Getting rid of ability scores

[Anonymouswizard]

I disagree, at least with regards to 5e.

The basic premise is that any unskilled and average (human) character makes their tests at +0. They have not special training (proficiency bonus) or talent (ability modifier). Yet they do have basic competence that enables them to perform the action.

Eh, +0 as basic competence is arbitrary. It makes done sense in D&D and other 'roll plus add' systems, certainly, but it's still arbitrary.

As a side note it doesn't make sense in dice pool and roll under systems. But this thread has been focused in D&D, so I'll just now that those seem to assume basic competency is either about three dice or 50%.

As for slowing down Ability progression, well you can either award points more slowly, or lessen the impact of s point by tinkering with system maths. 5e mages the latter somewhat harder via its intention to keep PC modifiers under +20 at all times, but I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could work out a way. Maybe reduce Proficiency to compensate, grant proficiencies from leveling, or your Ability Score increases into z proficiency (get a +1 to an ability sure whenever your Proficiency Bonus increases?).

[DwarfFighter]

Eh, +0 as basic competence is arbitrary. It makes done sense in D&D and other 'roll plus add' systems, certainly, but it's still arbitrary.

Without insight into what the designers had in mind I can only look at what they have created. They put their system's origin point of +0 at the average ability score value (10-11), without training. That doesn't seem arbitrary to me.

-DF

[Anonymouswizard]

Without insight into what the designers had in mind I can only look at what they have created. They put their system's origin point of +0 at the average ability score value (10-11), without training. That doesn't seem arbitrary to me.

-DF

I'm this case it's arbitrary. A score of 10 could give you a +768 modifier, and as long as it held true for everybody the maths would still work. It being +0 might be easier to grasp for some people, but it being +0 instead of +10 is an entirely arbitrary decision.

10-11 being the average is also relatively arbitrary, although assuming random generation there's less practical values it could be. But I can come up with random generations for a wide variety of values, especially if I'm allowed to move beyond using d6s and include static modifiers.

But really whether or not the value is arbitrary is less important than whether we need the two separate values, and I got carried away due to a boring reason journey. But we can define our origin however we want, and nothing changes as long as it's the same for everybody (at least for standard checks, we might get some weirdness with things like D&D hp and damage).

[DwarfFighter]

I'm this case it's arbitrary. A score of 10 could give you a +768 modifier, and as long as it held true for everybody the maths would still work. It being +0 might be easier to grasp for some people, but it being +0 instead of +10 is an entirely arbitrary decision.

10-11 being the average is also relatively arbitrary, although assuming random generation there's less practical values it could be. But I can come up with random generations for a wide variety of values, especially if I'm allowed to move beyond using d6s and include static modifiers.

But really whether or not the value is arbitrary is less important than whether we need the two separate values, and I got carried away due to a boring reason journey. But we can define our origin however we want, and nothing changes as long as it's the same for everybody (at least for standard checks, we might get some weirdness with things like D&D hp and damage).

Starting out at +768 would indeed be arbitrary, as in "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system".

Starting out at a+0 for a presumed average and untrained character seems to fit with a reasoned decision. I can't say it's true, it just seems to fit the facts.

Anyway: The actual ability score values are occasionally used in the rules, though I can really only think of Strength being used to determine very specific in-world capabilities like how much a character can lift or carry in terms of weight, or how far they can jump in feet and inches. Not the most inspiring implementations, if you ask me, but there you have it - it's not nothing.

I don't know if that justifies keeping the ability scores as part of the system, but I'm not seeing any good arguments for removing them either. I can understand that a player can be annoyed that his character has an odd-numbered ability score like 13 that is functionally identical to having a 12.

If that is the actual issue you want to address there are lots of ways you can home brew rules for that, you can remove the odd-numbered values from play by having the players adjust their ability scores. You can have a rule that when you make an attack roll, saving throw or ability check with an odd-numbered ability you roll an extra dice for a 50/50 chance of adding +1 to the roll. E.g. Making a Strength 15 saving throw, roll 12d0 and 1d6. If the d6 rolls 4-6 you add +1 to the total.

Other than that, Wizards of the Coast seems to put out a lot of UA content. I am sure they would be intrigued to see a writeup that comprehensively removes the Ability Scores from the game.

-DF