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

[Reynard]

If we’re going that route I think we should remove ability mods from saves as well. Leaving them in retains most of the issues with some scores being far more important than others.

Of course the question then becomes do we go with three saves or five?

I like the IDEA of the old saves, in that there are these specific things in the world that can cause harm, but I don't like that list.

What if saves were based on the damage types instead, with effects expanded beyond simple damage. "Make a save vs necrotic" or whatever.

 

[jmartkdr2]

And of course the other direction to go, rather than removing scores or greatly reducing their impact, is to put a lot of effort into balancing them and making sure everyone has ways to use all of them.

For example, what if certain schools of magic required specific ability scores to master beyond your class’s main score - ie all enchantments used charisma, all abjurations use constitution, all summons use intelligence, and so on. Then being a tough wizard or being a charming one means your spell selection is different, not just the skills you use when you’re somehow out of spells.

Doing this for maritals would be a lot easier with a general maneuver system.

 

[Tigris]

And of course the other direction to go, rather than removing scores or greatly reducing their impact, is to put a lot of effort into balancing them and making sure everyone has ways to use all of them.

I am not sure if everyone needs uses for each score, but 4E did some things you mentioned here

Every defense is the best of 2 scores. Reflex is the better of int or dex. (Armor bonus in light armor the same).

Will save is the better of charisma or wisdom.

Fortitude is the best of Strength or constitution.



Then in 4e subclasses (and their spells) were dependant on secondary ability scores.


So a barbarian screaming attsck might do additional area damage depending on charisma. A wizard spell might push enemies additional squares equal to your wisdom.


The monk had subclasses with different elements which were based on different secondary scores.


Then also some feats needed specific ability scores. Like dual implement caster (one of the strongest feats) needs 13 str and 13 dex.


So if we would want to just balance ability scores better there are for sure ways.



If we go into the other direction, then well saves could again just be good, medium or bad. And not depend on a stat. If attack does not increase with a stat then defense also can just be fixed.

(Instead of proficiency you could maybe just add level difference to enemy or rather GM could do that, this way higher level monsters still are stronger and lower level ones weaker).

 

[mellored]

If we’re going that route I think we should remove ability mods from saves as well. Leaving them in retains most of the issues with some scores being far more important than others.

Of course the question then becomes do we go with three saves or five?

IMO leave the abilities just for saves. No proficiency bonus, or mod, just use the score directly as your defensive DC.

I.e. Hold Monster is d20+class bonus vs their Wis.

Any class can benefit from bonus to any save, so all racial bonuses are back on the table. Being a human with +1 to all stats = +1 to all saves, being a farmer gives +1 Str saves and that's equally helpful to a wizard and a barbarian.

Also rebalance the spells to target all 6 more evenly.

 

[Reynard]

IMO leave the abilities just for saves. No proficiency bonus, or mod, just use the score directly as your defensive DC.

I.e. Hold Monster is d20+class bonus vs their Wis.

Any class can benefit from bonus to any save, so all racial bonuses are back on the table. Being a human with +1 to all stats = +1 to all saves, being a farmer gives +1 Str saves and that's equally helpful to a wizard and a barbarian.

Also rebalance the spells to target all 6 more evenly.

I much preferred the pre-WotC method: your class and level determined what saves you were good at, and by and large martials had the best saves because Conan.

 

[mellored]

I much preferred the pre-WotC method: your class and level determined what saves you were good at, and by and large martials had the best saves because Conan.

Same idea.

Fighter starts with +3 Str, +3 Con, +3 Dex, +2 Wis, +1 Int, +0 Cha (12 total), and +4 to hit irrelevant of your stats.
-plus more as you level (24 total)
-race gives +2/+1 (3 total)
-background is another +1/+1/+1 (3 total)
-and 6 extra points you can stick anywhere (max 18)

So the majority of your saves (abilities) is still based on class.

The main difference is that your to-hit isn't based on stats. So if you want to build a charismatic half-elf fighter, you can.

A 14 Str save / 14 Cha save would still hit as hard as an 18 Str save /10 Cha save fighter.

 

[Reynard]

Same idea.

Fighter starts with +3 Str, +3 Con, +3 Dex, +2 Wis, +1 Int, +0 Cha (12 total), and +4 to hit irrelevant of your stats.
-plus more as you level (24 total)
-race gives +2/+1 (3 total)
-background is another +1/+1/+1 (3 total)
-and 6 extra points you can stick anywhere (max 18)

So the majority of your saves (abilities) is still based on class.

The main difference is that your to-hit isn't based on stats. So if you want to build a charismatic half-elf fighter, you can.

A 14 Str save / 14 Cha save would still hit as hard as an 18 Str save /10 Cha save fighter.

You are still using stats, and that runs counter to the whole idea.

 

[mellored]

You are still using stats, and that runs counter to the whole idea.

I'm using 6 saves.

They just happen to have the same name as stats.

 

[Tigris]

I'm using 6 saves.

They just happen to have the same name as stats.

But why 6 saves and not just 3?

3 is a lot simpler. 5e already had problems with 6 as in they needed to make 3 uncommon because distributing spells becomes bit annoying.

Also do we need really small +1 increments on saves? This just comes from the stats. But if we want to make it from new why not just +0 +4 or +6 to saves (bad, mid, good) or something like that.


Also why do players need +4 to hit?

Why not start at +0 to hit? Makes the start simpler and combat slightly faster.


The idea of removing stats should include the advantages of it, which is making things simpler not reintroducing the bad designs stats bring with them (especially the too many 5e saves).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You "need" a +4 to hit because you want something to say "you're good at hitting stuff with X".
Sorcerors get +4 to hit with spells, +2 to with Daggers, +0 to hit with anything else, and Wizards get +4 to hit with spells, +2 to with Staffs and +0 with anything else.
Barbarians get +4 to hit with weapons and +0 with spells.
Rogues get +4 to hit with light weapons and crossbows, and +2 to hit with anything else.

Now, maybe you don't "need" this because you decide everyone is equally good at hitting with anything, but only the Sorceror and Wizard get spells and only Barbarians, Fighters and Rogues get weapon maneuvers, so your to-hit isn't as important, only the Barbarian can make a Reckless Strike with an Axe that deals 3d10 damage in melee on a hit, only the Fighter can make Guarded Stirke with a Spear that deals 2d10 damage in melee and reduces the damage they take in half until their next turn, and only the Wizard can cast Sorching Ray for 2d6 fire damage to one or two targets.

But if you have any sort of roll involving your attacks, it's likely modifiers will be added eventually.