D&D 5E Removing Ability Score from offense

[WayOfTheFourElements]

But the current system still allows for trap choices. If someone builds a fighter or rogue with 8 Str and 8 Dex, thinking that they want their character to be a charming investigator but none of the other classes fit, the character is not going to contribute in combat regardless of their other stats. Decoupling ability scores from offensive capability (at least directly) broadens the kinds of characters people could play.

I didn't mention decoupling from race. You could easily still have racial ability score bonuses along with this system. Wood Elves are agile and perceptive. High elves are agile and intelligent. But Orcs can be wizards too, and a 10th level orc wizard is as good a wizard as a 10th level high elf wizard because they're both 10th level (the orc wizard likely has different talents than the high elf wizard).

I would totally play the 10 STR, 10 DEX investigator rogue. Sounds like fun. I'm not the best swordsman, but who cares when I can use other skills to solve problems. Adventuring isn't all about combat.

Playing a dumb wizard can be fun, too. Who care if your save DC sucks. Not all spells have save DCs. I'll concentrate on those.

Optimal isn't always synonymous with fun. Though it can be for some players, others prefer an uphill battle.

 

[Remathilis]

If I read this right, ability scores would no longer affect hit and damage and Spell DC, but still affects AC, HP, saves and skills?

Crap, all my PCs would be Dex/Con/Wis with dump stat Str, Dex, and Cha. A human fighter could have S:9, D: 16, C:16, I: 9, W: 16, Cha 9 and have +3 to AC, init, Hp, stealth, perception, the three most common saves.

Of course, that isn't what op wants. So we need to go one further: remove ability scores from defense as well. No bonus to AC, hp, or saves would be a good start. I'd probably make saves scale like Attack bonus and maybe go back to Fort Reflex and Will just. For AC, I'd have ac totally set by a combo of armor and proficiency bonus, with the type of armor (light medium or heavy) giving some bonus to another area to create diversity (light gives bonus to stealth or init, heavy gives bonus hp)

So what would ability scores be used for? Probably just skills and ability checks. You could even cross the Rubicon and just make skills decoupled and then eliminate the scores altogether if you wanted.

 

[Baron Opal II]

But the current system still allows for trap choices. If someone builds a fighter or rogue with 8 Str and 8 Dex, thinking that they want their character to be a charming investigator but none of the other classes fit, the character is not going to contribute in combat regardless of their other stats. Decoupling ability scores from offensive capability (at least directly) broadens the kinds of characters people could play.

First of all, if you want to be a charming investigator, you play a bard. Especially if you have poor physical stats.

Secondly, yes, if you put low values in Strength and Dexterity you will do poorly in combat. That's their point. So, don't do that. You are not broadening the kinds of characters people can play, you are removing types. You are eliminating the fighter who was the blacksmith's daughter and the thief who was the sailor's son.

Thirdly, you can function perfectly well with a +1 or +2 as a bonus. A thief who wishes to be a charming investigator should have a strong charisma and intelligence (?), and also dexterity so they can do the slight of hand and climb into the second story. Yes, that's two or three attributes that should have a bonus, but the standard pick has three values that confer a bonus, two average, and one at penalty, right? You're covered.

This isn't a trap, it's poor choices. This is why you have feats, backgrounds, and skills. Those are the way to gain capable characters of any archetype.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe you could just give everyone the same attacks and defenses and HP and let everyone write numbers down as they like.
You just say I am a low dextrous elf and very bulky and I am a fighter wizard. Now I just roll a d20 and if I roll higher than 8 I succed with whatever I want to do.
I just git a system for small children that works more or less like that.
It can work, but at some point it is not DnD anymore.

That of course was very exaggerated bad I stand with the basic premise, that every rule is limiting in some way, and either you play by the rules or you do free form.
In LARP that is a very real question. Either you play a rules heavy system or just: you can what you can perform. That is not as easy in a Pen and paper RPG, but you need to draw a line at some point. Class based systems have stricter rules than point buy systems, but in my experience the resulting characters are not wider in the latter, but it is just a different optimization problem sometimes with a single best solution.

I personally like tradeoffs you need to make in class based systems like DnD. Although I also like customization options.

One thing I would like is being a bit more versatile in the casting stat. I would not mind being able to chose INT as the bard's casting stat or CHA as the arcane trickster's one and WIS for paladins. That would in my opinion bring more versatility than just shifting a +2 bonus from here to there.

But having options is seldom bad as long as it is ok not to use them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A strong barbarian would have access to different Strength prerequisite features, like feats or talents or whatever the system was designed around. There might still be ability score requirements for certain armor and weapons too.

So a Strong barbarian would have better athletics and carrying capacity, be able to use a two-handed weapon, and have access to strength talents. A Charming barbarian would have better intimidation and have access to charisma talents (and likely be more of a leader role character).

I really like the frenzied berserkers level 10 skill. They are often bashed because charisma is usuall one of their lower stats. But it is really easy with your standard array to even have a bonus there. If you remember that at that level most enemies don't even have a save bonus at all, you will get some mileage out of it.
As a Standard Human, if you really want, you can easily have +2 there. (you start with a standard array of 16, 15, 14, 13, 11 and 9... Though probably you'd rather go 16, 14, 14, 14, 11, 10 or so.
As half elf, its about as good, you go in order: 16, 14, 14, 10, 8, 14. Of course, you lack 1hp/level, but as a barbarian, who really cares?

 

[Baron Opal II]

As a follow up, maybe this will be a better explanation of my objection.

If the game is built around the expectation that everyone has a +3 to +4 in a specific attribute, pan-class, in order to contribute in one of the three main aspects of play, that is a problem / feature / aspect of the system. This depends on one's point of view, naturally.

Recognizing this, you can adjust the typical or average combat encounter that makes the assumption that the pan-class attribute bonus will be +1 or even at par. That way sub-optimal (i.e. "good") bonuses in combat will be sufficient and you can arrange your optimal (i.e. "best") performance for the area desired. Such as a fighter with a high Wisdom and Charisma, who is known for their battlefield perspicacity and networking amongst the mercenary bands.

If your first objection is that some people will still be combat monsters, "but the DPR...!", then your concern isn't about the "trap", is it? You want everyone to function the same in combat (class-wise), to be a combat monster, so that you can afford all characters two themes. And, that's okay if that's what you want. But, I wouldn't care for it.