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

[Sorinth]

Before 3e there were very few rules around adjudicating success or failure of skills, at least not until the Skills and Powers book came out. For the most part it was just up to the group to figure it out. For better or worse there's significantly more rules on how to resolve the challenges. I think it's for the better but older editions still have fans. So for me getting rid of that system bonuses and penalties altogether (instead of just replacing them with something roughly equivalent) would be a mistake.

There were non-weapon proficiencies long before the Skills & powers book, if I remember correctly it was roll under the relevant ability score.

But anyways the point is more that you can make ability scores mean less while it still being and feeling like D&D.

 

[billd91]

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?

You could design an RPG without variations between PCs that would tend to influence various related checks (strength-based, agility-based, whatever)…. But why bother doing that to D&D? What’s the point in killing that particular sacred cow? Is there any real indication that the 6 stats D&D has is hampering its success or that removing them would improve its success or, at least be worth the change in brand identity that would require?

 

[THEMNGMNT]

A fantasy RPG without ability scores could be lots of fun, and I would definitely try it.

But it wouldn't be D&D.

Ability scores aren't a sacred cow. They are a core design pillar of the game, at least since third edition.

I've always felt that skills in D&D are just okay. I would be perfectly happy with a looser, more narrative skill system, something like 13th age's backgrounds. I would do it like this: Grant proficiency bonus to an ability check if a player can justify how their class, species, or background would make them skilled at the task. They get expertise if they justify two or more--class plus species, species plus background, etc. I've considered implementing this as a house rule but it would require a rewrite of the rogue. Not worth the effort.

Anyway, I'm drifting off topic. I'm not attached to ability scores in fantasy RPGs, but they are a core part of D&D specifically.

 

[aco175]

I would rather do away with skills and keep the abilities. You can just 1e things based on your ability.

 

[Voadam]

I would rather do away with skills and keep the abilities. You can just 1e things based on your ability.

1e didn't have that as a tradition, it had a bunch of one off resolutions, often leaving it to the DM to ad hoc a resolution.

The mechanisms that were there were sometimes based on ability scores, sometimes based on race or class or levels or just flat rolls, possibly modified by abilities or not.

Listening? Not based on ability, either based on race on a d20 roll (1e DMG) or thief level based percentage skill.

Secondary skills from the 1e DMG? Narrative no specified mechanism and no reference to abilities.

Climbing? Thief level based percentile skill (later barbarian has some too and then Dungeoneer's Survival Guide has a mountaineering nonweapon proficiency, which allows percentage chance or boost when using pitons).

Persuasion? Usually roleplayed out, but also specific bespoke mechanisms such as for recruiting henchmen and encounter reaction stuff sometimes Charisma modified sometimes racial antagonism chart.

Sometimes later in 1e from Oriental Adventures on there might be a nonweapon proficiency which gives you a check against an ability (possibly with a specific modifier) with roll under for success, but that usually did not cover someone not specifically trained when they tried anything.

 

[the Jester]

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?

I'm running a homebrew system that has eliminated bonuses or penalties for ability scores. It's working great, but it's designed with no bonuses in mind.

 

[Horwath]

meet half way.
Use ability modifiers for ability checks(not you initiative). So skill and tool checks.

everything else, combat basically, you replace your ability modifier with proficiency bonus;

attack: d20+2×prof bonus
AC: 10+prof bonus+armor bonus
damage: die+prof bonus
DC: 8+2×prof bonus
initiative: d20+prof bonus
saves: d20+prof bonus or 2×prof bonus if proficient
HP: +2 HP per level. 90% of characters have 14 CON anyway.

now, you basically kept the math, but removed pressure in optimizing abilities for your combat performance.

want a smart and charming fighter? sure have Int and Cha both at 16 at the start.

 

[Seramus]

Could it work? Absolutely, lots of systems exist that work fine without them. Would it be D&D? Not at first, but give it twenty years and it would probably get normalized into "That's what D&D is."

I will say, the staggering saturation of ability scores across so many games, both table and video game, make it one heck of a sacred cow.

 

[AlViking]

There were non-weapon proficiencies long before the Skills & powers book, if I remember correctly it was roll under the relevant ability score.

I just double checked my 2e PHB. There's nothing other than percent chance to bend bars under strength and a charisma loyalty base for followers along with a reaction adjustment. For the thief class there is a chart, but that's by level not ability score.

But anyways the point is more that you can make ability scores mean less while it still being and feeling like D&D.

Impact of ability scores on results is part of the evolution of the game. TSR was frequently far too conservative in many ways as far as I'm concerned and the vast majority of people playing D&D have never played those versions of the game.

I see no point to getting rid of ability scores, especially if you just replace it with some system that replicates a similar feel. If it doesn't replicate the feel of the modern (and more successful) version of the game it's not going to be D&D to a whole lot of people.

 

[aco175]

1e didn't have that as a tradition, it had a bunch of one off resolutions, often leaving it to the DM to ad hoc a resolution.

The mechanisms that were there were sometimes based on ability scores, sometimes based on race or class or levels or just flat rolls, possibly modified by abilities or not.

Listening? Not based on ability, either based on race on a d20 roll (1e DMG) or thief level based percentage skill.

Secondary skills from the 1e DMG? Narrative no specified mechanism and no reference to abilities.

Climbing? Thief level based percentile skill (later barbarian has some too and then Dungeoneer's Survival Guide has a mountaineering nonweapon proficiency, which allows percentage chance or boost when using pitons).

Persuasion? Usually roleplayed out, but also specific bespoke mechanisms such as for recruiting henchmen and encounter reaction stuff sometimes Charisma modified sometimes racial antagonism chart.

Sometimes later in 1e from Oriental Adventures on there might be a nonweapon proficiency which gives you a check against an ability (possibly with a specific modifier) with roll under for success, but that usually did not cover someone not specifically trained when they tried anything.

I would still think mash of junk and DM whims is better than doing away with the tradition of having ability scores.