D&D 5E What if we got rid of stats entirely?

[TwoSix]

You could certainly do it, since 5e is fairly lightweight at its core, but you would have to redo the skeleton of the game from ability checks to, I guess, skill checks. Either that or you use some unmodifiable "ability number" as the modifier, much like what proficiency bonus does.

 

[Corinnguard]

I have to agree with @Cadence, having attributes allows the player visualize their character. You get an idea as to how strong, agile, hardy, intelligent, wise and charismatic your character happens to be at the time of character creation.

I think eliminating stats might help visualization because the character can be whatever you want.

I think that for this thought experiment to work, you might want to show us what a character sheet minus the attributes is going to look like. If they are removed, then a lot of what's on a character sheet is going to have to be reworked accordingly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

With skill DCs almost entirely based on GM fiat and with most of the granularity of ability scores (remember those AD&D charts?) gone, what is the point of keeping those numbers at all?

There isn't one.

Which is the whole reason why I criticize so much of this stuff. When I play a roleplaying game, I want to game by and with roleplaying, and I want to roleplay by and with gaming. Reducing the game down to "GM says" trivializes that game, at which point, I may as well just go do freeform RP, I'm sure I could convince multiple people I know to do so.

The game's the thing wherein you catch the interest of the king. Game without roleplay is just numbers, and I have computers to do that for me (and much better than any person could.) Roleplay without game is just freeform group storytelling, which is something I and my friends used to do and could easily do again. Game with-and-as roleplay, roleplay with-and-as game, is where you transcend the limits of those things and produce something unique and wonderful.

 

[Pedantic]

Yeah, there's a high and low game design option here. Low design is what you're proposing, effectively fixing stat arrays by class to produce appropriate modifiers.

The other option is to rework the impact of stats, so that there's legitimate strategic depth in selecting different arrays, but that has a ton of knock-on effects and almost certainly requires more complexity than 5e to support real choices. A good start would be either breaking out accuracy across several stats in a way that PCs will struggle to opt out of, or removing stats from accuracy calculations altogether.

 

[Oofta]

I'm sure you could do it multiple ways. For example for skills, give some bonus based on class and background and then add points as you use the skill. But just because we could, doesn't mean we should. I sometimes min/max, especially for AL games where there tends to be less depth or I just think it fits the character. But other times I don't or want to play up a particularly low ability, like the high intelligence low wisdom absent minded professor wizard.

If everybody just follows the same pattern, which is something I don't see, then effectively having an established pattern doesn't fix anything. It just limits options for people that want to do something a bit outside the normal box.

 

[Staffan]

If you are not using stats in combat or spell resolution, in D&D's structure that leaves them having impact on skill use resolution, right? Why not then just wrap them into the skills and get rid of the separate number.

If the game uses Athletics skill for everything left that covers use of Strength, you no longer need a separate Strength score - it is assumed in Athletics.

That's pretty much what the Troubleshooters does. Strength, Agility, Endurance, Charm, and Willpower are treated like any other skill. You want to punch someone? That's the Melee Combat skill. You want to lift a car enough so your friend can get out? That's Strength. There's no correlation between the two. Similarly, there's no correlation between Agility (acrobatics, balance, crawling around vents, stuff like that) and Sneak. That cleanly avoids arguments like "Can't I use Intimidate with Strength instead of Charisma" or "Why can't I work out to boost my Strength?"

Troubleshooters is a skill-based game though. Having 30ish skills, plus access to a bunch of Abilities (sort of like feats), means there's plenty of room for differentiation between characters. With a class system, there's so much that's determined by your class that you kind of need something else to give definition beyond being a cookie cutter. You could use a more flexible class system like in Pathfinder 2, but I don't think you'd get a good result from just removing stats from D&D.

 

[Shardstone]

This is just spitballing. I'm not actively advocating this. I more just want to discuss the implications, possibilities and potential problems.

Also note I am not talking about going "modifier only" like PF2 or M&M3. I mean no attributes at all.

It seems to me that since most characters of a certain (sub)class are going to end up with similar stats, you could just fold those inherent bonuses into the class abilities and skills. For example, you aren't going to find a rogue with a dex much lower than 18, so why not just have a flat +4 to "rogue class skills"? Similarly with melee types: flay 4+proficiency to damage or something?

With skill DCs almost entirely based on GM fiat and with most of the granularity of ability scores (remember those AD&D charts?) gone, what is the point of keeping those numbers at all?

If you give skills three different tiers of proficiency (+3, +6, +9), you can eliminate all stats and have everything be on skills. I think it'd make a better game.

 

[Horwath]

Proficiency:
+4 +1/4th your level(round up)
used for all d20 rolls that now get proficiency, non proficient saves get 1/2 of proficiency bonus.

for skills additional: with proficiency, min d20 roll is 5
expertise: +4, min d20 roll is 8
mastery: +3, min d20 roll is 10

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I think it would be perfectly easy to do. As others have said, there are other games that do the same. There are even some pros, like having a cleric able to actually remember more about religion than the wizard.

I think it would be pretty easy to implement too, but just upping proficiency bonus. Start it at 5 and have it go up to 11, and I don't think you'd have to change anything else in the game.

If WotC tried to do this in a new edition of D&D however, I think there'd be a lot of push back, since it's a pretty established core part of the game.

 

[dave2008]

This is just spitballing. I'm not actively advocating this. I more just want to discuss the implications, possibilities and potential problems.

Also note I am not talking about going "modifier only" like PF2 or M&M3. I mean no attributes at all.

It seems to me that since most characters of a certain (sub)class are going to end up with similar stats, you could just fold those inherent bonuses into the class abilities and skills. For example, you aren't going to find a rogue with a dex much lower than 18, so why not just have a flat +4 to "rogue class skills"? Similarly with melee types: flay 4+proficiency to damage or something?

With skill DCs almost entirely based on GM fiat and with most of the granularity of ability scores (remember those AD&D charts?) gone, what is the point of keeping those numbers at all?

Funny, I was just thinking about making a post suggesting we make stats more important on the math. So an 18 is +8, not +4. Proficiency just adds another d20 to your check. (+2 = 2d20, take highest; +3 = 3d20, take highest, etc.).

However, I could see your suggestion of rolling it all into your class and feats. I think that could work.

How would you handle multiclass?