Continuing this discussion...
I know, this doesn't sound old school. Original D&D had little use for abilities. Nor does it sounds revolutionary - there are plenty of RPGs that do something similar.
But I'm truly considering ditching everything but abilities and "features" in the next version of my game (
"Dark Fantasy Hack" until I can think of something better).
Abilities are the 6 characteristics EVERYONE has: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. You could probably cut one or two but familiarity makes things easier.
"Features" are SPECIAL powers - something only a few characters have.
Let's start with 5e.
"Three d20 rolls are at the heart the game’s rules: the ability check, the attack roll, and the saving throw" -
source.
Notice that skills fall under ability check in 5e.
Even tough the three rolls are somewhat different, the mechanics are similar - you get a bonus from abilities (usually -1 to +5) and another bonus from proficiency (usually +2 to +6, or 0 if you are not proficient). Two modifiers with similar ranges and similar functions.
Turns out that they are redundant - just
double one of them and you're good to go.
I'll explain, using this 5th level Barbarian as my example (
source):
Attack rolls - all attack rolls are made with Strength or Dexterity. Add your proficiency bonus if you're proficient with the weapon you're using. This is mostly a softer way of saying "wizards shouldn't use swords",
an idea I dislike. In 5e the concept is mostly useless since a wizard with a sword is usually better off using his cantrips even if he is proficient.
In our example, all his attack rolls are +6 to hit. Which is the same as doubling his +3 Strength bonus.
Skills - it's pretty obvious that skills do not function exactly as intended. The DMG gives you a good alternative for not using skills (just choose two abilities to be proficient with). Which is very similar to saving throws. In facts, the abilities they suggest are often the same they suggest for saving throws, but not always (Constitution, for example, has no skills, so it isn't an option).
If we're using skills, the +2 to +6 bonus is obviously too low - something WotC seems to notice by creating multiple instances of "doubling" it, although not enough (just let anyone take the "prodigy" feat and it will fix my issue with the game). In addition, the DMG (and multiple house rules) suggest in some circumstances you can only roll if trained.
In short, skills shouldn't be a small bonus, but something much more significant. In
Dark Fantasy Basic, for example, your "top" skills scale with level. So, a level 12 fighter has +12 to attack (and maybe +8 to athletics, for example), on top of ability scores.
I should probably stop here an write entire post about skills later.
Anyway, in our example, we got good athletics (+6, which is double his Strength bonus). He's got +2 in nature - which means the wizard often beats him in the wild. Shouldn't be the case. Same for survival.
And animal handling... cleric beats the barbarian when dealing with animals. His intimidation (
a skill I'm not sure should exist) is decent. With his +4 bonus, the hulking barbarian is probably as intimidating as the skinny bard with a lute.
Notice that he COULD have chosen animal handling, but perception, etc., is way more useful.
Saving throws - each class gets two. In this case, Strength and Constitution, both +6. As you can see, in both cases the bonus is identical to what you'd get by doubling the ability bonus (+3 in both cases).
What about the other saves? Doubling the bonus would make him better in Dexterity saves (which makes sense for Barbarians, IMO). Which is a thing barbarians NEED - which is why he gets "danger sense " at level 2. Not exactly the same, but a feature that could be ditched by just doubling the Dexterity bonus.
Charisma would get a small boost, Intelligence a small penalty, making the distinction between 8 and 12 more significant, which I like. Wisdom in unaffected.
As you can see, arbitrary picking two saving throws doesn't not get us any big benefits. Needless complication for no discernible gain.
(BTW, saving throws as written also creates baffling results such as
barbarians getting more resistant to dehydration, but not starvation, as they level up. High level barbarian will still survive a 100-foot fall unscathed...).
What else the barbarian got?
Well, a couple of unique features of course. These are cool and should be kept, most of the times. Others, not so much. Let's see.
- Proficiency in all weapons: unnecessary, as seem above.
- Proficiency in light and medium armor: this is more complicated, but I think a barbarian should be able to wear ANY armor. However, he wouldn't be able to take full advantage of his Dex and Con.
Take a look at this post for some ideas.
-
Skills: see above.
-
Rage: yeah, that's the barbarian main feature. Keep it.
Unless... Well, rage is +2 damage at this point. Double the strength bonus to damage, you'd get +3 instead... But anyway, let's leave that to another post.
- d12 for HD: So, he got more hit points. The lowest HD possible is a d6; a d12 grants him an average of 3 extra HP per level. You guessed it: just double his Constitution modifier and you get the same effect. I have a even easier formula, which I'll discuss later (basically, multiply his Constitution by 6 and divide by two and you'd get 48 HP, pretty close, and easier to do).
BTW, did you realize barbarians get 1d12 HP peer level, and fighters 1d10? Well, fighters have "second wind". In practice, the results are similar.
So, most of the "chassis" for the class are unnecessary. Do we even need classes at this point? Or would a collection of features (extra attack, rage, etc.) suffice?
What about races? Those are features.
Backgrounds? Those are features.
Spells? Features.
More and more, I'm convinced ability scores + features would be enough to do everything we need.
