D&D 5E Stats vs. Skill

[Irda Ranger]

I'm just brainstorming here, and want to throw this idea out there.

One thing that sort of bothers me about D&D 5E is how tied to stats everything is. I understand the benefits, but I also sort of liked it back in the OD&D/BX days when your THAC0 (or wizard level) was what mattered and your stats played a lesser role in how effective an adventurer you were. A high strength got you a small bonus at best, and mostly ancillary benefits like more encumbrance. Stuff that's nice to have but isn't a character killer if you lack it.

So here's my idea. First, reduce stat bonuses a lot. I'm thinking +1 for 14-18, +2 for 19-20. Then create some "Skills" like Swordplay, Marksmanship, Arcane Casting, etc., and use these skills for weapon and spell attacks, and also figuring out Spell DC, Spells known/prepared, etc.

Fighters at 1st level choose Swordplay or Marksmanship, and they get Expertise in this Skill.

Spellcasters automatically get Expertise in their spellcasting skills. (Wizards for wizards, Clerics for clerics, etc).

For Saving Throws and "non-magic, non-combat" Skills, everyone gets full Proficiency progression in all Saves and Skills, and Expertise in the Saves/Skills that you currently have Proficiency in.

You don't need ASIs anymore, because your to-hits and spell DCs will progress automatically as you level up. If your campaign uses Feats, just give out Feats at the levels you feel appropriate. Maybe 6, 12, 18 or just 8, 16. Whatever. I don't think it matters too much as long as everyone gets the same progression.

There's still a few wrinkles to work out, like whether to give Elves a +1 to Marksmanship Skill, but I think that's about it and it would keep the balance of the game preserved.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I personally wouldn't go for this, but I think that it would have the effect that you're going for: disassociation of character capabilities from their base abilities.

What about it bothers you by the way?

 

[CydKnight]

One thought I have is that Ability Score Increases are already tied to leveling so except at character creation, those stats are tied to leveling up.

Another thought is that we have Feats which can be taken in lieu of an Ability Score Increase at the appropriate level and seem to already serve the purpose of the "skills" you propose.

Yet another thought is that having everyone with the same progression across the board removes an opportunity for character customization.

The process of determining your Ability Scores, including the choice of how to formulate them, is an important part of character creation. Take away that process and you could be less invested/enthusiastic about playing the character.

If you think it works for you, and you can get the Party to agree, then do it. My group would never go for this.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

Proficiency bonus is the mechanic that represents growing skill. As characters level up their proficiency bonus increases, which makes them better at the handful of skills they have training in and continue to get better at. Same goes for casting spells and attacks. It's a lot less granular than skill ranks of past editions, but having a single bonus greatly simplifies and streamlines character creation and level up.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So here's my idea. First, reduce stat bonuses a lot. I'm thinking +1 for 14-18, +2 for 19-20. Then create some "Skills" like Swordplay, Marksmanship, Arcane Casting, etc., and use these skills for weapon and spell attacks, and also figuring out Spell DC, Spells known/prepared, etc.

Fighters at 1st level choose Swordplay or Marksmanship, and they get Expertise in this Skill.

Spellcasters automatically get Expertise in their spellcasting skills. (Wizards for wizards, Clerics for clerics, etc).

For Saving Throws and "non-magic, non-combat" Skills, everyone gets full Proficiency progression in all Saves and Skills, and Expertise in the Saves/Skills that you currently have Proficiency in.

The first question is why you would bother keeping ability scores around, if they never improved and they only ever amounted to +1 or +2 to some checks. Ability scores are already kind of a relic, since everything works on ability modifiers these days. Before following this path, I would highly recommend replacing stats with generic traits like "Strong" or "Wise" and just letting characters pick three of them at first level; or I would recommend adding the entire score as a bonus to skill checks, so that there's some sort of meaningful difference between Strength 8 and Strength 13.

As far as Expertise goes, I would be leery about introducing a +5 variance between two people attempting the same task, or else you're right back to the current problem except now the disparity is based on whether it's specifically your schtick rather than whether you've maxxed out the corresponding stat. To be perfectly honest, if you got rid of stats entirely and didn't replace them with Expertise or anything else to fill in the gap, the math would probably work better; even though everyone would have the same numerical chance to do everything, they would choose to do different things based on their class features.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I personally wouldn't go for this, but I think that it would have the effect that you're going for: disassociation of character capabilities from their base abilities.

What about it bothers you by the way?

Are you familiar with the Dragonlance characters? I'll just assume so.

Caramon Majere was always "the hulking strong guy", but this largely meant he could carry around more gear and perform a few acts of brute strength such as lifting an enemy off the ground. It didn't directly translate into him being a better fighter than Tanis or Sturm. Skill at arms was disassociated from brute strength. A few of the weaker characters (Raistlin especially) were too weak to even wield swords effectively (this represents the minimum strength needed to be a warrior), but beyond that minimum strength skill mattered more than attributes.

I want to be able give players that kind of flexibility in defining their PCs. To be a Tanis Half-Elven who's "strong enough" but not "Caramon strong" and be no less a warrior for it.

 

[Irda Ranger]

One thought I have is that Ability Score Increases are already tied to leveling so except at character creation, those stats are tied to leveling up.

That's exactly what I don't like about it.

Another thought is that we have Feats which can be taken in lieu of an Ability Score Increase at the appropriate level and seem to already serve the purpose of the "skills" you propose.

Yes, taking Feats instead is what I proposed.

Yet another thought is that having everyone with the same progression across the board removes an opportunity for character customization.

That's what we already have. Players basically choose a "build" at first level and then logic dictates how ASIs are spent from there out. Diverting from the build is always sub-optimal. So why give players a "choice" when there's obviously right and wrong choices? Just make it automatic.

The process of determining your Ability Scores, including the choice of how to formulate them, is an important part of character creation. Take away that process and you could be less invested/enthusiastic about playing the character.

And picking an explicit build is less engaging?

 

[CydKnight]

That's exactly what I don't like about it.



Yes, taking Feats instead is what I proposed.



That's what we already have. Players basically choose a "build" at first level and then logic dictates how ASIs are spent from there out. Diverting from the build is always sub-optimal. So why give players a "choice" when there's obviously right and wrong choices? Just make it automatic.



And picking an explicit build is less engaging?

I wasn't debating. You asked for "thoughts" so I provided mine.

Optimization is a choice and there is more than one way to optimize a character. Logic only dictates how ASIs are spent if your goal is to optimize your character in a certain way so right and wrong choices are really in the eye of the beholder. Like you have already acknowledged, players can choose Feats instead and my limited experience is that they often do and I rarely see anyone actually max out an ASI.

Why give a choice? For the same reason I already stated but perhaps poorly. Players, in my opinion, will be more engaged if they have choices. Maybe 99.9% people will choose to optimize their character build but because it was their choice to build it in that way, they have more investment in playing that character. So in that way, I do believe "picking an explicit build is less engaging" and I don't feel their is any confusion or doubt which is implied by the definition of explicit.

Also, as I have often said in my limited posts in this forum, feel free to Homebrew the game any way you feel works best for you and your group. If you don't feel it works for you, then customize away.