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

I will say this, when I run my system, there are no ability scores, just skills. That said, these skills can seem to mirror some of the "classic" abilities. I am not sure there is a way around that. I just liked the idea of not tying an ability to your class. It makes the character development more freeing in my opinion. You can have the strong wizard who controls magic with the force of his own muscles, or a fighter who has studied the academics of arcana their whole life.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The way I would do it is add traits or feats that represent mechanical impacts on play (but not just boring bonuses).

Strong as an ox: you can carry twice as much weight as the average person (i would make that a standard based on size and number of limbs btw).

Alertness: your chances of detecting hidden traps, doors or other features is doubled (this would rely on old school 1 in 6, 2 in 6, etc), and sneaking enemies had disadvantage on their stealth roll (the DC would be based on environment).

Like that.
 

You can have the strong wizard who controls magic with the force of his own muscles
Flex Mentallo!
Polish_20260118_102200767.jpg
 

Up through and including 2e, attributes directly impacted most abilities and things a character did. Starting with 3e, attributes mostly resolved to a +/- modifier. IIRC, your prime spell casting attribute directly impacted how high level a spell you could cast(required 10 + spell lvl?) but pretty much every other use for an attribute was the +/- modifier.

PF2 has already ditched direct attributes in favor of the +/- modifier.

Question: Are you more concerned that your character has a 16 Int or a +3 modifier?

Dumping even the modifiers might be a step too far.
 

Up through and including 2e, attributes directly impacted most abilities and things a character did. Starting with 3e, attributes mostly resolved to a +/- modifier. IIRC, your prime spell casting attribute directly impacted how high level a spell you could cast(required 10 + spell lvl?) but pretty much every other use for an attribute was the +/- modifier.

PF2 has already ditched direct attributes in favor of the +/- modifier.

Question: Are you more concerned that your character has a 16 Int or a +3 modifier?

Dumping even the modifiers might be a step too far.
Switching from. 3-18 to mods is pretty irrelevant in modern iterations anyway. My proposal (or question) is to remove them entirely.
 

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 wouldn't kill the scores, just the bonuses. Instead, I would use the scores as your defenses, and maybe other stuff.

Or maybe do a scaled roll under resolution for skills using the scores as the DC for Success, and the score minus x is partial success, and score minus x+y is failure, etc.
 


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.
There's a whole Non Weapon Proficiency section (Chapter 5 in my PHB), it has like 60+ proficiencies. For example one of them is Survival, and you can use it to find food/water much like the 5e Survival skill. In the 2e you would roll a d20 and needed to roll under your Intelligence score, the modifier was 0, but as you gained NWP through leveling you could increase the modifer.

It's obviously different from 5e, but the ability score was still relevant even if didn't provide a direct modifier. The point is though that the old editions weren't just add-hoc DM does whatever they want for skills, it's little different from 5e in the basic gameplay. The player wants to do something, often times pointing out the proficiency/skill they want to use, then DM determines if a roll is required, and if yes the player makes the roll which determiens success/failure.
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.
Yes the way the game evolved was to emphasize ability scores more then it did in the past, but the idea that anything that doesn't do it almost exactly as 5e does it will alienate a lot of people or wouldn't feel like D&D is nonsense.

My 2cents are that ability scores do matter too much in 5e, they should be relevant but not to the same degree as skill level, whether that's proficiency bonus, or something like 2e or 3e where you choose how to grow your skills. The other thing I'd want to make sure is that it's easy to understand and quick to resolve, this is something 5e does really well and I wouldn't want to lose that aspect in any new system.
 

There's a whole Non Weapon Proficiency section (Chapter 5 in my PHB), it has like 60+ proficiencies. For example one of them is Survival, and you can use it to find food/water much like the 5e Survival skill. In the 2e you would roll a d20 and needed to roll under your Intelligence score, the modifier was 0, but as you gained NWP through leveling you could increase the modifer.

It's obviously different from 5e, but the ability score was still relevant even if didn't provide a direct modifier. The point is though that the old editions weren't just add-hoc DM does whatever they want for skills, it's little different from 5e in the basic gameplay. The player wants to do something, often times pointing out the proficiency/skill they want to use, then DM determines if a roll is required, and if yes the player makes the roll which determiens success/failure.

Yes the way the game evolved was to emphasize ability scores more then it did in the past, but the idea that anything that doesn't do it almost exactly as 5e does it will alienate a lot of people or wouldn't feel like D&D is nonsense.

My 2cents are that ability scores do matter too much in 5e, they should be relevant but not to the same degree as skill level, whether that's proficiency bonus, or something like 2e or 3e where you choose how to grow your skills. The other thing I'd want to make sure is that it's easy to understand and quick to resolve, this is something 5e does really well and I wouldn't want to lose that aspect in any new system.
Non weapon proficiencies were in the 2e PH and part of a whole chapter on proficiencies and had done out ability based mechanics for a lot of them (some were like feats in giving non ability based stuff). They were, however, explicitly an optional 2e system and not the only one. A lot of options were explicitly ad hoc the DM does most anything they want for rulings.

"Chapter 5: Proficiencies (Optional)"

"For a really complete role-playing character, you should know what your character can do. There are three different ways to do this: using what you know, using secondary skills, and using nonweapon proficiencies. Each of these is optional, but each increases the amount of detail that rounds out your character."

The three optional systems were 1) Using What You Know, 2) Secondary Skills, and 3) Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

Using what you know"

"One way to answer this is to pretend that your character knows most of the things that you know. Do you know how to swim? If you do, then your character can swim. If you know a little about mountain climbing, horseback riding, carpentry, or sewing, your character knows these things, too. This also applies to things your character might want to build. Perhaps your character decides he wants to build a catapult. If you can show your DM how to make such a device, then the DM may allow your character the same knowledge. Indeed, you might visit the local library just to gain this information."

"The biggest drawback to this method is that there are no rules to resolve tricky situations. The DM must make it up during play."

Secondary Skills

"Secondary skills are broad areas of expertise. Most correspond to occupations that your character may have been apprenticed in or otherwise picked up before beginning his adventuring life. Secondary skills are much more general than nonweapon proficiencies. They should not be used in combination with nonweapon proficiencies, which are explained later.
Every player character has a chance at a secondary skill. Either choose one from Table 36 or take a chance and roll randomly. A random roll may result in one, two, or no secondary skills.
"Once a character has a secondary skill, it is up to the player and the DM to determine just what the character can do with it. The items in parentheses after each skill describe some of the things the character knows. Other knowledge may be added with the DM’s approval. Thus, a hunter might know the basics of finding food in the wilderness, how to read animal signs to identify the types of creatures in the area, the habits of dangerous animals, and how to stalk wild animals.
"Like the previous method (“Using What You Know”), this method has strengths and weaknesses. Secondary skills do not provide any rules for determining whether a character succeeds when he uses a skill to do something difficult. It is safe to assume that simple jobs succeed automatically. (A hunter could find food for himself without any difficulty.) For more complicated tasks, the DM must assign a chance for success. He can assign a percentage chance, have the character make a saving throw, or require an Ability check (see Glossary). The DM still has a lot of flexibility."

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)
 
Last edited:

A lot of options were explicitly ad hoc the DM does most anything they what they want for rulings.
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.

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.
 

Remove ads

Top