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

[Cadence]

On traits as a replacement: I wasn't imagining a simple 1::1 "bonus on strength stuff." Rather,the player wants their character to be a way -- a giant pile of muscle, a silver tongued con artist, a bookish know it all, whatever. Players often graft those kinds of descriptions on top of ability scores. Let's skip the middle man and just let the player write "Bookish know it all" on their sheet and be allowed to apply whatever the trait bonus is to things that apply?

So they get a pile of plusses that often do what ability scores and skills did - but broader than skills, and narrowed but less siloed than abilities?

13th Age didn't kill the ability scores, but does it have something for broad ranging skills?

For advancement, is there any danger of becoming a big heap of bonuses to remember like PF 1e (minus the ability obviously)? Or is it no different than what 5e has now?

Ability scores used to mean more (they gated a variety of class powers and spell casting). Without that it isn't totally crazy.

What else in 5e do you want to nuke. If much at all, at some point it stops being anything close to 5e, right?

 

[payn]

On the issue of taking out stats reducing player choices:

You have your heritage, then your culture, then your background, then your class, then your subclass, then your traits, then your feat. There's potentially plenty of choices at first level without stays.

On traits as a replacement: I wasn't imagining a simple 1::1 "bonus on strength stuff." Rather,the player wants their character to be a way -- a giant pile of muscle, a silver tongued con artist, a bookish know it all, whatever. Players often graft those kinds of descriptions on top of ability scores. Let's skip the middle man and just let the player write "Bookish know it all" on their sheet and be allowed to apply whatever the trait bonus is to things that apply?

Sure those things matter at like first level and then not really ever again. Which is why I call 5E the "Ronco" edition. "Just set it, and forget it" You could wipe out BIFTs easily and nobody would notice anymore than stats.

 

[TwoSix]

On the issue of taking out stats reducing player choices:

You have your heritage, then your culture, then your background, then your class, then your subclass, then your traits, then your feat. There's potentially plenty of choices at first level without stays.

On traits as a replacement: I wasn't imagining a simple 1::1 "bonus on strength stuff." Rather,the player wants their character to be a way -- a giant pile of muscle, a silver tongued con artist, a bookish know it all, whatever. Players often graft those kinds of descriptions on top of ability scores. Let's skip the middle man and just let the player write "Bookish know it all" on their sheet and be allowed to apply whatever the trait bonus is to things that apply?

That sounds quite a bit like Backgrounds from 13th Age and Experiences from Daggerheart (which borrowed them from 13th Age). It also sounds related to Aspects from Fate Core/Accelerated.

Not that it's a bad idea, it's just borrowed design.

 

[Reynard]

So they get a pile of plusses that often do what ability scores and skills did - but broader than skills, and narrowed but less siloed than abilities?

13th Age didn't kill the ability scores, but does it have something for broad ranging skills?

For advancement, is there any danger of becoming a big heap of bonuses to remember like PF 1e (minus the ability obviously)? Or is it no different than what 5e has now?

Ability scores used to mean more (they gated a variety of class powers and spell casting). Without that it isn't totally crazy.

What else in 5e do you want to nuke. If much at all, at some point it stops being anything close to 5e, right?

I am thinking of traits as similar to Fate Aspects. You don't really get new ones, but yours might change over time based on your character's arc.

As to how much change before it's not 5E anymore: that sounds like a good subject for a thread but maybe beyond the scope of this one.

 

[Reynard]

That sounds quite a bit like Backgrounds from 13th Age and Experiences from Daggerheart (which borrowed them from 13th Age). It also sounds related to Aspects from Fate Core/Accelerated.

Not that it's a bad idea, it's just borrowed design.

Of course it is.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Shadowdark has a rule I like that is basically "Your character know how to do their job." So a Ranger doesn't need to roll to go hunt food. A Rogue doesn't need to roll to sneak. Etc Only if someone/thing is opposing them.

 

[Dausuul]

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?

I have wanted to do this for years.

In theory, it's an easy change to just fold the stat bonus into proficiency. In practice, it's a significant pain, because of all the places ability mods get shoved into this, that, and the other thing. However, I think it would dramatically improve the system. It would speed up character creation, make the game easier for newbies to learn, open up character concepts that are currently severely hindered by MAD, and improve class balance.

You would lose a few bits of "expressiveness" in the system, such as the barbarian being able to carry a lot more weight than the wizard; but this could be addressed with a couple of well-chosen feats. The trickiest problem to resolve is armor. At the moment, the armor mechanics are intricately tied up with Dexterity, and it's hard to excise Dexterity in a way that doesn't leave a bunch of armor types out in the cold. Still, I think it could be done.

 

[Lanefan]

Determining your ability scores by rolling the dice, using a point-buy system or choosing from a standard array of numbers are one part of the customization process used by players in any RPG in order to make sure that their characters differ from everyone else's character. Your choice of species, background, class, subclass, skills, feats, spells and gear further help distinguish one character from one another. Role-playing your character also helps because you have your own role-playing style.

So I don't think any of us has to be concerned about our characters being clones of one another.

And even if they are, mechanically, clones of each other those characters can (and IMO should be!) differentiated by their personalities, ethics, approaches to situations, alignments, and a host of other non-mechanical things that can and will make it immediately obvious to anyone as to which character is which.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Even with the amount of customization already being offered by 5e?

Can't speak for Frogreaver, but... YES. especially with the amount of customization in 5e.

 

[Shardstone]

In an all Skills system, Skills becomes a new kind of currency. The logical thing to do is to recontextualize saves, tools, weapons, armor, initiative, death, languages, and vehicles into skills. Then, each class grants a certain number of guaranteed skills, and backgrounds grant the player some additional skills. Additionally, you should go ahead and add some new things as skills in here. Why? Because an all-Skill system needs "Fields of Related Expertise" to truly shine.

First off, all skills have four tiers -> Proficiency, Expertise, Mastery, Legendary (+3, +6, +9, Base 10 + 9). When you make a Skill Check and don't have Proficiency, you can choose a related skill and add half its modifier (rounded up) to your check. Likewise, when making a check with Proficiency, you can choose a related skill and add half its modifier so long as its of the same or higher tier as the base skill check. So if I have proficiency in Arcana and Expertise in thieves tools and I'm trying to overcome a seal created by some artifact, I can test Arcana first and then "invoke" my Thieves Tool's Expertise, giving me a +6 total on the check. Base Arcana because the magical nature of the artifact requires magical knoweldge more so then thieves tools knowledge.

You can only FoRK a single skill at a time, and it has to be somewhat related to the situation at hand. This, in practice for me, has made skills checks a fun little exercise in getting into character and tapping into different parts of their life experience. It requires the DM to be strict but fair with FoRKs though. You could accomplish the same effect by being diligent handing out Inspiration and saying you have to spend a point of Inspiration in order to FoRK a skill over. Regardless, I think this is just a better, more elegant way of accomplishing 5E's goals.