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

[CubicsRube]

I have made a previous thread on separating Ancestry & Culture and had some great comments on it (and was pointed to some wonderful work someone has previously done on the subject). But I have also done some tinkering as to how D&D could work without ability scores at all.

Given the problematic nature around ability scores in the current conversational climate, I wanted to see how things would work. Turns out I think it would work alright.

This is a thought experiment for those who are interested, and I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm obviously not expecting that WotC would take this route or that anyone would adapt it for a home game, but it's something I've enjoyed putting together so far.

The document is attached, but here is the summary:

There are three levels of skills; Untrained, Trained and Expert. The skill bonus per level is as per below:

Skill Bonuses per level
Level​	Untrained​	Trained​	Expert​
1-4​	0​	+2​	+4​
5-8​	0​	+3​	+6​
9-12​	0​	+4​	+8​
13-16​	0​	+5​	+10​
17-20​	0​	+6​	+12​

Skill choices come from Culture (never Ancestry), Background (2 choices), and 4 free choices at character creation and at Ability Score Increase levels.
For each choice:

• Raise one skill you are Untrained in to Trained level, or
• Raise one skill you are Trained in to Expert level

Some things need to change to move to an ability score less system, but by using the above numbers as a guide, the maths does not deviate too much from bounded accuracy.

For example, hitpoints no longer use a CON bonus, but instead use the maximum value for the hit die type:

Hitpoints per Die type
Die​	Half + CON 10​	Half + CON 14​	Max​
D6​	4​	6​	6​
D8​	5​	7​	8​
D10​	6​	8​	10​
D12​	7​	9​	12​

Armour is the most changed. Light and medium armour have a +2 bonus (previously from DEX) embedded into them. This makes light armour inferior to heavy armour. I personally do not have a problem with this.

Armour Class by Armour
Type	Armor	Cost	AC	Stealth
Light	Padded	5 gp​	14	Disadvantage
Light	Leather	10 gp​	14	-
Light	Studded	45 gp​	15	-
Medium	Hide	10 gp​	14	-
Medium	Chain Shirt	50 gp​	15	-
Medium	Scale Mail	50 gp​	16	Disadvantage
Medium	Breastplate	400 gp​	16	-
Medium	Half Plate	750 gp​	16	Disadvantage
Heavy	Ring Mail	30 gp​	15	Disadvantage
Heavy	Chain Mail	75 gp​	16	Disadvantage
Heavy	Splint	200gp​	17	Disadvantage
Heavy	Plate	1,500 gp​	18	Disadvantage
Shield	Shield	10 gp​	+2	-
		​

The last big change is the saving throws have to be moved to skills. This makes some skills quite important. I have assigned them as follows:

Saving throws as Skills
Saving Throw	Talent
Strength	Athletics
Dexterity	Acrobatics
Constitution	Athletics
Intelligence	Investigate
Wisdom	Perception
Charisma	Insight

If you're inclined to read through and give your thoughts, feedback, additions, then all is welcome!

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've played with reducing ability score modifiers and increasing proficiency bonus, because I feel skill and experience should count more for your bonus than natural talent, maybe some knowledge or learn ability (that simply ability score modifiers provided RAW). So, I can sort of see what you are doing here, but my questions are this:

What does removing ability scores and saving throws actually achieve?
How were you limited by them to the point you wanted them removed from the game design?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Having your Hit point bonus be based on an 'Endurance' skill being trained could be a solution to the lack of Con but then it become the 'must have' skill for most classes. Although, Con has never been a dump stat, so might not matter.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Having your Hit point bonus be based on an 'Endurance' skill being trained could be a solution to the lack of Con but then it become the 'must have' skill for most classes. Although, Con has never been a dump stat, so might not matter.

That is why we've removed Hit Point bonus from CON, every PC had at least a +1 modifier, and most were +2 for non-warriors (warriors were even higher of course).

Anyway, the OP states HP are the maximum at each level, so it offsets the need for a CON bonus to them. In case it wasn't clear (it took me a minute to get it), by awarding maximum, that is roughly equal to half max + CON bonus in RAW.

d6 = 4 avg, max 6, that +2 difference equals the benefit of a CON 14 or 15.
d8 = 5 avg, max 8, the +3 increase represents the benefit of CON 16 or 17.
etc.

So, this way there is no "must have" to get great HP, granting the max for the die at each level guarantees it. The OP's system probably boosts HP a bit (especially at lower levels, other than 1st), but not too much IMO.

 

[CubicsRube]

Regarding HP, that's exactly why I removed it. I'm trying to avoid "must-have" skills, although I'm trying to not rewrite the entire skills system.

 

[CubicsRube]

I've played with reducing ability score modifiers and increasing proficiency bonus, because I feel skill and experience should count more for your bonus than natural talent, maybe some knowledge or learn ability (that simply ability score modifiers provided RAW). So, I can sort of see what you are doing here, but my questions are this:

What does removing ability scores and saving throws actually achieve?
How were you limited by them to the point you wanted them removed from the game design?

One of the intents is to decouple skills and ability scores entirely. This could allow more interesting combinations, such as the fighter who is an expert in history, or the Athletic Wizard.

Without ability scores there's no particular incentive towards certain skills and away from others that there would be otherwise.

A secondary intent would be to make players rolls quicker and more streamlined. Despite claims that adding d20+ability+proficiency is quick, I find it still does slow down the game for some players.

 

[DND_Reborn]

One of the intents is to decouple skills and ability scores entirely. This could allow more interesting combinations, such as the fighter who is an expert in history, or the Athletic Wizard.

Without ability scores there's no particular incentive towards certain skills and away from others that there would be otherwise.

A secondary intent would be to make players rolls quicker and more streamlined. Despite claims that adding d20+ability+proficiency is quick, I find it still does slow down the game for some players.

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.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

 

[Stormonu]

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.