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

[TheAlkaizer]

5e’s structure I’d extend this goal to racial traits as well (ie: something like Savage Attacks applying to all damage types rather than only benefiting melee classes)

Not too fond of that in the contexte of D&D. But if we're moving in a different direction (as I'm proposing in my first post) I would definitely have that also apply to racial traits too. It really sucks to have a racial trait that gives no advantage at all and feels like a waste. It can't always be useful; for example, your savage attack that also applies to spell damage would probably not be super useful to a cleric focused on healing and protection, but at least, it's not very useful because of a player's choice, and can still have minimal usefulness in the few cases where the cleric will deal damage.

every skill is associated with two or three ability scores

That can help mitigate the issue. But I don't think it's enough. Intelligence is linked to quite a few skills in 5E, but it's really not that big a deal to have a bad skill score. So it's an incentive, but not a huge one.

MAD. The main problem with 5e is that there are too many classes that are SAD

Can you define what you mean by MAD and SAD? I don't know what that means.

The problem with Constitution right now in my opinion is that it feels like a 'tax' for builds and discourages putting your stats into another mental score for skills. Everyone needs a good amount of HP, and while you definitely can play more glass cannon

I've discovered a few games that don't have a constitution stat and outright tell you "this is how much HP you have". It often depends on your race/ancestry and class. I really don't mind it. But I think it's important to have a way to increase that if you want to make a sturdy character, whether that's through feats or other means.

is nothing about intelligence there

I like intelligence as a stat. But I think it connotes too much with the common use of the word intelligent, as being smart or dumb. I've always treated the stat more as knowledgeable and having a sharp mind for problem solving. I would keep it but change the word intelligence. But for me, the difference between intelligence and wisdom as concepts is very clear.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

So, the prime example I have in mind is really intelligence being useful to fighters. I'm sure something could be done with tactics. Like, if you have some sort of flanking rule, or attacks of opportunity, doing an intelligence saving throw could allow you to not trigger an attack of opportunity, or to get your flanking bonus, etc. I'm just spitballing here.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Not too fond of that in the contexte of D&D. But if we're moving in a different direction (as I'm proposing in my first post) I would definitely have that also apply to racial traits too. It really sucks to have a racial trait that gives no advantage at all and feels like a waste. It can't always be useful; for example, your savage attack that also applies to spell damage would probably not be super useful to a cleric focused on healing and protection, but at least, it's not very useful because of a player's choice, and can still have minimal usefulness in the few cases where the cleric will deal damage.


That can help mitigate the issue. But I don't think it's enough. Intelligence is linked to quite a few skills in 5E, but it's really not that big a deal to have a bad skill score. So it's an incentive, but not a huge one.


Can you define what you mean by MAD and SAD? I don't know what that means.

MAD = Multi-ability dependent. A class that wants/needs "good" numbers in more than one ability score. Paladins and monks are the classic examples.
SAD = Single-ability dependent. A class that can get away with a good score in one ability and use that to overcome the other areas. Wizards really only need Int. (I would even argue that with high Int and the right spells you barely need constitution, let alone anything else.) A class with constitution as their casting stat would definitely fall here.

Which classes are in which group and how true this is in any specific case are matters of debate, but the extremes are pretty well agreed upon.

 

[Aldarc]

When the abilities consolidate to four.

Strength (big, tough): Fighter
Dexterity (athletic, mobile): Rogue
Intelligence (perceptive, intuitive): Wizard
Charisma (empathic, willful): Cleric

A Fighter of high Intelligence becomes an excellent choice.

It's a matter of semantics mostly, but I'm a big fan of using Spirit instead of Charisma. For anyone worried about two Attributes using 'S,' it's not difficult to rename Strength to Might either. But this is not the game where such changes are likely, so I would suggest that we both look to either Shadow of the Demon Lord or the upcoming Tales of the Weird Wizard by Robert Schwalb.

 

[Amrûnril]

I definitely agree with the OP’s sentiments here: that making more ability scores useful for each class is a desirable goal and that Pillars of Eternity shows a good example of what this can look like, but that its specific implementation wouldn’t be a good thematic or mechanical fit for D&D.

While it would be possible to construct a new system with a different number/set of abilities, I think that, for a lot of players, moving away from the six traditional ones would make the game stop feeling like for D&D. I also don’t think it’s plausible, or necessarily desirable, to move away from certain classes having an association with certain abilities. I would, however, like to see every class get some benefit out of every ability, while avoiding situations where a character can rely on a single ability for almost every combat statistic. Here are some tentative thoughts on what that could look like in terms of individual ability scores:


Strength could add to the damage of all weapon attacks, even those that use a different ability to hit. If we want to go a bit further, it could also grant armor proficiencies automatically at high enough thresholds.

Dexterity is already pretty universally applicable, but if we want to make it a bit more useful to strength-based characters, it could apply to AC even with heavy armor (perhaps at a discounted rate). Alternatively (though this would be a larger departure from D&D tradition) wisdom could contribute to AC instead of dexterity, and high dexterity could allow some number of extra reactions or bonus actions per rest.

Constitution already does a great job of being useful to everyone, though if other stats become more universally useful in combat, it might be worth giving constitution a few more uses out of combat.

Intelligence could contribute to known options for most class/subclass abilities. A high intelligence bard, for instance, could know more spells, even if the power of those spells depends on charisma. Similarly, a high intelligence battlemaster could have more maneuver options available. Obviously, applying this would require a lot more class/subclass level rewriting/balancing than other suggestions, and scaling things by both intelligence and level could get a bit fiddly. I think it would do a good job, though, of making intelligence good for a character of any class who wants to be good at finding the right tools for specific situations.

Wisdom, as noted above, could contribute to AC, representing insight about where attacks are likely to be aimed.

Charisma seems like the hardest ability to find a universal application for. It could be used for more saves and as the basis for specific abilities (I think a couple battlemaster maneuvers already do this), but I think that would still seem underwhelming, from a combat perspective, for characters who don’t use it for spellcasting.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I definitely agree with the OP’s sentiments here: that making more ability scores useful for each class is a desirable goal and that Pillars of Eternity shows a good example of what this can look like, but that its specific implementation wouldn’t be a good thematic or mechanical fit for D&D.

While it would be possible to construct a new system with a different number/set of abilities, I think that, for a lot of players, moving away from the six traditional ones would make the game stop feeling like for D&D. I also don’t think it’s plausible, or necessarily desirable, to move away from certain classes having an association with certain abilities. I would, however, like to see every class get some benefit out of every ability, while avoiding situations where a character can rely on a single ability for almost every combat statistic. Here are some tentative thoughts on what that could look like in terms of individual ability scores:


Strength could add to the damage of all weapon attacks, even those that use a different ability to hit. If we want to go a bit further, it could also grant armor proficiencies automatically at high enough thresholds.

Dexterity is already pretty universally applicable, but if we want to make it a bit more useful to strength-based characters, it could apply to AC even with heavy armor (perhaps at a discounted rate). Alternatively (though this would be a larger departure from D&D tradition) wisdom could contribute to AC instead of dexterity, and high dexterity could allow some number of extra reactions or bonus actions per rest.

Constitution already does a great job of being useful to everyone, though if other stats become more universally useful in combat, it might be worth giving constitution a few more uses out of combat.

Intelligence could contribute to known options for most class/subclass abilities. A high intelligence bard, for instance, could know more spells, even if the power of those spells depends on charisma. Similarly, a high intelligence battlemaster could have more maneuver options available. Obviously, applying this would require a lot more class/subclass level rewriting/balancing than other suggestions, and scaling things by both intelligence and level could get a bit fiddly. I think it would do a good job, though, of making intelligence good for a character of any class who wants to be good at finding the right tools for specific situations.

Wisdom, as noted above, could contribute to AC, representing insight about where attacks are likely to be aimed.

Charisma seems like the hardest ability to find a universal application for. It could be used for more saves and as the basis for specific abilities (I think a couple battlemaster maneuvers already do this), but I think that would still seem underwhelming, from a combat perspective, for characters who don’t use it for spellcasting.

Another way to do this is two-step:

1. Maneuvers for all weapon classes.

2. Some maneuvers and spells key off specific abilities, regardless of class. Enchantments always use charisma, divinations always use Wisdom, abjurations always use constitution, rays use dexterity to hit, and so on. That way having more decent ability scores creates horizontal power (more spells to choose from) without granting vertical power (you best spells are just as good) Some spells (evocations) should be based on your "key ability" set by class so everyone can use them (and some classes might let you pick from multiple key abilities.)

Maneuvers are a bit easier to imagine here: strength for pushing, dexterity for accuracy/reactions, constitution for powering through/resisting damage, intelligence for identifying and tactics (warlord stuff), wisdom for finding openings/weaknesses, charisma for feints and intimidation. So the smart fighter has moves available the dumb fighter doesn't, but the only fighter without moves to use is the one with all low ability scores. And you can always just hit people with no flair.

Half-casters get a bit complicated here: a ranger is going to have some mix of maneuvers and spells (although leaning all one way could be an option), and those are in turn affected by your ability spread - which means rangers with different ability scores might play very differently. I'd also be inclined to let half-casters chose their casting stat for weapon attack (with a minimum physical stat) - a paladin who's armor is faith and who's power is conviction makes total sense to me.

(Details need work, but I think this is a good way forward.)

 

[billd91]

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.

Pushing the bonuses down to start at 12 doesn't really indicate that the bell curve distribution has been abandoned. If you roll your stats, that curve is still there. It just means that benefits (and penalties) start earlier on the curve instead of being concentrated up into the tails.

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.

A 2e cleric with a 13 Wisdom works fine - for a while. You won't be casting 6th or 7th level spells, though, when you reach a level high enough to do so. So even back in 1e and 2e, there were points in which lack of a high stat would affect your level of success in a class - even if the class itself had low entry requirements like the big 4 (fighter, wizard, cleric, thief).

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.

That's a personal play style issue and, I think we can be certain, you can't stop people from playing that way. As long as there are choices to be made in customizing a character, optimization will happen whether it's via attribute bonuses that add to rolls or other choices that affect the probability of success. I mean, I might agree that PCs don't need to be pushed to the highest bonus to be effective in D&D, particularly in 5e, and so I don't play that way - but I know quite well that there are people who do. And 5e's design means that even if they do, their PCs aren't all that much better than the PCs of players who don't.

 

[Yaarel]

It's a matter of semantics mostly, but I'm a big fan of using Spirit instead of Charisma. For anyone worried about two Attributes using 'S,' it's not difficult to rename Strength to Might either. But this is not the game where such changes are likely, so I would suggest that we both look to either Shadow of the Demon Lord or the upcoming Tales of the Weird Wizard by Robert Schwalb.

The D&D term "Charisma" emphasizes all the social skills, including Inspiration, Leadership, Persuasion and Empathy, as well as the the more mysterious aspects of charm. I like the term.

Strength can be called Toughness, but "Strength" works great too.



The D&D-isms continue well. The four abilities really are a consolidation of the D&D tradition, not a replacement.

Strength (passive Fortitude save): Fighter
Dexterity (passive Relex save): Rogue
Intelligence (passive Perception save): Wizard
Charisma (passive Will save): Cleric

 

[Aldarc]

The D&D term "Charisma" emphasizes all the social skills, including Inspiration, Leadership, Persuasion and Empathy, as well as the the more mysterious aspects of charm.

So does Spirit.

The D&D-isms continue well. The four abilities really are a consolidation of the D&D tradition, not a replacement.

Strength (passive Fortitude save): Fighter
Dexterity (passive Relex save): Rogue
Intelligence (passive Perception save): Wizard
Charisma (passive Will save): Cleric

You don't have to repeat yourself. We all read it the first time.

 

[squibbles]

Responding to the Obsidian GDC vid in the OP, I think they really whiffed some things in Pillars of Eternity (admittedly, the designer is upfront about this). What's worst, I think, is that those more heavily abstracted abilities feel disjointed from human characteristics, i.e. Strength in 5e is muscle and athleticism, it makes sense; Might in PoE boosts damage and healing--what does that even mean? What type of person hits harder with a sword, burns hotter with a fireball, and also cures injuries better. It's extremely gamified. (Also, why on earth does Resolve give deflection, PoE's sort-of AC)

Not that the goal is wrong, but it seems undesirable to create a battery of descriptive statistics that don't describe (demi)human(oid) traits.

The designer goes into the game's optimization a little bit but, for reference, there is a ton of stat dumping in PoE. There is more within-class Ability build variety than 5e, but a lot of the evils of min-maxing are still there.

[...] I like intelligence as a stat. But I think it connotes too much with the common use of the word intelligent, as being smart or dumb. I've always treated the stat more as knowledgeable and having a sharp mind for problem solving. I would keep it but change the word intelligence. But for me, the difference between intelligence and wisdom as concepts is very clear.

Agreed, Intelligence is an issue (and not just because of its fraught socio-political associations). It has a clear meaning that could be better represented mechanically for more classes but, at bottom, its a player characteristic not a PC characteristic. It isn't obvious, for example, how to play a PC that is much smarter than you are and it might not be fun to play a PC that is much dumber than you are. I think it would be better off replaced with a term that represents a PC characteristic which is separated from the player, something like Knowledge.

The other mental abilities have similar issues, but Wisdom and Charisma are easier to think of as PC traits, i.e. it just sounds compelling when he says it, or she just has the intuitive understanding to detect the lie.

[...] 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. [...]

Or you 'rolled your scores at home' and played a PC with enough bonuses to be fun for you.

The old bell curve was premised on the assumption that there would be lots of PCs, lots of PC deaths, lots of opportunities to roll better abilities if you got bad ones, and the general convention that you--the player--needed to be skilled at the game; a weak, dumb, klutz PC can still check for traps with a 10' pole.

I think maybe the fix is to invert that bell curve design instead. Have bonuses escalate rapidly at lower ability scores but get diminishing returns at higher scores. Something like the following (while keeping the ASIs, the standard array, and point buy the same):
1-3: -4
4-6: -3
7-8: -2
9: -1
10: 0
11: +1
12-13: +2
14-16: +3
17-19: +4
20 and up: +5

This way it'd more costly to dump an ability, less beneficial to specialize in a single ability, and more beneficial to increase secondary and tertiary abilities--regardless of their actual mechanical benefits.

(it'd also make non-variant humans suck less)