[D&D] Getting rid of ability scores

[valgunn]

I’ve been reading the old TSR Conan RPG, and one of the things I really like the way that the game handles people learning skills and developing expertise in a particular area. A quick rundown of how it works:

For every 10 full points of Talents, you have one point of the governing attribute, which then becomes your rank for specific Talents you don't have. So you might have:

FIGHTING 2
Sword 8
Brawling 7
Axe 5

Your ability with swords & axes is considerable, but if you pick up a spear and use it, you're going to be at rank 2 (your Fighting rank).

Now I was thinking about applying this to D&D and getting rid of the six standard ability scores completely.

There would be five categories: General, Martial, Mystical, Social, and Survival. A specific list of skills applies to each category.

It’s still a class and level system, where class are the things you specialize in and level is how experienced you are at doing them.

 

[cranebump]

Interested! What did you have in mind for the subsets of each pool?

 

[TristramEvans]

I really like the old Canan game... and it's retroclone ZEFRs.

But the problem I've always encounteredwhenever I've played with doing my own fantasy heartbreaker of D&D is how much can you chjange before it's not really D&D anymore?

 

[Panzerkraken]

I've had that question asked to me before about my own stuff, my stock answer is "as much as you have to in order to get the feel you want, or that makes you happy"

It's a heartbreaker, you're not trying to sell it, you're doing what you want.

 

[Ladybird]

"General" seems like a bit of a copout.

My instinct would be you're missing some sort of Academics ability, and somewhere obvious to dump athletics / acrobatics type skills. But otherwise, this system seems pretty nice, and probably strong enough to stand on it's own without being attached to a class/level system.

 

[valgunn]

"General" seems like a bit of a copout.

My instinct would be you're missing some sort of Academics ability, and somewhere obvious to dump athletics / acrobatics type skills. But otherwise, this system seems pretty nice, and probably strong enough to stand on it's own without being attached to a class/level system.

Yeah, I don’t like that word—but had a hard time coming up with another one. Practical is one I considered, is that any better?

 

[valgunn]

I really like the old Canan game... and it's retroclone ZEFRs.

But the problem I've always encounteredwhenever I've played with doing my own fantasy heartbreaker of D&D is how much can you chjange before it's not really D&D anymore?

Well, if you wanted to keep it close to D&D, then tie each skill to ability.

Example:

STR
Fight
Swim
Climb?
Break
Carry
Force
Run
Throw
Exert

DEX
Fight
Evade
Steal
Hunt
Sneak
Draw
Jump?
Tie/untie
Purloin

CON
Hike
Ride
Booze
Die (tenacity)
Dig?
March
Crawl
Trek

INT
Explore
Study
Cast
Boat?
Gamble?
Craft?
Bind
Speak
Cook?
Repair?
Write
Translate
First Aid
Remember
Concoct
Warfare?

WIS
Camp
Hide?
Search
Listen
Heal?
Notice
Track
Navigate?
Improvise

CHA
Persuade
Haggle
Pray?
Advise?
Befriend
Act
Charm
Seduce
Command
Parlay

Skills rank from 1 Novice to 6 Paragon. It takes 12 points within the skill area to get 1 ability point.

Roll d20 and add your level + skill (or ability, if no skill is applicable) and roll over DC or opponents roll.

Something like that.

 

[Ladybird]

Yeah, I don’t like that word—but had a hard time coming up with another one. Practical is one I considered, is that any better?

"Practical" is a good word.

 

[valgunn]

Interested! What did you have in mind for the subsets of each pool?

This is the key, getting the most optimal subset. For D&D it’s gotta be the most common things each class does. I’d like to come up with 10-12 for each category.

 

[finarvyn]

It's interesting to suggest getting rid of ability scores, as the first D&D (1974 woodgrain and white boxes) had such minor stat bonuses that ability scores had very little impact on the game. With time (Greyhawk supplement, AD&D, and so on) bonuses got larger and larger. Bringing it back closer to the game's roots is a good thing, I think.

 

[Magister]

I always thought of the early D&D ability scores as mostly an inkblot to suggest a character, which then had to be given increasing mechanical effect. You can still see the effect today; druids in 5e cannot wear metal armor, and people want to know what the mechanical effect is rather than just accept it as effectively direction for roleplaying.

 

[valgunn]

It's interesting to suggest getting rid of ability scores, as the first D&D (1974 woodgrain and white boxes) had such minor stat bonuses that ability scores had very little impact on the game. With time (Greyhawk supplement, AD&D, and so on) bonuses got larger and larger. Bringing it back closer to the game's roots is a good thing, I think.

Yes, that is the thought. If I kept the 6 ability scores (actually the number would be closer to a modifier), then they’d only be used for an action that isn’t cover by a particular skill.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I always thought of the early D&D ability scores as mostly an inkblot to suggest a character, which then had to be given increasing mechanical effect. You can still see the effect today; druids in 5e cannot wear metal armor, and people want to know what the mechanical effect is rather than just accept it as effectively direction for roleplaying.

Eh, I can understand on stuff like "Druids cannot wear metal armor" because knowing the mechanical effect lets a GM know if that rule is there for flavor and can be tossed out in their world without consequence, or has some kind of system stuff backing it up.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of rules that exist solely for "flavor" with no mechanical reason in games that are meant to play many many many different settings where the same flavor may not work.

 

[robertsconley]

The alternative exists it called Fantasy AGE

 

[TJS]

I always thought of the early D&D ability scores as mostly an inkblot to suggest a character, which then had to be given increasing mechanical effect. You can still see the effect today; druids in 5e cannot wear metal armor, and people want to know what the mechanical effect is rather than just accept it as effectively direction for roleplaying.

Yeah I feel they're almost the same sort of thing as the tables you can roll on for quirks and the like in modern games if you choose.

More mechanical heft than that but not a lot.

 

[Chris Brady]

This is a lot like what Green Ronin tried to do with it's AGE stuff.

 

[Edgewise]

For every 10 full points of Talents, you have one point of the governing attribute, which then becomes your rank for specific Talents you don't have. So you might have:

FIGHTING 2
Sword 8
Brawling 7
Axe 5

Your ability with swords & axes is considerable, but if you pick up a spear and use it, you're going to be at rank 2 (your Fighting rank).

That's an intriguing system. I've had similar ideas in the past, but this is a neat and elegant way of doing it.

Now I was thinking about applying this to D&D and getting rid of the six standard ability scores completely.

There would be five categories: General, Martial, Mystical, Social, and Survival. A specific list of skills applies to each category.

Well, you have a decent set of skill categories here (except, I agree with others, "General"), but they don't really map well to general physical and mental attributes. For instance, which of those would you use to move a big rock? None of them really fits well.

My favored homebrew system, which I call Lark, describes characters with values called Aptitudes, and these sort of bridge the gap between attributes and skill categories. They are slightly different for modern games and fantasy settings. Here's what I use for fantasy:

• Fighting: Combat and general accuracy.
• Toughness: Strength and resilience.
• Agility: Actual agility plus stamina.
• Guile: Perception and sneakiness.
• Wisdom: Intelligence and knowledge.
• Spirit: Magic and willpower.

In modern settings, I use these:

• Toughness: Strength and resilience.
• Athletics: Agility and stamina.
• Accuracy: Dexterity and aim.
• Wits: Perception and sneakiness.
• Intellect: Intelligence and education.
• Psyche: Willpower and focus.
• Social: Insight and presence.

They are mostly name-changed, but modern drops Fighting and adds Social and Accuracy. In the modern setting, I would use Toughness for unarmed fighting, Athletics for armed melee and Accuracy for ranged attacks.

My system for skills is a lot simpler, though. For the most part, you either have them or don't, so they usually give you a pretty flat bonus (or remove a non-proficiency penalty). I do have three categories of breadth, though.

It’s still a class and level system, where class are the things you specialize in and level is how experienced you are at doing them.

Using a system like this frees you up from necessitating a class/level system, but based on the title of this thread, my guess is that you probably want to keep some D&D conventions like hit points and class-based magic.

 

[Magister]

Eh, I can understand on stuff like "Druids cannot wear metal armor" because knowing the mechanical effect lets a GM know if that rule is there for flavor and can be tossed out in their world without consequence, or has some kind of system stuff backing it up.

My impression is that it's coming from players rather than DMs, although of course that's not always easy to distinguish. You don't see a lot of questions about "which armors can be crafted as non-metallic?" or "how often should magic armor of kinds that are normally metal be non-metallic?" - the latter would especially seem to be what DMs would worry about. (Some would seem to be "no"; I'm not sure what non-metallic mitrhal armor would be made of.)

I'd be much happier with 5e if it actually explained the reasoning behind stuff more clearly; having to reverse engineer the mechanics to try to answer things like that is annoying. In the case of better armored druids, I doubt it would be a problem outside of magic armor, since the druid could be a Tortle, which have AC17 from their shell and are not generally judged impossibly broken.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of rules that exist solely for "flavor" with no mechanical reason in games that are meant to play many many many different settings where the same flavor may not work.

Hmm, that sort of rule should probably be up to the GM, or even the group; with no mechanical effect, you're not likely to break anything any way you go. In D&D, it's mostly a part of the implicit setting; I like them to the extent that I want a game to provide a specific setting.

 

[TJS]

They really should specifically say things like "this rule exists only for flavour reasons feel free to ignore it if you like". Your free to do that anyway of course but in this kind of case it would be nice to at least know if the designers consider it important for balance reasons.

 

[valgunn]

That's an intriguing system. I've had similar ideas in the past, but this is a neat and elegant way of doing it.

Well, you have a decent set of skill categories here (except, I agree with others, "General"), but they don't really map well to general physical and mental attributes. For instance, which of those would you use to move a big rock? None of them really fits well.

My favored homebrew system, which I call Lark, describes characters with values called Aptitudes, and these sort of bridge the gap between attributes and skill categories. They are slightly different for modern games and fantasy settings. Here's what I use for fantasy:

• Fighting: Combat and general accuracy.
• Toughness: Strength and resilience.
• Agility: Actual agility plus stamina.
• Guile: Perception and sneakiness.
• Wisdom: Intelligence and knowledge.
• Spirit: Magic and willpower.

In modern settings, I use these:

• Toughness: Strength and resilience.
• Athletics: Agility and stamina.
• Accuracy: Dexterity and aim.
• Wits: Perception and sneakiness.
• Intellect: Intelligence and education.
• Psyche: Willpower and focus.
• Social: Insight and presence.

They are mostly name-changed, but modern drops Fighting and adds Social and Accuracy. In the modern setting, I would use Toughness for unarmed fighting, Athletics for armed melee and Accuracy for ranged attacks.

My system for skills is a lot simpler, though. For the most part, you either have them or don't, so they usually give you a pretty flat bonus (or remove a non-proficiency penalty). I do have three categories of breadth, though.

Using a system like this frees you up from necessitating a class/level system, but based on the title of this thread, my guess is that you probably want to keep some D&D conventions like hit points and class-based magic.

For mine you’d have a “class-level” which gives you a bonus for applicable actions. For example, a level 4 fighter would get a +4 while in melee combat. However a level 4 magic-user doesn’t get that bonus to fighting.

Magic wouldn’t necessarily be classed-based. A fighter could take the talent spell-casting.

Hit points would be gone. I’d have Morale instead.

 

[Chris Brady]

For mine you’d have a “class-level” which gives you a bonus for applicable actions. For example, a level 4 fighter would get a +4 while in melee combat. However a level 4 magic-user doesn’t get that bonus to fighting.

Magic wouldn’t necessarily be classed-based. A fighter could take the talent spell-casting.

Hit points would be gone. I’d have Morale instead.

Yes, because hitting someone with a sword only hurts their morale...

 

[valgunn]

Yes, because hitting someone with a sword only hurts their morale...

Of course not. I’m still working on the details, but let’s say you spend your morale and armor points in combat, down to the point that you end up taking a big hit, you would use your class HD to roll against suffering a specific wound. For example, you’re a Fighter with a CON of 2. This gives you a pool of 2d8. You can spend as many HD from your pool as you want. Roll 2d8, add their scores, and subtract the total from the damage: if the result is more than zero, you’ve suffered a specific wound. So you want to beat the damage with the total of the hit dice you choose to roll. Now perhaps you even have the talent Hard to Kill. For every point in it, you get to roll an extra class HD. Or something like that.

 

[TJS]

Of course not. I’m still working on the details, but let’s say you spend your morale and armor points in combat, down to the point that you end up taking a big hit, you would use your class HD to roll against suffering a specific wound. For example, you’re a Fighter with a CON of 2. This gives you a pool of 2d8. You can spend as many HD from your pool as you want. Roll 2d8, add their scores, and subtract the total from the damage: if the result is more than zero, you’ve suffered a specific wound. So you want to beat the damage with the total of the hit dice you choose to roll. Now perhaps you even have the talent Hard to Kill. For every point in it, you get to roll an extra class HD. Or something like that.

Sounds a little like the A Song of Ice and Fire system.

In that game you have a small pool of hit points, but they run out quickly (maybe in a single hit). However, you can keep fighting by reducing that hitpoint loss by taking injuries or wounds which soak damage but give you penalties and will take a lot longer to recover from.

Of course this particular method works particularly well in a Song of Ice and Fire because in that system the outcome of a lost battle may not necessarily be character death so the trade off carries a real tension to it.

 

[valgunn]

Sounds a little like the A Song of Ice and Fire system.

In that game you have a small pool of hit points, but they run out quickly (maybe in a single hit). However, you can keep fighting by reducing that hitpoint loss by taking injuries or wounds which soak damage but give you penalties and will take a lot longer to recover from.

Of course this particular method works particularly well in a Song of Ice and Fire because in that system the outcome of a lost battle may not necessarily be death.

I need to take a look at this, but yes something on these lines. Thanks!

 

[TristramEvans]

Yes, because hitting someone with a sword only hurts their morale...

"I swing at the orc with my axe"
"Roll a D20"
"I got an 8"
"You've just bruised his ego"

 

[Edgewise]

Makes me think of a sadistic GM setup:

“Roll to hit the orc.”

“Dang, only got a 4.”

“Oh you hurt it...real bad.”

“Really??”

“Well, emotionally. Physically he’s fine.”

 

[Panzerkraken]

Sounds a little like the A Song of Ice and Fire system.

[SNIP}

in a Song of Ice and Fire because in that system the outcome of a lost battle may not necessarily be character death so the trade off carries a real tension to it.

In the setting, however...

 

[valgunn]

Another thought. Any damage that gets past your armor goes directly to your CON, unless you spend Morale points to stave it off. Morale points regenerate more quickly after combat. Loss of CON represents more serious wounds and takes longer to recover.

 

[TristramEvans]

Another thought. Any damage that gets past your armor goes directly to your CON, unless you spend Morale points to stave it off. Morale points regenerate more quickly after combat. Loss of CON represents more serious wounds and takes longer to recover.

That's essentially how I run my system , but it's not just CON (Endurance in my game), but ANY attribute - I find what gets reduced goes a ways to indicate what kind of injury it is. A reduction in DEX could be an injury to a joint or limb; STR, the tearing of a tendon; INT, a disorienting concussion, WIS, an eye of ear injury affecting the senses, etc.

 

[Edgewise]

That's essentially how I run my system , but it's not just CON (Endurance in my game), but ANY attribute...

I've seen both systems, but I prefer this approach because it provides an approach to the effects of injury with is both straightforward and flexible. It only gets a little weird if nerds start tanking hit after hit with their massive brains.

 

[Edgewise]

Another thought. Any damage that gets past your armor goes directly to your CON, unless you spend Morale points to stave it off.

I've seen quite a few passes, especially recently, at this two-toned hit points idea. It's conceptually satisfying, but my own experience with such an approach is that it doesn't add much over normal hit points except a little extra bookkeeping.

I know, the cute idea is that things like critical hits, falling damage and poison do damage straight to CON. But the problem is that then you are getting away from the whole point of super-abstract hit points, which is to treat combat like resource management. If random shit can take you down at any time, then the whole idea of "pushing your luck" in a dungeon crawl is not a strategic decision so much as something you're always doing if you're in a dungeon.

It's not that I think role-playing combat, or even dungeon crawls, have to be challenges of resource management. But then I feel like you might as well dispense with representing defensive skill via HP or morale and go a more "simulationist" route. Or if you prefer a simpler approach, something like Savage Worlds or Barbarians of Lemuria might suit you.

 

[Chris Brady]

There's a disconnect that happened with some my players when I used the WoTC Star Wars game's two layer system. The idea that a hit point resource wasn't actual 'damage' when they were hit broke a couple of players. And the issue with calling it Morale or something similar in D&D breaks the Healing 'Spell' idea.

And I'm with Edgewise, I'd suggest looking into another system if that's what you want out of the game. But that's all it is, a suggestion.