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

[ShinHakkaider]

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?

After some thought, I'd say yes it would STILL be D&D.

I started playing with the Moldvay box. There was no separation between race and class. THACO was a thing and hadnt been simplified to a d20 target number and there were 5 saves (IIRC).

Mechanically, it's almost a completely different game from when I was 12 and first started playing. I'm in my 50's now and no longer play D&D but still play TTRPG's and D&D still exists and is widely played. Older players may ditch the game with that massive of a change and WOTC would be creating yet another silo of OSR gamers.

But D&D would still be a thing.

 

[billd91]

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.

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).

 

[Tigris]

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.

This can be solved a lot simpler. Proficiencies. Either you cant attack with stuff with which you donr have peoficiency, or you get -4 to hit.


Also rogue cab just not use sneak attack with non light weapons.


There are really streamlined games, like beacon, and there xou start with +0 to hit and it works fine.


If martial characters gets maneuvers and or other adventages like sneak attack then they are also better with weapons than casters.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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.

This can be solved a lot simpler. Proficiencies. Either you cant attack with stuff with which you donr have peoficiency, or you get -4 to hit.

This seems like a un-argument/violently agreeing. You can have +0 be relatively incompetent and +4 be default starting, or +0 be default starting and -4 be relatively incompetent. It's all up against an enemy armor scale that is rated against these same expectations.

If martial characters gets maneuvers and or other adventages like sneak attack then they are also better with weapons than casters.

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.

Again, you're saying nearly the same thing.

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

Okay, so this here is true. Assuming the game still includes progression, you're likely to get into the plus range eventually, so perhaps expecting it to be >0 has some learning value. Still, I recall in 3e a starting cleric might have a +0 BAB and a 13-16 strength, and thus a total less than +4. Certainly there might be value in logic like 'if your roll is at a minus, perhaps you should try doing something different.'