D&D 5E Balancing the ability scores and their contribution to different classes

[Lyxen]

Not really? Unless you change point buy to make it so that you have much less points to distribute, getting a high casting or Strength / Dex score and then getting a high Con score is still going to be fairly optimal. If Con becomes even more important, then build diversity will decrease because getting a high Con to survive will be even more important. You won't want to skip out of it. Without Con, a lot of classes get more flexibility.

That's assuming that you can get who high scores. But if you already need two in your class core stats (because we want classes to be less SAD), then having Con to worry about will have you make hard choices between survival and efficiency, and that's what I think we want to have different choices matter, right ?

Dex is still going to be a priority for some classes, but it's likely you can get away with a +2 on that and spend your access points on getting better mental scores and having some extra skills.

And if Dex is not as much a god class (honestly, using Int for Initiative would not be stupid, for example), for once, and if Dex is not one of your class core skills, then you will have even harder choices to make.

Heck, now I'm confused why you mean by SAD because right now a lot of classes depending on the game ran are optimally going to invest in Con, getting it to at-least a +2 or +3. But I would still call those SAD since they're only doing that for HP.

That is the PH's perspective, but if you look at guides, they are more moderate about Con impact in general, most prefer to be really efficient with powers than survivability (which I think is a real danger, but at least you have choices).

You are also going to make starting a level 1 even more lethal without further large adjustments. A 1d4 for Wizards might be appropriate, but Sorcerers are going to have a little bit too much fun being damn squishy.

I played wizards in BECMI/AD&D, so I know what it means, but no-one says that you have to start with only one HD. You might have you Con as starting HP, for example, or something like 4e did. There are other solutions to that specific problem.

 

[ReshiIRE]

That's assuming that you can get who high scores. But if you already need two in your class core stats (because we want classes to be less SAD), then having Con to worry about will have you make hard choices between survival and efficiency, and that's what I think we want to have different choices matter, right ?



And if Dex is not as much a god class (honestly, using Int for Initiative would not be stupid, for example), for once, and if Dex is not one of your class core skills, then you will have even harder choices to make.



That is the PH's perspective, but if you look at guides, they are more moderate about Con impact in general, most prefer to be really efficient with powers than survivability (which I think is a real danger, but at least you have choices).


I played wizards in BECMI/AD&D, so I know what it means, but no-one says that you have to start with only one HD. You might have you Con as starting HP, for example, or something like 4e did. There are other solutions to that specific problem.

Okay, you're suggesting that in combination with other changes. That could work; I was suggesting a smaller minimum change I would make that I feel would have a pretty positive impact (in general, I feel that the next iteration of D&D is likely to be pretty backwards compatible with 5e).

I don't really look at guides (except to affirm the relative effectiveness of some subclasses, as some features I've read over have left me fairly confused honestly) and I'm more so drawing on smaller party experience when I talk about Con; it feels like that healing during combat is fairly inefficent (even with Lay on Hands being very good) and so having a good amount of HP is important to survive a few fights.

 

[tetrasodium]

I actually think the complete opposite, constitution is really important to make the characters less SAD, and if anything its contribution to HP should be increased, maybe by decreasing the HPs from classes (where I would agree would be in making them more varied, it used to be 1d4 to 1d10 - 1d12 after AD&D UA, now the range has decreased to 1d6-1d12), that way people could still choose to be powerful in their class but would really be glass canons.

If a class is designed in such a way that the one attribute that literally every character needs for hp is what is shifting them from SAD to MAD that should be a pretty clear indicator that the class is too SAD with constitution not being the straw to change thst. It says the class doesn't need to carry things be social find things lmop things sneak about or see things unless one of those linked stats is their one attribute with the group expected to list say cool to rainman*... usually that extreme SAD just greatsword +gwm since even dex builds tend to have some expected need for things beyond stabby stabby.

Warlock/sorcerer charisma ups come close second but they still need some Dex for ac due to lacking heavy armor

*ironically that idiot savant build itself getting a pass to nope out of everything but SWORD causes people to complain that their fighter cant do anything outside of combat after going to lengths in order to ensure that every single choice is made exclusively for maximum power with that sword in combat to hell with anything else. If these builds could start 20 10 10 3 3 3 many would do so and still complain they were useless outside of combat after picking up gwm sentinal & heavy armor master by 8

 

[Horwath]

Fewer abilities => More opportunity for SAD in a TTRPG where you don't want combination computations



One of my favourite game, Amber DRPG has only 4 attributes, but with very wide consequences:

• Psyche ( = Willpower)
• Strength
• Endurance (This one is a mandatory stat for characters, I think, Constitution is important and should not be dumped anyway)
• Warfare (= Overall Combat Skill)

One thing that I like is that there is nothing about intelligence there, as it's something that is really hard to play at a different level from the player's.

That is why cunning is good stat. It just expresses your potential in various things, but your choice and/or number of skills/expertise will determine how "smart" you really are.

If you have proficiency and/or expertise in Arcana, History, Nature and Religion the you are kind of bookish scholar,
and if you have those in Insight, Deception, Intimidation and Persuasion you are more of a people person, smooth talker, con-man maybe,
Medicine, Nature, Survival, Perception would describe some kind of survivalist.

 

[Minigiant]

6 ability scores is best. SAD classes are quite boring and belong in video games with advanced behind the scenes calculation.

Strength just needs a greater focus on general athleticism and methods to bypass this (acrobatics and magic) should be limited or restricted.

Constitution is fine. Warrior classes should have the option of +1 to hit or 1+1 hp/level to reduce dependency. Also CON based classes, bring them back.

Dexterity is fine.

Intelligence should grant an universal benefit like 3e's bonus skills or 4e's bonus to AC and Initiative.

Charisma should be the defensive score for all mind control and personality manipulation. Charisma should give bonuses to arms, fears, and enrages.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, I've been thinking about this a lot but unfortunately I don't have obvious solutions. I would really like to get rid of laser focus on singe stat. At the same time, I don't think it is necessary or even desirable to have every stat to be equally good for every class; certain capabilities are more relevant for certain jobs. I also really don't like lessening the verisimilitude. If we're going to do that, then just get rid of ability scores altogether, as they no longer serve a purpose for me. This is why I really didn't like 4e approach which was basically heading into 'use whichever, it doesn't really matter' territory.

Also, when discussing this there is a difference between what would work and what can actually happen. Like I fully agree that reducing the number of ability scores, redefining them and perhaps changing their names would help. But that is absolutely never going to happen in official D&D. But if we're just talking about housererules/making our own fantasy heartbreaker then of course it is an option.

 

[Lyxen]

Okay, you're suggesting that in combination with other changes. That could work; I was suggesting a smaller minimum change I would make that I feel would have a pretty positive impact (in general, I feel that the next iteration of D&D is likely to be pretty backwards compatible with 5e).

Honestly, at this stage, I'm not sure there will be a 6e for a veeery long time. It would cost a huge amount of money and break a serious dynamic, and with the success of 5e I'm not sur how you could invent something different enough to justify a new edition and still compatible both with the past and with the current formula for success with a very flexible game.

But in terms of limited impact, I follow you.

I don't really look at guides (except to affirm the relative effectiveness of some subclasses, as some features I've read over have left me fairly confused honestly) and I'm more so drawing on smaller party experience when I talk about Con; it feels like that healing during combat is fairly inefficent (even with Lay on Hands being very good) and so having a good amount of HP is important to survive a few fights.

The reason for me reading guides is that I don't have the opportunity to play all the classes to a significant level. The guides are written by people who love these classes and have a fairly wide knowledge of what they feel like when played. But for example there are some classes that I'm absolutely not interested in like the Monk or the Artificer, I've never read those.

After that, the main problem is that it's really hard to generalise, especially when speaking about power and resilience, simple factors like the way the DM allows resting or the player (ab)use it completely change the values. Does the DM put one really really hard fight and the party rest every time, or do they go through several less punishing encounters before resting ? This completely change the relative value of Con compared to other stats, as well as the power of classes against others...

 

[Lyxen]

If a class is designed in such a way that the one attribute that literally every character needs for hp is what is shifting them from SAD to MAD that should be a pretty clear indicator that the class is too SAD with constitution not being the straw to change thst. It says the class doesn't need to carry things be social find things lmop things sneak about or see things unless one of those linked stats is their one attribute with the group expected to list say cool to rainman*... usually that extreme SAD just greatsword +gwm since even dex builds tend to have some expected need for things beyond stabby stabby.

Warlock/sorcerer charisma ups come close second but they still need some Dex for ac due to lacking heavy armor

*ironically that idiot savant build itself getting a pass to nope out of everything but SWORD causes people to complain that their fighter cant do anything outside of combat after going to lengths in order to ensure that every single choice is made exclusively for maximum power with that sword in combat to hell with anything else. If these builds could start 20 10 10 3 3 3 many would do so and still complain they were useless outside of combat after picking up gwm sentinal & heavy armor master by 8

That made me laugh, but slightly hysterically because, in my powergaming days, I had a half-ogre called Grahgnouf, regional kobold-throwing champion (it was a thing at that point in time, so I had a specific skill), with 18/00 Str, 18 Con, 10 Dex, and 3 in Int/Wis/Cha. He had a hook welded to the back of his plate so that his comrades could anchor a chain and restrain him when they did not want him to charge, but it rarely worked because they were weaklings anyway.

 

[Jmarso]

Since joining a 2E campaign recently, I've come to realize that a lot of angst in 5E over ability scores is centered around the fact that they give fantastic bonuses, especially within the framework of the 5E rules. (Bounded Accuracy, or whatever it's called.)

The game has gotten away from the 'Bell Curve' distribution of ability scores between 3-18. If you look at early versions of the game, there weren't many bonuses to be had even with very high ability scores, and penalties didn't start until scores were around a 6 or lower. A plain strength of 18 only yields +1 hit, +2 dam. HP bonuses for high CON didn't start until you hit 15 or higher. Same for DEX. It was impossible to raise a score above 18 unless by magical means, and strength scores of 20 and higher were commonly associated only with deities / demigods.

As a consequence, you took those bonuses when you got them, but they weren't character-defining. I'm currently playing a Cleric whose highest ability score in any category is 13 WIS. He's working out fine. I guess my point is that people should try (I know it's hard) to stop worrying about creating superhero characters with high ability scores, and concentrate more on playing (end enjoying) the characters they roll. This is why I'm also in favor of rolling scores rather than point buys and standard spreads- the latter result in 'cookie cutter' templates with certain scores always being applied to certain abilities depending on class. Rolling introduces some luck and randomness to the process, and we all know there are multiple ways to do it so that the player can play the class of character they want.

TLDR version: Quit worrying about ability scores mechanics, roll your character, play him/her/it without turning it into a game of math and statistics.

 

[Lyxen]

Since joining a 2E campaign recently, I've come to realize that a lot of angst in 5E over ability scores is centered around the fact that they give fantastic bonuses, especially within the framework of the 5E rules. (Bounded Accuracy, or whatever it's called.)

Actually, it's the other way round, bounded accuracy limits the bonuses, compared to 3e and 4e where they were unbounded.

The game has gotten away from the 'Bell Curve' distribution of ability scores between 3-18. If you look at early versions of the game, there weren't many bonuses to be had even with very high ability scores, and penalties didn't start until scores were around a 6 or lower. A plain strength of 18 only yields +1 hit, +2 dam. HP bonuses for high CON didn't start until you hit 15 or higher. Same for DEX. It was impossible to raise a score above 18 unless by magical means, and strength scores of 20 and higher were commonly associated only with deities / demigods.

While I agree about the move, for me it is still a good thing that differences in ability have an effect of the game instead of being globally pointless except for the rare (in AD&D) ability check.

TLDR version: Quit worrying about ability scores mechanics, roll your character, play him/her/it without turning it into a game of math and statistics.

You will find that a lot of people especially on forums, but also at many tables, care more about the mechanistic view of the game than other aspects, another trend that originates with 3e and its attempt to make D&D a complete technical game with clear rules.