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

[Tigris]

I think that any negative modifier is already something that makes things more complex, because always adding stuff is easier than sometimes subtracting and sometimes adding (and subtracting is always a bit more difficult than adding). So giving a general +4 is preferable to giving a general -4.

I agree here, but it also depends on how often things come up. Attacking with things you are good at comes up often. So you want that to be as simple as possible. Which is +0 as a default.


On the other hand characters should rarely if st ally make things where they are bad st and a -4 feels a lot more "I should not do that" than having +0.

Of course you can do simpler zhings like just giving disadvantage.

 

[Tigris]

I think the fiction is usually ducking behind a thing or throwing yourself to the ground or putting up a shield just in time.

Wanted to write exactly the same,you duck and stand up instantly.

That said, what if an AoE Dex save was a Reaction but you could move half your speed?

Well it would limit design space a bit, since it takes away the possibility to have some reactions for special classes or utility powers. (Like how in 4e being proficient in acrobatics gave you access to such dodge abilities).


Also it would need something equivalent for the other saves.

Of course one could just get rid of bobus to saves altogether. And just have skills providing reactions etc. Which can be used. Endurance can make you feel cold and heat less with its reaction, acrobatics to dodge out of the way. Athletics to stand your ground and be not/less pushee (and some spells like wind deal damage scaling with push distance).


This would be a way to link naturally combat and non combat (proficient skills) without needing ability scores.

 

[mellored]

What is faster: Rolling a d20 or rolling a d20 and adding +4?

Rolling a d20.

Making the actions which are often done as simple and fast as possible. Thats the point if enemy armor cancels it out anyway then why having a +4 to start with?

because not all enemies are equally hard to hit, and not all attacks are equally easy to dodge.

A wizard stabbing a fighter in heavy armor and shield should be less effective than a fighter stabbing a naked wizard.

And one of the simplest ways to compare how strong 2 things are is by giving the each a bonus.

That said, making it 1 roll instead of 2 (attack roll then damage roll) is very much something that can be simplified.

Also as said one can also just not allow to do it. Or give disadvantage etc. To not have negative modifiets. The main point is not having to add an arbitrary number as a base.

I mean, you could add an arbitrary amount of dice instead.

Rolling 4d6 damage vs 3d6 armor for instance.

Not sure that's simpler that +mod, but yes, there are other ways to show a gap.

This is why for many people in high level 3.5 or in PF2 small bonuses feel unsatisfying "why should I spend an action to give my ally +2 to attacks when they got +30 already?"

Agree the numbers in PF2 get excessive.

IMO: go from 0 to +10 on a d20.
5e is close-ish to that.

Then another thing, even for progression modifiers are not necessarily. You can also just use levels.

Adding +level is what makes PF2 get excessive numbers.

Like "you can feel how your fast combat experience gives you and edge in this fight against these unexperienced foes" says the GM and subtracts -2 from all enemy attacks and defenses (which can be done before the fight or if its with digital tools or an AI GM directly).

D20+ (Level 5 - (level 3+10)) is mathematically the same as d20+5 vs 13 for them. Except it takes more on-the fly calculations.

Definitely could work for a computer. It would still fundamental be using mods, just display different.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Those tables were a mess though and inconsistently used in various modules. Plus, the thief was screwed by them because too many of their values were just plain bad. They needed a desperate rewrite and 2e elected not to do so.

And the fighter's saves were nothing to write home about until after level 8 or so. Theirs got better than most other classes because their table improved every 2 levels while everyone else's didn't, not because of Conan. The final values were a lot more balanced across classes, just achieved later (again, except for the thief because, well, suck).

If I remember correctly, the slow "per level" progression for the thief was offset by the fact that thieves advanced in level much faster than characters of other classes. A thief and a fighter with the same XP total would have saving throws in the same basic ballpark (on account of the thief being higher level).

 

[Tigris]

because not all enemies are equally hard to hit, and not all attacks are equally easy to dodge.

Thats true. But this can be a number in the enemy. And the damage of a fighter with a sword will be bigger than wizard with dagger.

A wizard stabbing a fighter in heavy armor and shield should be less effective than a fighter stabbing a naked wizard.

Players dont attack each other so you dont need to compare this.

That said, making it 1 roll instead of 2 (attack roll then damage roll) is very much something that can be simplified.

sure! This is also a simplification I do like.

Agree the numbers in PF2 get excessive.

IMO: go from 0 to +10 on a d20.
5e is close-ish to that.

Notclose enough for me. It starts with +5 (or +6 with allowing roll for stats) with weapon attacks. And if you are strength based with magical items it can easily get over 10. I am in one campaign level 5 and already have + 13 to hit (thanks to good items present in this campaign)

Adding +level is what makes PF2 get excessive numbers.

Thats why you dont add it. You just use level difference behind the scenes.

D20+ (Level 5 - (level 3+10)) is mathematically the same as d20+5 vs 13 for them. Except it takes more on-the fly calculations.

But you dont do it on the fly. The dungeon dude can prepare this in advance. If they use any electronical tool (including a pdf eith the monsters) it can do the calculation for them. The monster defense and attack is just adapted to player level.

Definitely could work for a computer. It would still fundamental be using mods, just display different.

You do not display any mods. Yes the idea is that it works fundamentally exactly the same but is for playing as simple as possible.

If you have all player facing rolls its even simpler. Player just roll a dice GM compares with enemy number (which is adapted to player level directly by pdf on their tablet) and say if its hit or miss (or evade or getting hit).

 

[mellored]

Improvement is always on a continuum. You will NEVER improve by 10 pounds in one day.

Sure, but i don't want +1 on a d100 either. 1% is not enough different to be worth tracking (unless it's a computer doing the numbers).

5% is a sweet spot IMO.

10% is stretching things a bit.

There's also 8.3% for a +1 on a d12. Which doesn't sound too bad.

You are arguing against a position no one has taken.

My point is that simplicity isn't the only goal. Good to do, but not if you also lose what makes it interesting.

3 saves is less interesting than 6 IMO.

Maybe 4 or 5 would be ideal.

Have you never seen an action movie?

You mean where they use a reaction to dive 15' to get out of the zone? That would make sense, sure.

But if your still in the same spot...

 

[Tigris]

5% is a sweet spot IMO.

10% is stretching things a bit.

Humans are bad at feeling probabilities ehich are smaller than 10% even 10% is mostly still too small. Thats why in computer games liek XCom you hit with 100% if 95% is displayed.

My point is that simplicity isn't the only goal. Good to do, but not if you also lose what makes it interesting.

3 saves is less interesting than 6 IMO.

Why? 3 is enough to differentiate them and to make sure they dont really have overlap. And even 5e only really have 3, and then some rare spells using the other ones because they had this bad idea.

The editions prior have just 3. reflex, fortitude, and will and it works well and you can feel a +2 in will, because it comes up often enough. And if you dont have ability scores than there is even less reason for 6.

If only 50% of attacks are magic and target not ac but a save, and then if they are equally distributed, having 12 saves just means all of them rarely come up and it feels not worth to invest in a save. (Even with just 3 this was a bit a problem)

Also with just 3 its easier to have clearly differentiated effects. "I dont want to be controlled so I invest in will". But with 6 xou most likely can be controlled with wisdom and cha save.

Maybe 4 or 5 would be ideal.

Sure 4 can also work if you find some good 4th one to be different to the other 3s.

And also the goal is to "feel like D&D while leaving away ability scores" so having the classical 3 and not pseudo ability svores as saves just fulfills this goal better.

 

[cbwjm]

I think you could remove ability scores/modifiers and still be DnD, after all, pre-wotc it was far more likely that you wouldn't have a bonus or penalty and it didn't impact your character that much. You'd have to make some changes, especially since in 5e the stat bonuses are a large part of your attack bonus, equaling or exceeding your proficiency bonus for much of a PC's life.

To differentiate classes, you could provide varied class abilities such as making warriors advance quicker in attack bonus and providing a damage bonus as they level. Maybe a class ability that lets them roll with advantage when attempting any feat of strength. If not using bonuses, you'd probably want to make checks have lower DCs so that they have at least some chance of succeeding. Maybe 7, 10, an 13 and just use a straight d20 roll. Actually, maybe you don't need to provide varied attack bonuses and instead just use advantage/disadvantage.

 

[mellored]

Thats true. But this can be a number in the enemy.

You mean like their AC?

And the damage of a fighter with a sword will be bigger than wizard with dagger.

And how do you represent that without +damage mod (or +dice equivalent)

Players dont attack each other so you dont need to compare this.

Not all wizards and fighters are players.

Notclose enough for me. It starts with +5 (or +6 with allowing roll for stats) with weapon attacks. And if you are strength based with magical items it can easily get over 10. I am in one campaign level 5 and already have + 13 to hit (thanks to good items present in this campaign)

I'm not sure how...
+4 from stat
+3 from proficiency
+3 from magic item he shouldn't have yet
= +10

You would need to have rolled an 18 for stats, taken +2, at level 4, and be using archery style brings it to a +13.

Anyways i agree 5e could trim it down a bit, but that's still way less than PF2's +30.

But you dont do it on the fly. The dungeon dude can prepare this in advance.

it's a lot more math for 1 person to save a tiny bit for everyone else. And that 1 person already has the most math to do.

If they use any electronical tool (including a pdf eith the monsters) it can do the calculation for them. The monster defense and attack is just adapted to player level.

If you have a computer, then why care about having small numbers?

I'd just display damage to %.
Hitting a guy and you deal 6% damage, much more informative than dealing 22 or 250,274 damage. And you can do differential equations in the background if you want.