D&D (2024) Is it possible to balance the six abilities?

[EzekielRaiden]

Is it possible? Most certainly yes.

Is it possible to do so in a way that doesn't meaningfully change the traditional uses of the six abilities? Absolutely not.

And that's why we're left with Eternal Struggle #7: Ability Score Arguments.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No the challenge is making other things as important as the battlefield

I'm not really sure I get what you're saying here. As GM, I can make off-battlefield stuff supremely important, in the sense that people care a great deal about it. That doesn't somehow make the difference between physical ability scores and mental ability scores disappear. (Though if we're being honest, it's really only Int and Cha that have this issue. Wisdom is Perception, and Perception holds over whether someone can sneak past you or not--which is a powerful thing on and off the battlefield.)

 

[Theory of Games]

D&D needs to re-embrace Feats. Aggressively, like shifting back to the wide diversity of feats Pathfinder (1e) offers. They brings versatility to the system and the characters, while allowing different abilities to deliver more impact. ASI, while useful, doesn't even come close to bringing strong character customization the way 3.5/3.75 feats do.

At the end of the day, you can only do so much with the six abilities by themselves.

 

[payn]

D&D needs to re-embrace Feats. Aggressively, like shifting back to the wide diversity of feats Pathfinder (1e) offers. They brings versatility to the system and the characters, while allowing different abilities to deliver more impact. ASI, while useful, doesn't even come close to bringing strong character customization the way 3.5/3.75 feats do.

At the end of the day, you can only do so much with the six abilities by themselves.

I think "feat module" was probably an idea to do exactly this before modules became vaproware after NEXT. While I agree about feats being an excellent way to add both diversity and versatility, they are rife with design traps that still plague systems today (PF2). ITs a tough nut to crack that might be more trouble than its worth for D&D. I'd love to see other designers run with it though.

 

[Theory of Games]

I think "feat module" was probably an idea to do exactly this before modules became vaproware after NEXT. While I agree about feats being an excellent way to add both diversity and versatility, they are rife with design traps that still plague systems today (PF2). ITs a tough nut to crack that might be more trouble than its worth for D&D. I'd love to see other designers run with it though.

Design traps like what?

 

[payn]

Design traps like what?

Making it a choice between something super cool that will be useful exactly once a campaign, something less cool that will be useful maybe once a session, and something not cool at all but completely useful in every single encounter. Additional Feat supplements that break the original design parameters (the real power creep). Etc...

 

[Theory of Games]

Making it a choice between something super cool that will be useful exactly once a campaign, something less cool that will be useful maybe once a session, and something not cool at all but completely useful in every single encounter. Additional Feat supplements that break the original design parameters (the real power creep). Etc...

That's just part of the game. I have those same decisions to make with weapon and spell selection. They aren't "traps"

 

[payn]

That's just part of the game. I have those same decisions to make with weapon and spell selection. They aren't "traps"

Oh yeah, those have issues too. I mean, if having a bunch of bad choices and one clearly best choice is what you are after, its already here.

 

[Theory of Games]

Oh yeah, those have issues too. I mean, if having a bunch of bad choices and one clearly best choice is what you are after, its already here.

IMO the "issues" with feat-trees and spell selection come down to analysis paralysis. Throw in a lack of character focus: if you know exactly what kind of character you're making, the choices are easier

 

[Yaarel]

Is it possible to do so in a way that doesn't meaningfully change the traditional uses of the six abilities? Absolutely not.

Even so, the ability traditions evolve.

1e experimented with making Comeliness a seventh ability. Even 5e, in the 2014 DMs Guide experimented with making Sanity and Honor a seventh or eighth ability.

These particular additions feel redundant.

Sanity = Wisdom
Honor ≈ Charisma (History) (where History relates to the values of a culture)

Comeliness is more like a Charisma (Performance) check for attitude and dressing well, and perhaps even a Constitution (Performance) check for keeping fit. Superhuman beauty works better as a background feat.

If instead the 2014 DMs Guide split off Athletics and Perception as separate abilities, that might have been helpful for gameplay.

Perhaps all abilities suffer from being too generalized in some cases but too specific in other cases, and this inconsistency is what makes the ability traditions perplexing.

1e was responsible for the original flaw of separating balance from the athleticism of Strength. Despite Strength being generally agile and accurate to aim swords, it was quantified in an extremely specific stationary way according the Lifting skill, namely military press exercise equipment.

There was a time when Perception didnt formally exist, then 3e invented it. 3e should have given Perception to Intelligence since Wisdom already had the Will save.

The D&D abilities have been evolving − changing − since the origin of D&D and continue to shift fluidly.