have a number of benefits. It would all but eliminate one of the biggest sources of confusion I have seen at the table over thirty-five years of playing D&D: Which number do I use for what? Likewise, it virtually eliminates character sheet math. And it would make skills, attacks, and saving throws fully independent of each other, allowing for a greater variety of concepts without sacrificing effectiveness. Do you want to be a fighter who's also an intelligent and learned scholar? No problem. You no longer have to wrench points out of the stats that are vital to your survival (Strength and Con) to invest in Intelligence. Just take the Sage background, put skill proficiencies in Arcana and History, and the rest is roleplaying.

Now, to what would be lost: You'd have a lot less granularity (none, in fact) in measuring how good you are at X versus Y. I don't think most players care much about that, but some folks care a whole lot. There is also @Steampunkette's excellent point that we lose the ability to represent certain things mechanically; the hulking barbarian and the scrawny wizard now have the same encumbrance limit, and Legolas and Gimli have no reason to wear different types of armor. To address this, I would use a feat-like mechanic, where you can choose traits like Powerful Build (double your encumbrance) or Evasive (boost your AC when wearing light or no armor). The key is that these traits are binary--you have them or you don't--and they don't affect anything else. The barbarian who doesn't take Powerful Build is no less effective at hacking up monsters.

The other thing that would be lost, however, is fifty years of D&D tradition--it would ignite a backlash that would make 4E look well-received--and that's why this is pie in the sky.

*In practice, it wouldn't be quite that simple. Stuff like Expertise would have to be accounted for somehow; though I might replace Expertise with a Reliable Talent-type mechanic, where a floor gets put under the roll.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This would have a number of benefits. It would all but eliminate one of the biggest sources of confusion I have seen at the table over thirty-five years of playing D&D: Which number do I use for what?

That's what character sheets are for?

"What number do I use for Stealth"

"The one next to the word 'Stealth', Bob."

 

[Dausuul]

That's what character sheets are for?

"What number do I use for Stealth"

"The one next to the word 'Stealth', Bob."

And yet, somehow, this simple task gives new and casual players no end of trouble. For some reason, they keep going back to chargen, recalculating from scratch, and getting lost. I don't know why, but they do. I think it may be a desire to get a handle on where those numbers came from.

(5E added another layer of confusion by deciding to give saving throws the same names as ability scores, so when the DM calls for a Dexterity save, the player has to be steered away from a straight-up Dex check. I wish they would go back to Fort/Ref/Will for saves. I doubt it will happen in the anniversary edition, it would break backwards compatibility, but maybe one day they'll do it.)

 

[Reynard]

And yet, somehow, this simple task gives new and casual players no end of trouble. For some reason, they keep going back to chargen, recalculating from scratch, and getting lost. I don't know why, but they do. I think it may be a desire to get a handle on where those numbers came from.

(5E added another layer of confusion by deciding to give saving throws the same names as ability scores, so when the DM calls for a Dexterity save, the player has to be steered away from a straight-up Dex check. I wish they would go back to Fort/Ref/Will for saves. I doubt it will happen in the anniversary edition, it would break backwards compatibility, but maybe one day they'll do it.)

I don't think turning every action into a game of DM-may-I is going to bring the clarity and speed to play that you think it is.

 

[CleverNickName]

And yet, somehow, this simple task gives new and casual players no end of trouble. For some reason, they keep going back to chargen, recalculating from scratch, and getting lost. I don't know why, but they do. I think it may be a desire to get a handle on where those numbers came from.

(5E added another layer of confusion by deciding to give saving throws the same names as ability scores, so when the DM calls for a Dexterity save, the player has to be steered away from a straight-up Dex check. I wish they would go back to Fort/Ref/Will for saves. I doubt it will happen in the anniversary edition, it would break backwards compatibility, but maybe one day they'll do it.)

Oh it's not confusion that causes trouble. My players aren't confused, they know exactly what they are doing. Their trouble isn't coming from a place of "which number do I use?" It comes from a place of "but this number over here is bigger and I want to use that one instead!"

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think turning every action into a game of DM-may-I is going to bring the clarity and speed to play that you think it is.

...I think you must have meant to reply to someone else. Or else there are about seven steps in your reasoning that you left out of your post, because I have no idea how you got from "replace ability mods with a single proficiency bonus" to "a game of DM-may-I."

 

[Undrave]

I want them to make weapons choices INTERESTING. Weapons should be about more than just 'what's the biggest number?'

Every group of weapon should have a THING it does that other weapons don't and maybe it would be worth it to sacrifice damage for that THING.

We'd surely see less rapier if that was the case.

 

[Reynard]

...I think you must have meant to reply to someone else. Or else there are about seven steps in your reasoning that you left out of your post, because I have no idea how you got from "replace ability mods with a single proficiency bonus" to "a game of DM-may-I."

If there are no attributes or skills, then every time you do something you have to ask if your class or background provides proficiency in this particular action. Or I misunderstood and you did not mean there were no skills?

 

[TwoSix]

If there are no attributes or skills, then every time you do something you have to ask if your class or background provides proficiency in this particular action. Or I misunderstood and you did not mean there were no skills?

The original post @Dausuul made never mentioned getting rid of skills, only attributes. I would imagine skill definition would be even more important in a game with only one level of bonus granularity.

 

[Dausuul]

If there are no attributes or skills, then every time you do something you have to ask if your class or background provides proficiency in this particular action. Or I misunderstood and you did not mean there were no skills?

Ah, no, I see the confusion. Ability scores are eliminated, but skills remain. Either you are proficient, in which case you roll 1d20 + prof bonus, or you are not, and roll 1d20 straight up. No more cascading modifiers from other parts of the sheet.

The same applies to attack rolls and saving throws (which I'd put back to Fort/Ref/Will).