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

[Reynard]

The 6 attributes are the most sacred of the D&D legacy elements. But what if we just eliminated them entirely? What if we just used skills, proficiencies, feats, etc to define what a character is good at mechanically?

Could D&D be D&D without ability scores? Would you play D&D without ability scores?

 

[bedir than]

The 6 attributes are the most sacred of the D&D legacy elements. But what if we just eliminated them entirely? What if we just used skills, proficiencies, feats, etc to define what a character is good at mechanically?

Could D&D be D&D without ability scores? Would you play D&D without ability scores?

Black Flag works fine without ability score bonuses.

I don't know that you can remove the Six entirely and still be D&D. You can't even remove Alignment and have most people think it's D&D, even if Alignment is a vestigial organ now.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Probably the the easiest thing is to make the classic 6 things among many that one can be proficient in. To make it less flat, I'd make more use of half-proficency and expertise.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't know if it could be D&D without ability scores, because i don't feel that strongly about sacred cows than others do. For some, it sure is going to be a deal-breaker.

I think fundamentally, ability scores can help shape an image of what kind of person a character is. It's easier to look at 6 ability scores and get a feeling then looking at two dozen skill ratings to get a feeling (at least if ability scores are relevant modifiers, if not, it could be utterly misleading. Say, you have a high Dex but Stealth, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand are still abysmal compared to your Lifting and Jumping scores because you got+23 from skill rating abilities in them them but 0 in the other, and modifiers from ability are only from -4 to +4).

It can also help make people kinda "consistent" with a general character idea. So a smart character that forgot to pick Mathematics might still have a good baseline simply because the +4 from his Int is doing a lot. On the other hand, if you want to play a math savant that however has no clue about physics or magic, that +4 from Int might do too much on the other skills and doesn't feel right.

I could easily see a system that works actually the other way around - your Dex score is based on how good you are at a group of skills, and maybe your Dex score represents the floor of your abilities - if you got Stealth at 15 ranks but Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand at 0, maybe those 15 ranks gives Dex +5 and you could default to Dex for your Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand instead of your skill modifier.


I think from a certain point of view - with a mix of ASIs and point buy, why even bother setting an Intelligence Score for the Wizard? It's going to be 18 or 20 eventually, so just settle with the starting modifier value you want and increase the bonus at the rate that suits your system.
Remove the vestige of the Intelligence score and say Wizards have +5 to Arcane Spell Attacks (and their Spell DC starts at 15) and Knowledge skill checks and +3 to their other class skills. Fighters can choose between +5 to Melee Attacks and +3 to Ranged Attacks or vice versa, and +5 to 3 skills from the fighter class skill list and +3 to the remaining class skills.

 

[Laurefindel]

Hypothetically, it’d be easy to include expected ability score bonus progression into the proficiency bonus and do without ability score completely. That, or keep a universal ability bonus and proficiency bonus separated for the purpose of features with a bonus/number of use equal to ability modifier/PB, both would be easy to implement and keep the maths relatively intact.

As for whether it’d still be D&D? That’s a big part of its DNA that’d be removed, even if it would run smoothly mechanically.

Since the beginning, Ability scores are the main form of individual identity beyond class and race/species; there’s a lot I’d remove from 5e before I’d do that.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I wouldn't call it Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wouldn't call it Dungeons and Dragons.

This. I dont see them doing it but its not D&D wouldn't play it.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

You can make a D&D clone without those abilties or any abilities and it can be fine and dandy. But if it's going to be called "Dungeons and Dragons" it should have the core elements of Dungeons and Dragons, which to my mind are the six ability scores, classes (including at least some that align to the original classes), and rules built around an assumed medieval fantasy setting.

 

[AlViking]

Certainly the core 3-18 is a sacred cow that could be replaced by the modifiers they generate. But that means slightly less flexibility with "half" feats that add a +1 to one ability and some other benefit. Meanwhile there are plenty of systems that don't work this way but many (most?) just have some other way of differentiating characters such as skill chains or point allocation in different areas.

Getting rid of ability scores doesn't really buy much because if you want to maintain the feel of D&D you need to have ways of differentiating and specializing. You'd have to reinvent the wheel to make that happen so I don't see the point.

 

[Sorinth]

Having the six abilities scores is certainly a sacred cow for D&D, how impactful those abilities need to be for it to still be D&D is debatable. Before 3rd edition ability scores didn't tend to be all that impactful unless you had a high score, and since ASIs and the like didn't exist high scores were somewhat rarer.

So you could certainly lessen or even remove the impact the ability scores have on skills, saves, class features, etc.., but you would still need them there doing "something" for it to be D&D.