Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
If there are more than four classes, the D&D game design will inevitably refer to the 'deeper' mechanical commonalities that they share with each other.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D (2024) Is it possible to balance the six abilities?
- Thread starter Yaarel
- Start date
Xeviat
Dungeon Mistress, she/her
I doubt it, but I'll keep an eye with my players. I think it's all about perception.
The issue D&D has that there are basically 3 types of Ability scores
1) Ability score which has core aspects that all characters desire having a bonus in
2) Ability score which has core aspects that all characters like having a bonus but not enough to invest a high roll or point buy points in.
3) Ability score which has core aspects that which are strong but tied to a party role.
Dexterity is 1. Wisdom and Constitution are 2. Strength, Charisma, and Intelligence are 3.
It's too easy to dump one of your 3s to boost a 2 a little.
It's takes a lot to justify Constitution being your 5th highest score.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Classes are just bundles of mechanics. There is nothing stopping the designers from designing every class bundle such that they share no mechanical commonalities with any other class at all.
As an example, we can make each skill it's own attribute. Then we can have as many attributes as there are skills we can dream up. We can ensure that no 2 classes ever share even 1 skill in common and that players of said class have no way to increase their skills in non-class skills. So what deeper mechanical commonalities do the classes in this hypothetical system share? Why are we limited here to 4 classes before we have commonality?
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
Yes.
Heh, really?
So, only one class has Hit Points, and no other class has Hit Points (Strength-Fortitude)?
Only one class has AC, and no other class has AC (Dexterity-Reflex)?
Only one class can cast spells, and no other class can spellcast (Intelligence-Perception)?
Only one class can resist mental assaults, and no other class can (Charisma-Will)?
...
Only one class can use swords?
Only one class can use bows?
Only one class can wear armor?
Only one class can Stealth?
Only one class can know History?
Only one class knows how to Jump?
...
Whether such a roleplaying game is even theoretically possible, the D&D roleplaying game has classes that share many mechanics in common with each other.
With balance in mind, I support player customizability, and a classless class.
At the same time, I dont find "Atonal Music the RPG" a fruitful way forward for D&D traditions.
In OS D&D, yeah.
In old school
Only 1 class could afford to be in combat. (STR class)
Only 1 class could roll extraordinary skills. (DEX class)
Only 1 class could cast healing and buff spells. (WIS class)
Only 1 class could cast attack and debuff spells (INT class)
Most of the imbalance of the ability is that the Dex class and Int class and Wis class got combat strength or Int and Wis class got extraordinary skills in New School D&D.
The whole New School ability score imbalance problem is due to D&D investing most of a PCs power in their class, tying that to an ability, then having them give the straps to the other scores. So people only invest in their class's naturally strongest ability scores.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
No. More like all but the class that gets the HP skill has the same hp, same for AC, mental resistance, etc.
As for spells, in such a system you wouldn't have a spellcasting skill, you would have a fireball skill, an invisibility skill, etc.
*A spellcasting skill would be the equivalent of having a warrioring skill.
Same as above.
It's a starting point not an end point. It's meant to illustrate the possibility, not to be desirable. But we can take the starting point and then show any configuration of groupings is then possible. It's fairly trivial to do so from this point, because once we have all classes have unique skills of whatever arbitrary number and amount we want, then it's straightforward to realize that there's no specific grouping of such skills that is required, we can group them any way we want. So your str, dex, int, perception can easily become, swords, axes, maces, bows, hp, ac, damage resistance, fireball, magic missile, invisibility, history.
You don't actually need skills or attributes on anything you don't want the characters differentiated on. And some differentiations may work better via special ability overwriting the normal game procedure for that specific character than by skill or attribute bonuses anyway.
IMO. Most of the problems you cite with modern D&D stem from a few areas
1. Trying to be too granular.
The difference in a single attribute bonus barely matters in actual play.
2. Grouping specific skills to attributes (and really having that split between skills and attributes at all).
It's part of the reason a really intimidating Wizard is so hard to make in D&D.
3. Current system design makes dex, con and class main stat the primary combat stats and everything else if for out of combat.
This is fine except leveling in D&D typically come from defeating enemies and failure in D&D mainly stems primarily from dying in combat and so the combat stats are already inherently more important. If TPK's potentially depended on passing animal handling and medicine checks, then those would be top skills. If we had alternate paths relying on insight/intimidation/etc to defeat every enemy in the game and protect us from potential TPK then those skills would be just as valued.
4. The magic system
Magic does too much independent of everything but main stat (or i should say only dependent on class).
I do too (well not the classless system). But Balance does not equate to 'no dump stats'. Those are 2 separate desires.
It's not so much that such a game would be Atonal, but it would just be missing a wide swath of potential tones. But again, the concept was a starting point to get to a particular place, not a stand alone example of a finalized game design.
Last edited:
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
I'd also suggest that skills are designed to not to really matter much. Like the difference in a 14 cha and proficiency when it comes to intimidation is a +5 bonus (level 5). But checks are anywhere from DC 10-20 typically. And as long as there's that kind of substantial at least 20% chance of failure (probably higher) on a single intimidation check even for a good bonus to it you cannot put too much weight on a single intimidation check. Or if you do you see players mostly stop trying to make intimidation checks altogether, except possibly when the immediate stakes fictionally are already really low.
Last edited:
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
Early editions of D&D were never balanced.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
The problem is with asymmetry itself. Asymmetrical systems can only be balanced under very specific circumstances. Any deviation results in imbalance. The random nature of dice do a good job at hiding the lack of balance from us as humans to some degree and between that hidden imbalance and finding some minor imbalances interesting we are okay with some small degree of imbalance. But again, this only holds for fairly specific circumstances, which is never going to be true for a game played in as many varied ways as D&D (even just based on world and campaign structures).
Similar Threads
