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.'

 

[Tigris]

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.

No this is not an unargument its good gamedesign.

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

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?

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.

Again, you're saying nearly the same thing.

Sure. just different examples to highlight why having modifiers are not needed to differentiate.

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.'

Well sure one might get with bonuses in a plus range later, but this still makes the beginning simpler (where beginners start).

Also getting a +1 to attacks feels much more powerfull/more like a feature when you before had +0 to attacks than if you already had +5 or more.

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?"


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

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).

So players still gain power over low level enemies and vice versa but without making their attacks more complicated.

 

[mellored]

But why 6 saves and not just 3?

More variety.

3 is a lot simpler.

1 is a lot simpler than 3.

For the simplest, roll a d2. If you roll 2 you win the campaign. A 1 means you lose the whole campaign.

But.i definitely wouldn't consider that D&D. You want some complexity.

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

That’s easy enough to fix. You would have to redo all the saves if you went to 3 anyways.

side complaint: i really don't know how you use Dex to dodge AoEs. The whole room is filled with fire, how does a quick side step help with that?

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.

Yes. It allows you to get slowly better over time.

5% (+1 on a d20) is a enough to be noticeable but still small enough to feel like gradual improvements.

10% improvement (+2 on a d20) would feel slightly too big of a jump IMO. Doable, but a little big.

I.e.
5%: bench pressing 200lbs one day and 210lbs the next.

10%: benching 200lbs one day and 220lbs the next.

Also if your never going to have an odd number, then divide by 2. Make it a +1 on a d10 roll.

Also why do players need +4 to hit?

Going along with the +1 growth, yes.

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

+0 is when your not proficient in it. A peasant throwing a stone at a dragon gets +0, or a fighter trying to cast fireball.
Which avoids negatives / penalties.

You want people to feel positive about their characters power. Penalties feels like they are disabled.

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).

There is certainly useless complexity in D&D, ability scores to ability mods for instance, but if you remove all the complexity you remove what makes it interesting

Again, flipping a coin is very simple, but that's not fun for very long.

 

[Reynard]

side complaint: i really don't know how you use Dex to dodge AoEs. The whole room is filled with fire, how does a quick side step help with that?

Have you never seen an action movie?

Yes. It allows you to get slowly better over time.

5% (+1 on a d20) is a enough to be noticeable but still small enough to feel like gradual improvements.

10% improvement (+2 on a d20) would feel slightly too big of a jump IMO. Doable, but a little big.

I.e.
5%: bench pressing 200lbs one day and 210lbs the next.

10%: benching 200lbs one day and 220lbs the next.

Improvement is always on a continuum. You will NEVER improve by 10 pounds in one day. You train to get stronger and then one day you push your PR. When you test that determines how much you improved.

There is certainly useless complexity in D&D, ability scores to ability mods for instance, but if you remove all the complexity you remove what makes it interesting

Again, flipping a coin is very simple, but that's not fun for very long.

You are arguing against a position no one has taken.

 

[TwoSix]

Have you never seen an action movie?

The real flaw with the "Dex save as a quick dodge" narration is that doesn't also cause a reposition if you're playing on a grid.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

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.

 

[Reynard]

The real flaw with the "Dex save as a quick dodge" narration is that doesn't also cause a reposition if you're playing on a grid.

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

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