No Attributes

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think it would be worth the trouble to redesign 3e or 4e under this paradigm, but There are just too many things you'd have to change in an existing system. However, I think it'd be worthwhile in something new, like 5e or a completely new d20-variant.


To address those who say that all fighters would be the same under this system, you could handle that with a robust skill system. Instead of a fighter with high Strength and Dexterity, you might have one with good Athletics and Acrobatics. Such a fighter would be stronger and more agile than an intelligent, charismatic Warlord whose skill set includes Tactics and Speech. However (assuming that the combat system isn't a subset of the skill system) they are both equally competent in their contributions during combat.

The nice part of this is that it frees players to role play the character that they want to role play without forcing them to be mechanically handicapped. Perhaps your warlord is good at tactics because he's a natural genius (as evidenced by his multiple Knowledge skills) whereas my warlord had to work very hard to acquire his tactical acumen because he's more the thick but strong type (high Tactics skill, but the rest of his skills are physical).

If you split the skills, you can create characters that you otherwise couldn't. Perhaps your fighter who's good at climbing and jumping, but a terrible swimmer (despite the fact that he's strong, he panics when he's submerged). Even in 3e where these were separate skills, an 18 Strength fighter would possess a degree of competence in all three by virtue of his high Strength score.


IMO, the nice part of this is that it reduces modifier bloat. To use 4e parlance, instead of a character with a +10 Athletics modifier at 1st level (20 Strength + Skill Training), you might have a character with just a +5 Athletics check (just Skill Training). I think it's much easier to have a good set of suggested DCs when you have a smaller range of numbers to work with. That range is approx (-1 to +12) in 4e and even larger in 3e (due to rank disparities).

You can even reintroduce nuance back into the system with less issues. Even if you change 4e over to a rank system (you get 5 skill points per skill you would be otherwise trained in, and the max rank is 5), the range is still reduced to +0 to +5.


Please don't be mislead by the fact that I'm using 3e and 4e in my examples. As I stated in my opening paragraph, I don't think it would be worth it to try and bodge this idea into an existing system.

I'm not convinced that ability scores are really worth the trouble of having either, though. I think a system that uses a single metric for measuring a character's capabilities is a much more elegant approach than a system that uses a multitude of additive metrics merely for the sake of poor simulation.


EDIT:
It also occurs to me that this approach would allow for much easier customization to suit a given group's style of play. For example, let's assume a group that always role-plays social encounters and hates rolling diplomacy checks. It seems to me that it would be much easier to remove the Speech skill (which has no mechanical implications outside of social scenarios) than it is to remove Charisma (which modifies a Sorcerer's DCs or attack rolls, depending on your edition). The same goes for Perception, or any skill the group has no use for.

 

[Greg K]

There is really no simulation element that I can discern. In 0e you might roll 3d6 in order, get STR 14 INT 12, and play a magic-user. That just doesn't happen any more - really, hasn't happened since 'arrange as desired' became normal.

This may be true of your experience. It is not true of everyone's.

 

[S'mon]

This may be true of your experience. It is not true of everyone's.

That's right - I have never seen a 4e player say "I wish to player a character of nature X, I shall assign attributes to emulate X". In 4e attributes IME are always assigned for mechanical reasons, not simulation reasons.

Simulationist concerns occasionally still had an impact in 3e, but tended to create crippled characters, unable to fulfil their role. Pre 3e stats mattered far less except at the extremes, so a Fighter player assigning a 14 to CHA was not unheard of.

 

[the Jester]

The important part is that in a game without attributes, you usually have more skills, or broader skills, that would represent some of the things that used to be based on attributes.

So in 3e, if you want characters to arm wrestle, it'd be a strength check. In an attribute-free game, it might be an athletics check or a wrestling check or whatever, but there's probably going to be a skill you can default to for just about anything a character is expected to do.

Which is fine. But it sounds less like D&D to me and more like GURPS or something.

This may be true of your experience. It is not true of everyone's.

That's right - I have never seen a 4e player say "I wish to player a character of nature X, I shall assign attributes to emulate X". In 4e attributes IME are always assigned for mechanical reasons, not simulation reasons.

My experience is more along the lines of Greg's here, but then my hatred of point buy stat generation is legendary and is probably a big contributor to this. (I do allow arrange to taste in 4e, though my preference is always for "roll in order and suck it up"... my homebrewed "D&D Jazz" system, instead, has "roll in order and switch a pair if you'd like".)

 

[jmucchiello]

I don't think anyone is saying that "a version" or a game, cannot be run without attributes. They are saying that the current rules (either 3e or 4e) would be difficult to modify to run without attributes. It's like electric cars - sure, you can build a car that runs on battery power. But modifying the car in your driveway to run on batteries might be more work than is reasonable, and might not get you suitable results.

I disagree completely. Take your current D&D game (any edition) and rewrite everyone's characters with 12s for all their attributes. Now play a normal session. Aside from the DM having to get use to the new power level of the characters (removing a minion or two from encounters), the roleplay should be completely unaffected. Sure some encounters might be more or less difficult than others but it would take two seconds to run without attributes. In fact, I'm thinking this would be more satisfying in 4e than 3e. (Although 4e might need 14s across the board to make the math work.)

 

[the Jester]

I disagree completely. Take your current D&D game (any edition) and rewrite everyone's characters with 12s for all their attributes. Now play a normal session. Aside from the DM having to get use to the new power level of the characters (removing a minion or two from encounters), the roleplay should be completely unaffected. Sure some encounters might be more or less difficult than others but it would take two seconds to run without attributes. In fact, I'm thinking this would be more satisfying in 4e than 3e. (Although 4e might need 14s across the board to make the math work.)

But, from the player's perspective, doesn't that make your character kind of boring?

The criticism that 4e is just a list of powers on cards would be much more true without stats, imho.

 

[Umbran]

Take your current D&D game (any edition) and rewrite everyone's characters with 12s for all their attributes. Now play a normal session. Aside from the DM having to get use to the new power level of the characters (removing a minion or two from encounters), the roleplay should be completely unaffected.

It isn't enough to set all the characters to a modifier to +1 or +0 for all stats. You'd also have to remove or modify every effect from the game that modifies attributes - every spell, every magic item, every monster special ability that touches on attributes. Every feat that has an attribute prerequisite will need to be reviewed as well.

In 3.x branch rules, if you do that, spellcasters won't usually be able to cast over 1st or 2nd level spells, and won't be getting many bonus spells. Any power that uses or changes an attribute or attribute modifier (say, a Paladin's Smite Evil, a cleric's Rebuke Undead, barbarian Rage, druid Wildshape) will all call for modification or elimination.

The skill system will function in this scenario, but the DCs will be off, as the system assumes some folks will have, or be able to get, increased modifiers. In the long run, the PCs will be, on average, shorter on hit points than the game normally assumes, as the average Con modifier will be low.

There are some creatures that are actually missing an attribute - usually an INT or CON - and that lack is of particular note in their mechanics. Those will need to be reviewed and modified to suit.

In the long run, the game uses level to gauge character power - those levels imply access to boosts in attribute modifiers. So, now you've thrown off the strongest adventure and encounter design tool the GM has.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

My experience is more along the lines of Greg's here, but then my hatred of point buy stat generation is legendary and is probably a big contributor to this. (I do allow arrange to taste in 4e, though my preference is always for "roll in order and suck it up"... my homebrewed "D&D Jazz" system, instead, has "roll in order and switch a pair if you'd like".)

I agree with this. In the four groups I've played in since 3.0 (including PF), we've just rolled either 3d6 or "4d6 drop lowest" in order. I can see the 'switching a pair of scores' working well, though. I'll keep that in mind for the next characters we roll up.

Anyway, back on the topic, I personally can't see any benefit from taking away the ability scores. Yes, you'd have a wider array of skills to choose from, but to me, that makes it seem more complicated than basing everything off of ability scores. Maybe I'm just entrenched in the ability scores and their modifiers. I wouldn't be against playing a system like this, but I probably wouldn't call it D&D or Pathfinder.

Somebody up thread mentioned something like 'Classes would determine who is stronger or stealthier' (Sorry if I misquoted and that I can't remember who said it), but I don't really like this idea. The idea that a half-orc Rogue would immediately be stealthier than a Gnome Fighter doesn't really jive with me. I understand that a Rogue would be trained to be stealthier than a Cleric, but it wouldn't always be the case, I wouldn't think.

 

[Reynard]

A Quick and Dirty List of Ways to (potentially) Implement This:

1. Drop ALL DCs by 2.
2. Eliminate spell level limits and bonus spells.
3. For all class abilities that have a number of uses based on an ability mod, assume 2.
4. Standardize hp gained from HD for everything: monsters get 1/2 DH type rounded down; PCs and named NPCs get 1/2 HD type rounded up +1.
5. Create skills for weapon groups (how many varies on the game and/or campaign, but assume 8 groups). Full BAB gets 4 extra skills points, Medium BAB gets 3 and Poor BAB gets 2. Some groups will be class skills for some classes. Skill ranks serve as BAB for prerequisite purposes.
6. If a feat has an attribute prerequisite, add the ability mod of the prereq value to other prereqs like BAB or skill ranks; if there are no additional numerical requirements, make the prereq ability mod a minimum level prereq.

It's a start anyway. Thoughts?

 

[Jhaelen]

"I'm a Fighter" or "I'm a Barbarian" - in 4e your class basically determines which attribute is a '20' (possibly an '18'). All Fighters are stronger than all Wizards. There is really no simulation element that I can discern. In 0e you might roll 3d6 in order, get STR 14 INT 12, and play a magic-user. That just doesn't happen any more - really, hasn't happened since 'arrange as desired' became normal.

IMO it would save a lot of time simply to declare that eg Fighters got +5 on 'strength' skills, Clerics got +5 on 'wisdom' skills, Wizards on intelligence skills, etc.

Yup. Since this thread started by comparing D&D to a CRPG, I'd like to point out that the above is exactly the route that Diablo 3 is going to take: Your class determines your attribute scores and as you level up, they're increased automatically as determined by your class.

I could easily see this working for D&D. Maybe add a bunch of traits (as in Burning Wheel or Ars Magica) to help in defining and individualizing your characters.