D&D 5E Why Are Ability Scores Necessary?

[Ovinomancer]

It would be very interesting to build an RPG that is built off keywords, instead of static ability/skill blocks.

For example, imagine if this is what a "Fighter's" character sheet looked like

Muscular
Imposing
Swordplay
Athletic
Chain Mail
Longsword

The "Rogue"

Dexterous
Lockpicker
Backstabber
Stealthy
Blackened blade
Caltrops

The "Wizard"

Learned
Fire Mage
Secretive
Homonculus
Knife


Whenever you needed to make a roll, you might describe your action and the gamemaster would decide if one of your trait applies. Other times, you might want to declare your using a trait to accomplish something. If your trait applies, you roll with advantage or some bonus. If you lack a specific trait, you just roll. If a trait would be detrimental in some way, you roll with disadvantage or some penalty. The difficultly would be a target number assigned by the gamemaster.

Fighter: "Gary gets in the old man's face, grabs the geezer's shirt collar and shouts 'Where are the elves hiding?'"
Gamemaster: "Ok, your Muscular and Imposing traits come into play here, so roll with advantage. Your target is 8, since this guy is pretty old and feeble."

OR

Rogue: "I'm ducking down the alley. Can I get up to the balcony before the guards come by?"
Gamemaster: "Okay, you're Stealthy, but you don't have any particular skill climbing. Make a roll with advantage to remain unseen, but make a regular roll to climb the brick wall. You'll need a 12 on each since the guards are on patrol and you're pressed for time."

OR

Wizard: "I want to examine that strange bottle, is it some sort of potion?"
Gamemaster: Secretly notes that the potion is an ice-based spell, but the Wizard is Learned, so it cancels the negative influence of his Fire Mage trait. "Go ahead and make just a normal roll. You'll need a 15 to figure out what it is."

You might want to look at the FATE system of games.

 

[Stormonu]

You might want to look at the FATE system of games.

Probably where I got it from, since I own the books.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

First, it's worth noting that the 5e rules do not have skill checks, they have ability check to which you can add a proficiency bonus if trained in an applicable skill and the GM approves. In other words, you don't make an athletics check, you make a STR check to which you add your proficiency bonus if trained in athletics.

That said, what you're proposing removes the general 1 of 6 choice the GM makes when adjudicating an action that is uncertain and exchanging it for a 1 of many more choice. This means the GM has a higher mental overhead in play. Further, the skill list as it stands is not very robust -- there's many action declarations that don't fit into a skill very well but still clearly belong to an attribute. So, this approach would probably mean expanding, and tracking, additional skills to paper over those gaps.

Finally, such a change would invalidate compatibility with published 5e products. A GM doing this would have to hack a lot of the material to align the systems. Monster stat blocks, for instance, all are based on abilities.

This is a huge amount of work just to make using the optional multiclass rules a bit more flexible. Why not, instead, approach it as removing the multi-class ability score requirements? If you ask me, they're a throwback to earlier rulesets and not well justified. Nothing breaks if you remove them.

We don’t use the ability score requirements for multiclassing, and even if we did, they aren’t hard to reach. I tend to shoot for a 15 or 16 in a main stat for 5e characters, and even that is partly so I feel no pressure to ever take an ASI, and can just take a half-feat to round out a stat and then whatever other feats I want.

This is also, again, not about whatever motivation you seem to think it’s about. The issue frustrates me just as much as a DM as it does when I’m playing. It also is sometimes irritating when making a single classed character, that is just more rare.

As for the ability score point, I really can’t imagine why you think I need to be reminded of that? And I’ve never, ever, even once, seen a DM habitually call for ability checks without also mentioning a skill or other proficiency, so I don’t buy the idea that it would increase the cognitive workload for the DM.

I also have proposed several options, so it’s kinda odd to fixate only on one (total removal). Hell, the clearest example of a change I give in the OP was reducing the number of stats, so it’s kinda looking like you didn’t actually read the OP, or just ignored chunks of it.

lastly, compatibility would be entirely unchanged by most of the proposals I’ve made, including “no ability scores”, which is the proposal I’ve spent the least time on, but somehow the one you keep treating as if it’s the only one I’ve made.

Monsters don’t need the same stats as PCs, first of all. Second, with reduced stats (Body, Wits, Will / Body Toughness Mind / Body Heart Mind, etc) you just test whatever combined stat is appropriate. A strength save is a Body save, a Wisdom save is aWill save. Simple.

All weapon use is one stat, all Spellcasting and spell-like magical abilities is another, all toughness/health/resistance based checks are a third. Simple.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My apologies, I just skimmed the OP.

It’s cool.

I just get frustrated because when I avoid concrete examples I have communication breakdowns with people, and when I use one people fixate on the example and ignore the point, premise, questions, etc, of the thread.

 

[Umbran]

I'm sorry you chose mechanical advantage vs whatever actually made sense character wise.

Oh, keep your elitist BS to yourself.

Mod Note:

Both of you are being pretty rude. Please treat each other with more respect going forward. Thanks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We don’t use the ability score requirements for multiclassing, and even if we did, they aren’t hard to reach. I tend to shoot for a 15 or 16 in a main stat for 5e characters, and even that is partly so I feel no pressure to ever take an ASI, and can just take a half-feat to round out a stat and then whatever other feats I want.

This is also, again, not about whatever motivation you seem to think it’s about. The issue frustrates me just as much as a DM as it does when I’m playing. It also is sometimes irritating when making a single classed character, that is just more rare.

What issue -- the only issue you've actually mentioned is multiclassing. You caution me about assuming motivations, but I'm not assuming motivations -- you've pretty much only specifically talked about multiclassing. I don't need to guess your motivation for doing so to note that this is the only handle you've provided so far. Hence, I respond in terms of multiclassing.

As for the ability score point, I really can’t imagine why you think I need to be reminded of that? And I’ve never, ever, even once, seen a DM habitually call for ability checks without also mentioning a skill or other proficiency, so I don’t buy the idea that it would increase the cognitive workload for the DM.

I call for ability checks and do not mention skills. I could summon a number of other posters that expressly do this as well. Your experience that GMs you know do not follow the rules as presented is nice -- you don't have to and it's not a bad thing at all -- but it doesn't hold much water when talking about removing an element of the game fundamentally presented as how you adjudicate actions.

Secondly, I've been reliably told that you shouldn't assume motivations. I don't know you, or how you play, of if you're aware that the rules refer to ability checks (many seem surprised by this, I can provide multiple thread spanning the release of 5e to very recently where this happens). Making sure there's a baseline understanding to discuss deviation from is critical, in my book.

I also have proposed several options, so it’s kinda odd to fixate only on one (total removal). Hell, the clearest example of a change I give in the OP was reducing the number of stats, so it’s kinda looking like you didn’t actually read the OP, or just ignored chunks of it.

I don't know what your options are meant to fix. And, I was responding to your response to me of "skills." If you intended me to consider your other responses, you could have been more expansive.

lastly, compatibility would be entirely unchanged by most of the proposals I’ve made, including “no ability scores”, which is the proposal I’ve spent the least time on, but somehow the one you keep treating as if it’s the only one I’ve made.

Monsters don’t need the same stats as PCs, first of all. Second, with reduced stats (Body, Wits, Will / Body Toughness Mind / Body Heart Mind, etc) you just test whatever combined stat is appropriate. A strength save is a Body save, a Wisdom save is aWill save. Simple.

All weapon use is one stat, all Spellcasting and spell-like magical abilities is another, all toughness/health/resistance based checks are a third. Simple.

You say compatibility is "entirely unchanged," but this is trivially easy to show as incorrect. If I have a monster with STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, and CHA scores, which do I use for a Heart save? Is that Charisma, which covers strength of character, or Wisdom, which covers mental fortitude? I dunno. Further, there are hundreds of monsters, each of which would have to be evaluated on theme and existing scores to determine what the new roll-up score would be. Each would have to be evaluated this way and changed if used. That makes my Monster Manual incompatible with play until I do the conversion.

I'm not sure you've considered all of the impacts of this change rather than focusing on the high-level mechanics and assuming that all of the downstream conversion work is done or trivial. Using different stats is simple at the high level, if the game is already built that way. But, you're talking about changing a fundamental aspect of the game that interacts with combat, spells, saves, and action adjudication. It's present throughout the game system. Just coming up with a different schema doesn't make it a simple conversion or make your schema actually simple in practice rather than in isolation. Design work is harder than having an idea -- you have to look at what that idea entails. Here, it's a lot of conversion work.


[/QUOTE]

 

[FrogReaver]

@doctorbadwolf

My solution would be to create an attack/spell proficiency that governed any action you did. 5 to 11 as others have said. But I think you have to keep ability scores and skills as is for the rest. They are very fundamental for Out of Combat resolution.

 

[Dausuul]

So, I've been wondering, could DnD be made to work in a similar manner? Has anyone tried anything like that? Perhaps reducing the number of stats would alleviate these sorts of issues, so your Mind stat covers all the spellcasters, or something?

I deeply dislike ability scores. While pretending to enhance your character concept, instead they straitjacket it, and they add a lot of unnecessary math and introduce "trap options" for inexperienced players. They were a bad idea in 1E and they are a bad idea now, and the only reason they persist is their extreme sacred cowness.

I have taken a stab at eliminating ability scores from D&D. There is no systemic obstacle to it--nothing in the core game engine really requires ability scores. The problem is all the zillions of references to ability scores that have to be examined and removed. I concluded it wasn't worth the effort for me personally, but I'd be very interested if some enterprising third-party publisher made a 5E clone with ability scores excised.

The essence of my approach was to fold ability scores into proficiency. Instead of starting at +2 and going to +6, your proficiency bonus starts at +5 and goes to +9. When you would get an ASI, you can instead choose between a feat and +1 to your proficiency bonus; you can't increase your bonus more than twice this way. (This mimics the progression of starting with a 16 in your primary stat and increasing it up to 20.)

With this system, there are two ways to roll a d20: With proficiency or without. When you make an attack roll, if you are proficient with the weapon, you roll 1d20 + proficiency; otherwise it's a straight 1d20 roll. Likewise for skills. For saving throws, I would be inclined to go back to Fort/Ref/Will, which is simpler and avoids the nuisance of "major saves and minor saves."

But then there are all the little nuisances:

• You need a weapon damage modifier to replace the stat bonus. This might come from your class, perhaps. Or it could be built into the base damage of the weapon.
• All classes will probably need a hit die boost, since they no longer have access to bonus hit points from Con.
• Armor is currently designed so that high-Dex characters favor light armor and high-Str characters favor heavy armor. Obviously this does not work if Dex and Str don't exist, so you'd need another way to calculate AC.
• Expertise is now way better. The easy solution is to cut it in half: Expertise adds 50% of your proficiency bonus instead of 100%.
• What do you do with feats that grant +1 to an ability score?
• All the gazillions of class and subclass abilities that refer to ability scores have to be replaced.
• Calculating encumbrance.
• Etc.

 

[cmad1977]

For 5e the scores don’t matter. Only the bonuses.

 

[Bawylie]

I've been thinking about this for a long time. I've played a lot of characters who could be members of a given class, if not for the need for a high score in some ability or other. A rogue who story wise is hyper-intelligent, impulsive, and doesn't really understand other people easily, who is MC wizard because his story needs him to have spent most of his adult life ignoring a knack for magic, only to realize he needs it within the last few years (so arcane trickster would have felt wrong), and his high Int means that wizard is the only caster that mechanically works.
There is an incongruity with him that will always bother me. Given his enviroment, his strong faith, the animistic nature of that faith, etc, any of ranger, paladin, druid, or even cleric, would have made more sense. A bard that doesn't rely entirely on charisma, one of his lowish stats, would also work, but I MCd Wizard because it got me ritual casting and spells to counter enemy casters, and it didn't require me to build him with high stats that don't make sense for him.

On the other hand, in my in development game, Quest For Chevar, your ability scores are just a personal resource pool. You spend from Will to salvage crap rolls or activate spells, but you don't add any of the scores to a skill check. Skills are purely about training. You roll your action die and rank dice, and that's it.

So, I've been wondering, could DnD be made to work in a similar manner? Has anyone tried anything like that? Perhaps reducing the number of stats would alleviate these sorts of issues, so your Mind stat covers all the spellcasters, or something?


*Please note, I don't want advice on the character I referenced. He's level 9 at this point, and any different build would be a story retcon. It worked out, I just wish that the version of him that I first imagined, where he approached natural magic using his intellect and learned the secrets of countering necromancy from the spirits of his mountain home, had worked out.

Just some noodling:

If “ability” scores are reconceived to cover actions, rather than attributes, then maybe we can add Traits that model natural gifts.

Example. You don’t have ability scores as you know them. Instead you have three Action Scores (whatever, just lend me a little license for a sec) and they are Combat, Exploration, and Interaction. And let’s say that the class you pick gives you your starting Scores in each and they’re maybe modified by your background. A Fighter might have base scores of Combat 16, Exploration 10, and Interaction 10. The fighter takes the Sage background and gains a +2 in either Exploration or Interaction. For traits, perhaps we pick some options off a list that’s determined by race, background, and class. Maybe like 2 options. Our fighter picks “Strong” and “Smart”. Whenever the adventurer makes a roll that relies on their Strength or Intelligence, they get a bonus d4 or something.

So this Strong, Smart Fighter-Sage uses melee weapons in combat because they’re strong and get a bonus. While Exploring, they tend to think things through and deliberate. And when Interacting, they tend to use logic and facts to appeal to reason.

I guess you get your proficiency bonus if you have a relevant skill, too.

Perhaps we do need ability scores for saving throws? But we could probably take Fort, Reflex, and Will and drop those back in without too many complications.

Anyway, I think moving away from abilities and toward capabilities might be the way to address the incongruence you’re experiencing.