D&D General Hypothetical: D&D without ability scores (or bonuses)

[aco175]

Table 36:
Secondary Skills
D100
Roll Secondary Skill
01–02 Armorer (make, repair & evaluate armor and weapons)
03–04 Bowyer/Fletcher (make, repair & evaluate bows and arrows)
05–10 Farmer (basic agriculture)
11–14 Fisher (swimming, nets, and small boat handling)
15–20 Forester (basic wood lore, lumbering)
21–23 Gambler (knowledge of gambling games)
24–27 Groom (animal handling)
28–32 Hunter (basic wood lore, butchering, basic tracking)
33–34 Jeweler (appraisal of gems and jewelry)
35–37 Leather worker (skinning, tanning)
38–39 Limner/Painter (map making, appraisal of art objects)
40–42 Mason (stone-cutting)
43–44 Miner (stone-cutting, assaying)
45–46 Navigator (astronomy, sailing, swimming, navigation)
47–49 Sailor (sailing, swimming)
50–51 Scribe (reading, writing, basic math)
52–53 Shipwright (sailing, carpentry)
54–56 Tailor/Weaver (weaving, sewing, embroidery)
57–59 Teamster/Freighter (animal handling, wagon repair)
60–62 Trader/Barterer (appraisal of common goods)
63–66 Trapper/Furrier (basic wood lore, skinning)
67–68 Weaponsmith (make, repair, & evaluate weapons)
69–71 Woodworker/Carpenter (carpentry, carving)
72–85 No skill of measurable worth
86–00 Roll twice (reroll any result of 86-00)

I recall that I kept getting no skill or measurable worth for nearly every character. I think I had a rat catcher in the sewers, a dung sweeper, and a hay bailer for skills. No reason why I went adventuring.

 

[Reynard]

I recall that I kept getting no skill or measurable worth for nearly every character. I think I had a rat catcher in the sewers, a dung sweeper, and a hay bailer for skills. No reason why I went adventuring.

Th6reason you went adventuring was to escape life as a rat catcher, dung sweeper or hay bailer.

 

[Voadam]

This statement applies equally to skills in 5e, the DM rules on basically everything related to using a skill, from when you can use it, to how difficult it is, to what happens when you succeed/fail.

Eh, Sort of.

5e 14 says a DM can call for rolls or not, here is the system for calling for rolls including a difficulty chart. You can know if a check is called for how good your PC is compared to your buddy's PC from the stats on your sheet. If there is a check it gives a common framework and you know you can compare one PC to another and how much your stats will impact the check.

Late 1e and 2e NWPs (not introduced until after Unearthed Arcana, first introduced in 1e Oriental Adventures) were similar, the methodology of the roll and the ability score number are fixed, the modifier for difficulty might be set or subject to a DM +4/-4 range of ad hoc adjustment and what success meant was often still DM subjective.

But NWPs were more like feats, not a default skill system and usually did not tell you what people without the NWP can do, and the other options provided no rule system whatsoever. A DM calling for a roll could give a straight percentage chance, with no ability interaction at all. They could call for a saving throw where class and level modify the roll and maybe wisdom. They could use the NWP ability roll under mechanic where every ability score point had twice the impact of a 3e-5e score modifier on success.

OD&D, 1e, and Basic D&D did not even have the NWP type mechanics until late in the cycle for both 1e and BECMI.

There were a few things under the ability scores where they defined some stuff you could do based on the score forcing open stuck doors, bonus languages, and some mechanics referenced ability, but they were very much one off stuff.

The secondary skill table is basically your background where you explain to the DM why you think it would allow/help you do something, and the NWP were the skills and they'd agree or not.

Secondary skills as introduced in the 1979 1e DMG and repeated in 2e was just the name of the background profession.

A 2e DM could say applicable secondary skills would use applicable NWP mechanics, but they would be coming up with that on their own.

 

[Sorinth]

Eh, Sort of.

5e 14 says a DM can call for rolls or not, here is the system for calling for rolls including a difficulty chart. You can know if a check is called for how good your PC is compared to your buddy's PC from the stats on your sheet. If there is a check it gives a common framework and you know you can compare one PC to another and how much your stats will impact the check.

Late 1e and 2e NWPs (not introduced until after Unearthed Arcana, first introduced in 1e Oriental Adventures) were similar, the methodology of the roll and the ability score number are fixed, the modifier for difficulty might be set or subject to a DM +4/-4 range of ad hoc adjustment and what success meant was often still DM subjective.

But NWPs were more like feats, not a default skill system and usually did not tell you what people without the NWP can do, and the other options provided no rule system whatsoever. A DM calling for a roll could give a straight percentage chance, with no ability interaction at all. They could call for a saving throw where class and level modify the roll and maybe wisdom. They could use the NWP ability roll under mechanic where every ability score point had twice the impact of a 3e-5e score modifier on success.

OD&D, 1e, and Basic D&D did not even have the NWP type mechanics until late in the cycle for both 1e and BECMI.

There were a few things under the ability scores where they defined some stuff you could do based on the score forcing open stuck doors, bonus languages, and some mechanics referenced ability, but they were very much one off stuff.


Secondary skills as introduced in the 1979 1e DMG and repeated in 2e was just the name of the background profession.

A 2e DM could say applicable secondary skills would use applicable NWP mechanics, but they would be coming up with that on their own.

I fail to see how you can claim one is ad hoc and the other isn't. In both rulesets the DM is determining everything about the check, from who can even make an attempt, to the difficulty, to the outcomes of success and failure.

Everything you mention applies to both, you can compare PCs and tell how much better one PC will be at doing a task then another PC would be with either system. Neither system tells you what a PC without proficiency can and can't do, what success means is up to the DM in both systems. The only fundamental difference is that NWP were optional and 5e skills aren't.

Is the 5e system simpler? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's less ad hoc. They are both based on the DM making decisions on the fly and have little guidance beyond have fun.

 

[Muso]

No. D&D is not D&D without ability scores (or AC or pf or saving throws, etc)

 

[jmartkdr2]

No. D&D is not D&D without ability scores (or AC or pf or saving throws, etc)

Quick question: what’s pf?

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Quick question: what’s pf?

guess - proficiency?

 

[jmartkdr2]

guess - proficiency?

That’s what I would guess too, but proficiency wasn’t a thing for the first few editions.

 

[Muso]

Quick question: what’s pf?

Uh. Sorry. The Italian for HP (in Italian "punti ferita")

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

It might be a good game, but it wouldn't be D&D.

I say this as someone who has played (and run) games with fewer ability scores, more ability scores, and different ability scores. For some things I prefer them - so they're "good games" - but they are not D&D.