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

[Yaarel]

I don't think constitution needs beefing up per say. The problem with Con is that everyone* takes 14. It hurts too much to have an 8, but it doesn't do enough to have 16-20. In my 10 years of 5E and 3E before, 90% of my players had 14 Con. In 4E, I saw a lot more variety, since the HP gain from it was hidden away in healing surges.

Con needs skills and another feature to encourage it to be raised, but it also needs to not feel like suicide to have an 8.

I am unsure yet, but I am wondering if the 5.24 design philosophy that makes healing easier and more substantial, also makes it more thinkable for a character to dump Constitution?

 

[FrogReaver]

When balancing the abilities, it is always the conceptual structure, the 'deep four': Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, Intelligence. More precisely, it is their aspect of the 'deep four' Saves: Fortitude, Reflex, Will, Perception.

The reason why six or eight abilities are possible is because the Attack bonus is so important, by itself it is worth an investment in an ability.

The abilities include traits for 'A' (Attack and Spell DC), 'S' (Save and AC), and 'U' (Utilities being various other traits such as Hit Points or Skills that are useful in combat).

When there are four abilities, every ability additionally serves as the Attack stat:
USA USA USA USA

When there are six abilities in balance, the Attack stats separate out as their own ability.
A A US US US US

When eight abilities, each of the deep four abilities has its own corresponding Attack ability.
A A A A US US US US


Thus the quest to balance the abilities is strictly about balancing Saves and Utilities. The deep four Saves are: Fortitude, Reflex, Will, Perception. Because there might be more spells or monsters that refer to one of these Saves, some might be more frequently useful than others. Generally, Reflex is the best save, followed closely by Fortitude. But it is easy to make the mental saves more appealing by adding combat Utilities.


With regard to classes, it is the Attack stat that is so important. Fighter relies on either Strength or Dexterity. Wizard relies only on Intelligence. And so on.

However, every class depends on the Saves and Utilities. Even a Fighter will waste a feat to shore up the Will Save proficiency. Especially the Wizard depends vitally on Reflex AC and Constitution Hit Points, and is actually a Multi-Ability-Dependent class.


In sum, balancing the abilities (whether they are four, six, or eight) is all about balancing the Utilities-Saves for each of the 'deep four' abilities.

Both 4 attributes and 8 still exhibit the issue I spoke of. It's nothing to do with what they individually do, it's about what the classes do with them. Wizards will never need High Strength and if you were to try to balance that then Wizards would be much better off at other Strength related tasks than the Fighter simply because they don't really benefit from that most important +attack and + damage from it, which would really make 0 conceptual sense. In addition it would also make almost 0 conceptual sense to have strength benefit their spells.

Thus, even in the 4 attribute system Fighters will favor Strength and Wizards will favor whatever aids their casting. Thus the abilities aren't balanced. You've not made each one potentially just as important to each character or each class.

One might could redefine attributes so that strength and intelligence

 

[Yaarel]

Both 4 attributes and 8 still exhibit the issue I spoke of. It's nothing to do with what they individually do, it's about what the classes do with them. Wizards will never need High Strength and if you were to try to balance that then Wizards would be much better off at other Strength related tasks simply because they don't really benefit from that most important +attack and + damage from it, which really makes 0 conceptual sense. In addition it would also make almost 0 conceptual sense to have strength benefit their spells.

Thus, even in the 4 attribute system Fighters will favor Strength and Wizards will favor whatever aids their casting. Thus the abilities aren't balanced. You've not made each one potentially just as important to each character or each class.

One might could redefine attributes so that strength and intelligence

If Strength is the ability that has the mobility Utility, speed, jump, balance, etcetera, along with the corresponding AC bonus from dodging and the Reflex Save, then of course the Wizards will need high Reflex.

However, if Strength is only an Attack ability (for physical weapon attacks), then of course the Wizard can freely dump it.

Reciprocally, if Intelligence is only an Attack ability (for spell DCs), then of course the Fighter can dump it. But if Intelligence is the Perception Save and the Initiative Utility, then Fighters will need high Perception.

All classes depend on the Saves-Utilities of the abilities. Only the Attack is both vital and once chosen makes other Attacks dumpable.

 

[FrogReaver]

The benefit of 4 stats vs 6 is that it solves the ambiguity problem exhibited in the current implementation of 6. That's a big benefit, but it's the only benefit.

 

[FrogReaver]

If Strength is the ability that has the mobility Utility, speed, jump, balance, etcetera, along with the corresponding AC bonus from dodging and the Reflex Save, then of course the Wizards will need high Reflex.

However, if Strength is only an Attack ability (for physical weapon attacks), then of course the Wizard can freely dump it.

Reciprocally, if Intelligence is only an Attack ability (for spell DCs), then of course the Fighter can dump it. But if Intelligence is the Perception Save and the Initiative Utility, then Fighters will need high Perception.

All classes depend on the Saves-Utilities of the abilities. Only the Attack is both vital and once chosen makes other Attacks dumpable.

I think I see the problem. Not dumpable does not equal balanced. Fighters still have more reason to take strength in this hypothetical system because if strength is desirable on wizards then it's even more desirable on fighters due to also influencing their attack stats, and intelligence for fighters would be the opposite.

 

[Yaarel]

The benefit of 4 stats vs 6 is that it solves the ambiguity problem exhibited in the current implementation of 6. That's a big benefit, but it's the only benefit.

The main benefit of the 'deep four' is, it is what D&D mechanics have actually been doing all along across the editions. It is the most salient way to organize various mechanics.

Also, suppose hypothetically there are no abilities. Everything is skills and classes. There would still be an organizational need to think about commonalities. What do the Fighter and Ranger have in common? What do the Ranger and Wizard have in common? So on. Ultimately one would end up reinventing the salient 'deep' abilities anyway, for the sake of organizing options.

 

[FrogReaver]

The main benefit of the 'deep four' is, it is what D&D mechanics have actually been doing all along across the editions. It is the most salient way to organize various mechanics.

Also, suppose hypothetically there are no abilities. Everything is skills and classes. There would still be an organizational need to think about commonalities. What do the Fighter and Ranger have in common? What do the Ranger and Wizard have in common? So on. Ultimately one would end up reinventing the salient 'deep' abilities anyway, for the sake of organizing options.

That's not a necessity. There doesn't need to be any organization at all around Strength/Intelligence/etc. Everything can be wholly class driven if desired.

 

[Yaarel]

That's not a necessity. There doesn't need to be any organization at all around Strength/Intelligence/etc. Everything can be wholly class driven if desired.

Example, when deciding which classes get spells? Defacto the mental abilities.


During the playtests, what was the UA 'class group' proposal?

Warrior ≈ Strength-Fortitude
Expert ≈ Dexterity-Reflex
Priest ≈ Wisdom-Will
Mage ≈ Intelligence-Perception

These roughly and continually resurface the 'deep four'.

 

[FrogReaver]

Example, when deciding which classes get spells? Defacto the mental abilities.


During the playtests, what was the UA 'class group' proposal?

Warrior ≈ Strength-Fortitude
Expert ≈ Dexterity-Reflex
Priest ≈ Wisdom-Will
Mage ≈ Intelligence-Perception

These roughly and continually resurface the 'deep four'.

I think you have it backwards. We decide if a class will have spells. Then we decide what attribute to base those spells on. But that's not a required classification.

 

[Minigiant]

This reminded me of an idea I had a while back for a redesign.

What if your offensive bonuses were just based on your level? In 5E, it could raise on 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19, just to be smooth next to the proficiency bonus. A level 10 fighter is deadly because they're a level 10 fighter, not because they have a 20 Str vs a 16 Str.

Then, feats could have ability prerequisites and be used to define a character's style. A Str fighter gets heavy weapon mastery and damage, an Int fighter gets Combat Expertise and defensive and controlling maneuvers.

It would eliminate the "requirement" of a 16 in your class's primary stat, while also opening up different character types, and even make multiclassing more flexible.

Otherwise, I really like how PF2 puts some of the ability bonuses into class.

I once toyed with the idea of a Prime score

Your Prime score was a separate score that could be substituted for certain rolls of other abilities. And it was based on level.

So a Wizard could have Intelligence 15, Wisdom 17, Prime 16. For arcane spells the wizard can use the Prime +3 over the Intelligence+2..

Basically for class stuff, a character's ability modifier minimum was their Prime modifier.

This made the actually features of each ability matter more and lowered the penalty for low scores.

However it made super stats more powerful.