# Should classes have primary ability scores?



## Amrûnril (Sep 13, 2022)

In D&D, most classes have traditionally been associated with specific ability scores. Fighters tend to have high Strength, Wizards high Intelligence, and so forth. In 5e, conforming to these associations is usually key to building a character who will be effective in combat. For most classes, this primary ability score is the only one that contributes significantly to offensive potential, while several of the non-primary scores have no combat effect unless you happen to be facing an enemy targeting the associated save.

There is room for flexibility in some cases. Most Strength based classes can be effective with Dexterity and Finesse weapons, classes that use two ability scores can choose which to prioritize, and focusing on defense through Constitution or Dexterity is feasible in some combat roles. In general, though, prioritizing a class’s primary score more or less guarantees mechanical competence, while failing to do so can easily be a trap choice.

Under these mechanics, a Fighter who prioritizes Wisdom, for instance, will be at a clear disadvantage compared to one who prioritizes strength. To me, this seems like a major limitation of the system. One can easily imagine a D&Desque story where a sword-wielding warrior has only average strength but thrives in combat thanks to their awareness of their surroundings and ability to predict their opponents’ attacks. The same is true for many class-ability combinations that wouldn’t be mechanically effective in 5e.

A more flexible system would expand the potential for ability scores can act as an independent axis of character differentiation and customization. Just as a Halfling Rogue and an Elvish Rogue have distinct but similarly effective abilities, so too could a Dexterity-focused Rogue and an Intelligence-focused Rogue. Making this work would definitely be a challenge, but I think it would be a challenge well worth engaging with, given the degree of character diversity it could facilitate.


What do you think of Class/Ability Score associations? Are they beneficial to the game, or would a more flexible system be preferable?


----------



## delericho (Sep 13, 2022)

To a very large extent, I think those associations are inevitable. I think 5e more or less has the strength of the associations about right. Certainly, if contemplating a "wisdom-based fighter", for instance, I'd be inclined to suggest it might be easier to introduce a new class to fill that niche, rather than trying to force the existing Fighter class to do both.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## payn (Sep 13, 2022)

Gonna stroll down memory lane on this one. I really miss 3E/PF1 Class/ability score association. Between multiclass, prestige class, archetypes, and especially feats you had a truly flexible system. I could make any number of Rangers and they felt different mechanically from each other. The big issue was the gonzo no limit ability score mods in the game. The math got wonky and the gulf between optimal and suboptimal was huge. You ended up with a situation where single attribute dependent (SAD) classes had a distinct advantage over multiple attribute dependent (MAD) classes. 

The modern solution seems to be make every class SAD. Get rid of prestige classes, severely limit archetypes, and keep a tight lid on multi-classing. The result is better balance and a smaller gulf between optimal and suboptimal. However, it has a very homogeneous feel in chargen and play at the table. For example, sometimes a defense maybe "use strength or use wisdom, use charisma or use constitution". The tight math basically comes out in the wash. At this point you might as well divorce attributes from defense/offense and just give class charts a progression. For example, the wizard starts with defense of 1,2,3 and the fighter starts with defense 3,2,1. The stats are going to be the same for everyone, so there is really no point in having them. 

Now, 5E tried to bring back a need for every stat, but clearly that didn't pan out well. Some are very important and others can be avoided at no penalty. Sort of a split between the former gonzo stats and the tight stats. Its looser, so I like it, but still feel a real need is there for differentiation between characters and especially class. My solution would be to look at the 3E/PF1 Ranger design. The class has a combat selection feature, exploration features, and social features. The three pillars represent possibilities to engage in multiple stats and add more variety. Will we see an expansion for 1D&D? I cant say it seems like something folks wanted during NEXT, but surveys and 5E success seems to suggest its not likely to happen.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 13, 2022)

I voted no.

I'd really have classes function on their level and skills and non combat stuff should be based on stats.

I could see some spells calling for ability scores and some martial maneuvers, but I'd like to see every stat balanced for every class.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Sep 13, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> What do you think of Class/Ability Score associations? Are they beneficial to the game, or would a more flexible system be preferable?



I think martial classes could / should be designed along Strength (hits hard), Dexterity (hard to hit), or Constitution (takes a hit). 
Caster classes could / should be designed along Intelligence (many spell options), Wisdom (plentiful casting options), or Charisma (potent spell options).

MAD is an ideal state for class design, with the understanding that you're actually not expected to have three really good stats to pad out the options. The stat array option seems designed for this. As you increase in level, you can pad out the #2 or #3 attribute to enhance the full capabilities of the class.

It used to be that Strength was not wholly a measure of the character's brawn, but also a measure of their talent for warfare. Same with the other attributes tied to a specific class. Things change.


----------



## aco175 (Sep 13, 2022)

I voted no as well.  4e had some of this with clerics attacking with their Wisdom and wizards using Intelligence to attack with a dagger or staff.  That did not sit well with a lot of people and felt odd.  I did like the save mechanic where you got the higher bonus of two stats for the saves.  

The idea feel like another step towards just choosing from a list of skills instead of having a defined role in the world.  If you want a fighter with a Wisdom coolness, you can be a monk.


----------



## Shiroiken (Sep 13, 2022)

Probably unpopular, but I want stronger associations. The fighter should be the strength based warrior, barbarian the constitution based warrior, the rouge the dexterity based warrior, and the monk the wisdom based warrior. Dex based fighters shouldn't be a thing, and monks shouldn't need to prioritize dex over wisdom.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 13, 2022)

The abilities are an important narrative concept.

The abilities distinguish between the Five-Guy-Band: Jock Guy, Rebel Guy, Strong Guy, Heart Guy, and Smart Guy.

An ability describes the kinds of things that a character tends to be good at.

The global tendencies of an ability are distinct from a specific skill or class feature.

Consider how the abilities correlate with essence of D&D:
• Strength/Constitution: Fighter
• Dexterity/Athletics-Acrobatics: Rogue
• Intelligence/Perception-Investigation: Wizard
• Charisma/Wisdom: Cleric

• Well-rounded MADness multiclass

These are salient tropes. Of course, subclasses can emphasize alternative abilities. Even these subclass variations prove the rule that abilities are salient.


----------



## payn (Sep 13, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> Probably unpopular, but I want stronger associations. The fighter should be the strength based warrior, barbarian the constitution based warrior, the rouge the dexterity based warrior, and the monk the wisdom based warrior. Dex based fighters shouldn't be a thing, and monks shouldn't need to prioritize dex over wisdom.



Not the way I would go, but a solid choice for SAD game design.


----------



## Mephista (Sep 13, 2022)

Yes and no.  Like....  I'm down with a ranger or rogue going with Strength builds.  Or if all spellcasters at the table used Intelligence or something.  

I would not be inclined towards a Barbarian using Charisma to smack things with their weapon.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 13, 2022)

So if you want to do this, you're going to need to make some sacred hamburger.

1. You would need to remove the concept of spellcasting stats. Less hard than you think, since you could take the +0 - +5 you'd get from your ability mod and add it into the spell save/attack mod. You would completely divorce spellcasting from stat and allow for smart sorcerers, charismatic clerics and wise warlocks. 
2. You'd likewise need to break the link between class features and ability scores. Things like ability score uses per day (replaced by proficiency per day) is a good start. You'd have to do something about unarmored defense as well.
3. You have to deemphasize physical scores to combat. Primarily, I'd get rid of Str/Dex to hit and AC. Leave Str adding to damage and Dex to initiative. Con can still add to HP. Make it so a fighter doesn't feel he needs sky high strength or Dex to be relevant and add to hit and AC bonus to level and class.

Otherwise, you're just going to create 300 micro features that say "swap x score for y" which is fiddly and only a bandaid. If the goal is for classes to be divorced from a specific ability score, it needs to be from ALL ability scores.


----------



## payn (Sep 13, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> Otherwise, you're just going to create 300 micro features that say "swap x score for y" which is fiddly and only a bandaid. If the goal is for classes to be divorced from a specific ability score, it needs to be from ALL ability scores.



My least favorite thing from PF1. They basically came up with a myriad of make your character SAD feats and abilities which defeated the purpose. They "fixed" it by going full SAD and severely hampering multiclass in PF2. Not my preferred route.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Sep 13, 2022)

I chose To some degree, but there should be more flexibility than 5e provides. I'd say for instance a wizard who is intelligence based or a fighter who is strength based will get the typical perks associated with previous editions but if they play off their traditional ability scores they'll get other benefits but not ones they'd normally get. Regardless they shouldn't be penalized, the character will just play different.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2022)

I'm probably between 3 and 4.  I think concepts like "Int fighter" and "Str wizard" should definitely be supported, but I'm OK if there's a few combinations that don't work.  I'd be OK if every class had a choice between 3 stats as their main, for example.


----------



## James Gasik (Sep 13, 2022)

I prefer systems where each ability score has some benefit to what you are trying to do.  For example, what if spellcasters needed one ability score to determine how many spells they could prepare, another to determine how efficacious their spells were, and a third that governed how quickly their spell slots recharged?

What if all weapon attacks were Dex to hit and Strength to damage?  Or Wis to hit for long ranged attacks?  What if you had to make Con checks at the end of every combat to avoid taking a level of exhaustion?

What if Intelligence determined how many tools one could become proficient with?

I'm just throwing out possibilities, I have no idea if any of these are viable, but it seems like the current system of making the system so that people have to scrape to be good at 2 or 3 ability scores at the expense of all others and having ability scores that are mostly pointless to a class is really strange.  Or making it so that there is only one "correct" way to build a character.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 13, 2022)

I cordially detest the existence of ability scores, but I recognize they will never be removed from the game. So I favor any change which reduces their impact. I would like to see the mechanical link between classes and ability scores fully severed.


----------



## James Gasik (Sep 13, 2022)

We'll probably never be rid of ability scores, since people want to have a way to model one character being stronger, or faster, or more cunning than another.  But making it so that one can succeed by having different strengths and weaknesses sounds much more interesting to me.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Sep 13, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> I would like to see the mechanical link between classes and ability scores fully severed.



I second this. Seems like ability scores would be better for skills and saving throws.


----------



## Amrûnril (Sep 13, 2022)

delericho said:


> To a very large extent, I think those associations are inevitable. I think 5e more or less has the strength of the associations about right. Certainly, if contemplating a "wisdom-based fighter", for instance, I'd be inclined to suggest it might be easier to introduce a new class to fill that niche, rather than trying to force the existing Fighter class to do both.
> 
> YMMV, of course.





aco175 said:


> The idea feel like another step towards just choosing from a list of skills instead of having a defined role in the world.  If you want a fighter with a Wisdom coolness, you can be a monk.



As I see it, a Wisdom based Fighter would still very much be filling the role of a Fighter. Thematically, they'd be a nonmagical warrior drawing their adventuring capabilities through training with arms and armor. Mechanically, abilities like action surge and second wind and subclasses like Battlemaster or Champion would still be good fits. All of those things seem more important to me in defining what a D&D Fighter is than having a high Strength score.



Baron Opal II said:


> MAD is an ideal state for class design, with the understanding that you're actually not expected to have three really good stats to pad out the options. The stat array option seems designed for this. As you increase in level, you can pad out the #2 or #3 attribute to enhance the full capabilities of the class.




The MAD classes come closest among the current game's options to giving the sort of flexibility that I'm looking for. A Paladin, for instance, can prioritize STR for their regular attacks, CHA for their aura and save DCs, CON for concentration and general tankiness, or DEX as a substitute for STR. The flexibility in placing these scores comes at the cost of making INT and WIS unappealing even as secondary/tertiary stats, but if these scores were included in the trade-offs as well, that would be a good example of how different ability distributions could distinguish characters within a class while all being mechanically effective.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 13, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I prefer systems where each ability score has some benefit to what you are trying to do.  For example, what if spellcasters needed one ability score to determine how many spells they could prepare, another to determine how efficacious their spells were, and a third that governed how quickly their spell slots recharged?
> 
> What if all weapon attacks were Dex to hit and Strength to damage?  Or Wis to hit for long ranged attacks?  What if you had to make Con checks at the end of every combat to avoid taking a level of exhaustion?
> 
> ...



I kind of like this, if we were starting with a tabula rasa I would like INT or WIS for attacks (martial and spell), STR and CHA for save against effects, CON for HP and tough it out defences and DEX for AC and Reflex defences or something along those lines.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 14, 2022)

It depends a lot on what you're trying to do--the easy answer is 'homebrew to your taste'. If you're theoretically redesigning the whole system, the problem is that once classes hang around for a while they tend to develop archetypes people want to play, and then you're stuck slotting those into one of the ability scores as 'prime requisites'...er, associations. Sometimes they fit, sometimes they don't.

I actually studied (informally) a bit of Hermetic stuff as research for a never-written fantasy novel, and sometimes the correspondences lined up pretty cleanly (fire, iron, red, Mars, war) and sometimes they had a list of things and you could see they were just trying to fill out colors, elements, etc. (Green is copper because of the patina on copper...fine, but then blue is associated with tin and Jupiter why? Wouldn't purple, the royal color, make more sense? The main ore of tin, cassiterite, is black, but you already used that for lead, which actually looks more bluish as a metal... why isn't copper _red, _the metal itself is, oh wait you took that for iron.) You have a similar problem with the Chinese elements, though there they had a system of relationships they were trying to fill out too--I can get that water puts out fire and gives rise to wood, but the bit about dew collecting on metal in the morning strikes me as an obvious bit of Procrustes.

You wind up getting the same sort of effect when you try to tie each class to an ability score. OK, wizards are smart and fighters are strong since 1974. Bards really should be charismatic and rogues dextrous to pick locks and pockets such. You can give clerics wisdom as the other big mental ability, though there are plenty of anchorites and mystics who ought to have plenty of spiritual power but little common sense. Druids are kind of a type of cleric, so that fits as well. Warlocks have whatever ability they need to channel their powers. But then it starts getting complicated. The monk has been around forever so people want to play martial artists (and a significant subset of geeks like martial arts because they build self-confidence and physical ability without having to play team sports, not to mention having exotic origins and being associated with interesting philosophies), but they really need strength, dexterity, and some constitution. Similarly, the paladin as a fighter/cleric has split abilities too. Same for the ranger as a fighter/druid. The barbarian...well, that's a fighter with an anger problem. Maybe it's constitution because you need a place to put that somewhere?


----------



## Blue (Sep 14, 2022)

Back in the 3.5 days my eldest daughter saw me creating a character and wanted to create one.  So I had her tell me what she wanted to be able to do.  She came up with a wonderful mish-mash from fairy tales and the like.

It was a perfectly good character.

It was not a good D&D character.

It was scattered across multiple classes, didn't have the majority of abilities of any class, and couldn't hold it's own in combat whihc has been a required part of a D&D class for a long time.

So we worked at it, and the two parts that were the most important were "turn into a cat" and "heal people".  So we went Druid.

She rolled her ability scores and I explained what each was.  She wanted to be as agile as Peter Parker (not as Spider-man, a fat that stuck with me) and wanted her lowest ability in Wisdom because she wanted someone impulsive and with little common sense.

Not the best fit for a Druid.

What I learned from this is that D&D has a bunch of niches that we expect, and we've internalized them so much that they don't chafe, instead they just channel our creativity.

So I think ability scores, and having them variously tied to classes is one fo the things that makes D&D feel like D&D.  A classless system that can rework (or just refluff) to match any set of strengths and weaknesses would be a fine game and I'd play it.  But that's not the D&D feel.

That said, I like being able to play a STR fighter or a DEX fighter, both successful and with different feels.  So having a bit more flexibility in classes is shown it can work.  Are you the performing Charisma bard or the storytelling loremaster Intelligence bard?  I think we can do that, open up more archetypes without needing more classes, and still feel like D&D.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 14, 2022)

It wasn't so long ago that the game actually _paid the players _(in bonus XP) to optimize one stat over all others.  Remember the Prime Requisite back in red-box Basic?  I love that edition of the game, but there are parts of it that I don't miss.

5E does a fine job of it.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 16, 2022)

I feel like we should be able to have Int Sorcererers (called Psions?), Druids, Clerics, and Warlocks.

I feel like we should have Dex Paladins and Barbarians. 

I feel like we should have Str Monks.

I feel like we should have Wis… err, Wizards. 

I could see Artificers who are more technical and DEXterous than particularly Intelligent and inventive.

But some classes are closely tied to a specific ability scores: Bards need Charisma. Rogues need Dexterity. This could change if we saw Bards as artists in general - you could have performance artists who are more dextrous than charismatic, or fine artists who are dextrous or wise and revealing hidden truth of human life.

I feel like we could have a few choices of character concept.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 16, 2022)

Personally I think all classes should be more MAD. It’s ok to have a “primary” in the sense of attack rolls, but there should be class/subclass features keyed to other abilities. Paladin and Monk are on the right track. A couple of Rogue subclasses are heading the right direction, too.

And while we are at it, Bard should be an Int class, with Cha secondary. The glib/charming Bard is an archetype, but the core concept is about knowledge and proficiency and training, not personality. Even the subclasses are called “Colleges”.

EDIT: And casters could make attack rolls with Dex but compute save DCs with their casting stat.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Personally I think all classes should be more MAD. It’s ok to have a “primary” in the sense of attack rolls, but there should be class/subclass features keyed to other abilities. Paladin and Monk are on the right track. A couple of Rogue subclasses are heading the right direction, too.
> 
> And while we are at it, Bard should be an Int class, with Cha secondary. The glib/charming Bard is an archetype, but the core concept is about knowledge and proficiency and training, not personality. Even the subclasses are called “Colleges”.
> 
> EDIT: And casters could make attack rolls with Dex but compute save DCs with their casting stat.




I think the core concept has drifted from the 1e Celtic bard (which was related to druids historically, and was a double class change from fighter to thief to druid) through the 2e fighter/mage/thief generalist to be the 'Charisma class' that gets by on personality from 3e on, which filled the hole for the lack of a class that focused on social abilities.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 16, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> I think the core concept has drifted from the 1e Celtic bard (which was related to druids historically, and was a double class change from fighter to thief to druid) through the 2e fighter/mage/thief generalist to be the 'Charisma class' that gets by on personality from 3e on, which filled the hole for the lack of a class that focused on social abilities.




Sure. But now there are four Charisma classes. 

Not that I actually expect or hope for a change like this. Just blue sky brainstorming for amusement.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 16, 2022)

If there is a baseline expectation of what your POWER STAT should be at,  then that sounds like something that should go up automatically. If every Wizard already has 16 Int, then 18 Int, then 20 Int, why not just have a class power stat mod of +3, +4, +5 and let the stats do other things that are of use to every character.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 16, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> If there is a baseline expectation of what your POWER STAT should be at,  then that sounds like something that should go up automatically. If every Wizard already has 16 Int, then 18 Int, then 20 Int, why not just have a class power stat mod of +3, +4, +5 and let the stats do other things that are of use to every character.




That's the argument "we have proficiency bonus, why bother with attributes?"

I've been reading an rpg called Quest (Home). It's d20 based, and the DC is the same for everything (with degrees of success).  Then each class has it's own feat chains, and different feats improve various actions you can take...such as attacking with melee weapons, casting spells, sneaking around, etc.  

I haven't actually played it yet, but I find it compelling.  Your character is "strong" if you take abilities that let you do strong things.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Sep 16, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> But some classes are closely tied to a specific ability scores: Bards need Charisma. Rogues need Dexterity. This could change if we saw Bards as artists in general - you could have performance artists who are more dextrous than charismatic, or fine artists who are dextrous or wise and revealing hidden truth of human life.
> 
> I feel like we could have a few choices of character concept.



Well... if you count classes and subclasses, there's already 35-40. Arguably, if you wanted a Charismatic wizard you could pick sorcerer. It makes sense to me that a particular class be tied to a specific attribute, but that's why I mentioned making sure that there were ways to allow other themes that could take advantage of other attributes. So an intelligent fighter would need a good strength to do damage, but might have 1 + INT bonus in reactions. With some other martial maneuvers to use those reactions on, this would allow the fighter to simulate someone who has high tactical or situational foresight due to their intellect. So, not only could they interrupt some else's plans (I knew you were going to do that by the shift in your weight) but also in a more explorative context (This rope bridge / earthen dam / whatever is weaker than it appears. See there, there, and there? That needs to be reinforced before we cross.).


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Sure. But now there are four Charisma classes.
> 
> Not that I actually expect or hope for a change like this. Just blue sky brainstorming for amusement.




Trying to think...paladin, warlock, sorcerer, bard, yeah good point. It's more common as a spellcasting ability than Wis (cleric, druid, ranger) or Int (really just wizard at this point unless you add in artificer). One of these things where the previously missing thing now becomes more common. I do think the bard is the most 'social skills' one who tries to supernaturally sway emotions...for paladin, warlock, and sorcerer Charisma is standing in for force of will and therefore personality.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 16, 2022)

Baron Opal II said:


> Well... if you count classes and subclasses, there's already 35-40. Arguably, if you wanted a Charismatic wizard you could pick sorcerer. It makes sense to me that a particular class be tied to a specific attribute, but that's why I mentioned making sure that there were ways to allow other themes that could take advantage of other attributes. So an intelligent fighter would need a good strength to do damage, but might have 1 + INT bonus in reactions. With some other martial maneuvers to use those reactions on, this would allow the fighter to simulate someone who has high tactical or situational foresight due to their intellect. So, not only could they interrupt some else's plans (I knew you were going to do that by the shift in your weight) but also in a more explorative context (This rope bridge / earthen dam / whatever is weaker than it appears. See there, there, and there? That needs to be reinforced before we cross.).



Most of those things seem like they'd be more in the roleplaying though. There's nothing in the rules that says your fighter _can't _be your tactical and engineering genius, it just doesn't fit the existing stereotypes.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Sep 16, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> Most of those things seem like they'd be more in the roleplaying though. There's nothing in the rules that says your fighter _can't _be your tactical and engineering genius, it just doesn't fit the existing stereotypes.



There isn't a lot of rule support for that, I would agree. As far as I know, only the battlemaster subclass approaches this. Other than that, I'm not sure what you mean by stereotypes in this context.


----------



## James Gasik (Sep 16, 2022)

The current non-magic archetypes are:

*Brawny Guy.
*Agile Guy.

There's a few archetypes that might make you want a little Int, Wis, or Cha, mostly for skills, but the occasional thing like Battlemasters granting temp hit points or Arcane Tricksters wanting decent save DC's do exist.

It's all fairly vestigial however.  You can certainly create a non-magic guy who isn't brawny (Dex based Fighters, Rogues), or a non-magic guy who isn't agile (Fighters with heavy armor).  About the only ability score you'd probably not want to do without is Constitution...maybe.

In a group with ample magical healing, maybe a Fighter with only average Constitution would be fine.

You can even make spellcasters without a heavy investment in their spellcasting ability, depending on your spell loadout.  

Sometimes a class will reward you greatly for having a certain ability score (like Charisma for Paladins), but not always.  It's always struck me as an odd way of doing things.

I remember playing in AD&D, when every ability score granted some kind of useful advantage (at least in theory), no matter what class you were, but even then, some were weighted more than others- only Clerics and Druids got bonus spell slots for high Wisdom, for example.

I remember playing Earthdawn, and I was really impressed how every attribute added something to your character, from basic stuff like carry capacity for Strength, to movement speed and Physical Defense from Dexterity, Magical Defense for Perception, Magical Armor for Willpower, Social Defense for Charisma, etc. etc..

Or when I played games like Stormbringer, which had secondary characteristics that were derived from several different primary ones.

I don't see D&D going in this direction, but it would be nice.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Sure. But now there are four Charisma classes.
> 
> Not that I actually expect or hope for a change like this. Just blue sky brainstorming for amusement.



I wouldn't mind seeing Sorcerers become CON-based, seeing how their spellcasting is in their blood.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 16, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I wouldn't mind seeing Sorcerers become CON-based, seeing how their spellcasting is in their blood.



That's a fairly simple house-rule.  I made Warlocks Intelligence-based, and it was the easiest thing in the world.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I've been reading an rpg called Quest (Home). It's d20 based, and the DC is the same for everything (with degrees of success).  Then each class has it's own feat chains, and different feats improve various actions you can take...such as attacking with melee weapons, casting spells, sneaking around, etc.



Funny timing. I also started looking into Quest a few weeks back (because I saw this article: Salvage Union Design Blog Discussing Being Statless - from an upcoming mech game using it). I'd previously dismissed Quest because it tried so hard to paint itself as newbie-friendly and light and everything. Something that is crunchy without using modifiers for its rolls is definitely a thing I could go for right now...

On the DnD front, having just made a new point-buy character for a game about to start, and being delighted something like a Wisdom Ranger is a valid option now (for better spells / primal companion), I wish every class had a similar option of at least two stat approaches.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 17, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> I do think the bard is the most 'social skills' one who tries to supernaturally sway emotions...for paladin, warlock, and sorcerer Charisma is standing in for force of will and therefore personality.




I agree, which is why I think they should be MAD: Int for spellcasting, Cha for skills.

If more of their magic involved performance-based enchantments (singing songs to charm people, for example) I could see Cha making sense as the spellcasting stat. But that’s not how they work. 

Imagine if spell save DCs were set not using the primary attribute of the caster, but the nature of the spell. Hmmmm.


----------



## BrokenTwin (Sep 17, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I prefer systems where each ability score has some benefit to what you are trying to do.  For example, what if spellcasters needed one ability score to determine how many spells they could prepare, another to determine how efficacious their spells were, and a third that governed how quickly their spell slots recharged?
> 
> What if all weapon attacks were Dex to hit and Strength to damage?  Or Wis to hit for long ranged attacks?  What if you had to make Con checks at the end of every combat to avoid taking a level of exhaustion?
> 
> ...



Fantasy Craft does almost exactly that. Not sure if I'm remembering 100% correctly, but the way spells work in Fantasy Craft, Intelligence governs how many spells you know, Wisdom governs how many different spells you can prepare at once, and Charisma governs how powerful they are. You wouldn't need to go quite that far for D&D, but I do think that classes should be moved away from single attribute dependency, not towards it. I really like how 4E did it, where each class had a primary attribute and two secondary attributes that their abilities could alternatively key off of for bonus effects.

Having said that, to answer the OP, I personally believe that each class should offer a +2 bonus to one of two attributes when chosen as the character's first level. Or maybe just a +1 to two. It makes a lot more sense to me that the floating attribute bonus should come from the class the character has trained in rather than their background (which is where 1D&D appears to be going).


----------



## James Gasik (Sep 17, 2022)

BrokenTwin said:


> Fantasy Craft does almost exactly that. Not sure if I'm remembering 100% correctly, but the way spells work in Fantasy Craft, Intelligence governs how many spells you know, Wisdom governs how many different spells you can prepare at once, and Charisma governs how powerful they are. You wouldn't need to go quite that far for D&D, but I do think that classes should be moved away from single attribute dependency, not towards it. I really like how 4E did it, where each class had a primary attribute and two secondary attributes that their abilities could alternatively key off of for bonus effects.
> 
> Having said that, to answer the OP, I personally believe that each class should offer a +2 bonus to one of two attributes when chosen as the character's first level. Or maybe just a +1 to two. It makes a lot more sense to me that the floating attribute bonus should come from the class the character has trained in rather than their background (which is where 1D&D appears to be going).



Ah, yeah, it does, and for a while I thought it was a great system.  Then I realized in addition to how horribly formatted the rulebook was, there were some facets of the system that weren't what they presented themselves as.


----------



## BrokenTwin (Sep 17, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Ah, yeah, it does, and for a while I thought it was a great system.  Then I realized in addition to how horribly formatted the rulebook was, there were some facets of the system that weren't what they presented themselves as.



It is, and will likely always be, my complex d20 fantasy heartbreaker. There's so much about that system that I love, but I doubt I will ever play it, and if I do, I probably won't like it, haha.


----------



## James Gasik (Sep 17, 2022)

Well, my main gripes include how utterly pointless gold ended up being, despite the robust system for how much you start with and can keep each session, and how terrible the crafting system was- when we started, my friend wanted to be a crafter, and the guy running the game went on this whole spiel of what he could do eventually.

By level 5, we discovered he'd used all his feats to get some random enchantments that cost the same amount of renown as if he'd just purchased them to make, and he wasn't even allowed to use bonus renown to craft them.


----------



## Undrave (Sep 17, 2022)

Personally I'd love to see it more like 4e where every class did have a MAIN ability score but also had a secondary ability score it wanted but that one wasn't always the same (the Warlord had STR as a primary, with the choice of INT, CHA, WIS or even a balanced INT/CHA set up as secondary). I think it makes classes feel more solid if they have a clear 'path of less resistance' in their design. The secondary ability is where I want to see more flexibility, but more importantly: I want to see it be REWARDING to build your Fighter with good WIS or INT or CHA, because as it stands it's relatively pointless outside the Eldtrich Knight.


----------



## Undrave (Sep 17, 2022)

If the ability scores aren't tied to a MAJOR aspect of your character (Iike class) then why do we even have ability scores to begin with, ya know?


----------



## payn (Sep 17, 2022)

Undrave said:


> If the ability scores aren't tied to a MAJOR aspect of your character (Iike class) then why do we even have ability scores to begin with, ya know?



Skills, reactions, per day currency, saves, etc... the possibilities are endless.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 17, 2022)

I'd also like to see dump stats matter more.  Let's face it +0 or - 1 with a Stat that a character is likely to do their best to never use is hardly going to matter on the rare edge case where Alice can't just step back & say "Bob this is your area" or whatever.  Minus three or four though and it really hits home to change into Alice saying "woah this is an area I must be kept clear of, how can we make sure that happens?" "


Well doesn't everyone have a dump Stat?... No...its entirely possible to dropa pcs primary Stat a point or two and seriously bring up a dump Stat or two... Just nobody does that because there is no meaningful opportunity cost to taking thrm for more power elsewhere


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 17, 2022)

Undrave said:


> If the ability scores aren't tied to a MAJOR aspect of your character (Iike class) then why do we even have ability scores to begin with, ya know?



Because they were in OD&D and now we're stuck with them.


----------



## Amrûnril (Sep 17, 2022)

Undrave said:


> If the ability scores aren't tied to a MAJOR aspect of your character (Iike class) then why do we even have ability scores to begin with, ya know?




I would say if ability scores tied to class in a deterministic sense, that gives them _less_ reason to exist. If every effective Rogue has high DEX, then the benefits of high DEX feel like they're a built in part of playing a Rogue, rather than something distinctive. If ability scores are tied to class in a more flexible way or are independent of class, then they gain a lot more value as way of differentiating characters.



James Gasik said:


> The current non-magic archetypes are:
> 
> *Brawny Guy.
> *Agile Guy.




It really is striking how few nonmagical ways there are for mental stats to be useful in combat. Changing this could be a major benefit of a more flexible ability system


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 17, 2022)

I think that ability scores should be somewhat tied to class, but to an extent, the ability to change them in some cases would be good.

I also wish that there was some flexibility in Dndbeyond to change the caster stat. I had an idea for a bard, a detective type character that used intelligence instead of charisma and, while you can adjust each individual spell DC, it would be much easier to adjust the caster stat and have this all automatically calculated.


----------



## payn (Sep 18, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> I think that ability scores should be somewhat tied to class, but to an extent, the ability to change them in some cases would be good.
> 
> I also wish that there was some flexibility in Dndbeyond to change the caster stat. I had an idea for a bard, a detective type character that used intelligence instead of charisma and, while you can adjust each individual spell DC, it would be much easier to adjust the caster stat and have this all automatically calculated.



Its stuff like this that made PF1 archetypes so money.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 26, 2022)

I’d like more MAD in classes but in a way that changes the feel depending on how you prioritise, two of your ‘required’ stats are based on class and your third your subclass, like maybe, all rogues require DEX and INT for stealth and more skills but the deceptive rogue needs CHA, a spy rogue needs WIS, the thug rogue needs STR...


----------



## payn (Sep 26, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> I’d like more MAD in classes but in a way that changes the feel depending on how you prioritise, two of your ‘required’ stats are based on class and your third your subclass, like maybe, all rogues require DEX and INT for stealth and more skills but the deceptive rogue needs CHA, a spy rogue needs WIS, the thug rogue needs STR...



This. I think you hit on an awesome way to use subclasses to differentiate the classes a bit so they are not so one note.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 26, 2022)

Is this where I plug the Troubleshooters again? Because Troubleshooters doesn't have ability scores the same way D&D does. Strength, Agility, Endurance, and Willpower exists, but they're skills just like any other. Want to punch people? That's the Melee skill. Want to lift heavy things? That's the Strength skill. There's no mechanical correlation between the two.

Mind you, it's a very different game from D&D, but I like that there's no correlation between e.g. the Red Tape skill and the Science skill.

Come to think of it, that's my main problem with stats being so strongly tied to classes in D&D: it reduces your options in other areas. It's basically impossible to be a well-rounded knight in D&D, because in addition to Strength and Constitution for fighting, you'd need Charisma (for leadership and court stuff), Intelligence (for history), and Wisdom (for animal handling/riding).


----------



## payn (Sep 26, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Is this where I plug the Troubleshooters again? Because Troubleshooters doesn't have ability scores the same way D&D does. Strength, Agility, Endurance, and Willpower exists, but they're skills just like any other. Want to punch people? That's the Melee skill. Want to lift heavy things? That's the Strength skill. There's no mechanical correlation between the two.
> 
> Mind you, it's a very different game from D&D, but I like that there's no correlation between e.g. the Red Tape skill and the Science skill.
> 
> Come to think of it, that's my main problem with stats being so strongly tied to classes in D&D: it reduces your options in other areas. It's basically impossible to be a well-rounded knight in D&D, because in addition to Strength and Constitution for fighting, you'd need Charisma (for leadership and court stuff), Intelligence (for history), and Wisdom (for animal handling/riding).



I dont mind MADness at all. I just think the system has to account for it. Since 3E, there is this idea you must max primary and forget about the rest. I dont think that's quite as punishing in 5E, but neither is it rewarded in play.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 26, 2022)

payn said:


> I dont mind MADness at all. I just think the system has to account for it. Since 3E, there is this idea you must max primary and forget about the rest. I dont think that's quite as punishing in 5E, but neither is it rewarded in play.



I think the shift from magic items are expected to churn over to magic items are "_O_p_T_i_O_n_A_l" actually makes the pressure to maximize prime scores even greater.  Now a player can't do things like find small magic items that shore up their weaknesses here & there while the GM doesn't have room mechanically to hook such things safely if they see a need thanks to attunement only proficiency bonus only & a complete lack of prerequisites anywhere

Lets say that the GM notices bob's interesting character needs some help with underwater basket weaving & it seems like a good idea to give bob a magic item that will help him with that.  The GM can expect one of three situations...  A: bob realizes he no longer needs to strive towards the underwater basketweaver hybrid & can take that magic item to jump into a completely different now overtuned hybrid. B:  Alice is already pretty good at underwater basketweaving & the group gives it to alice who can use it without issue to be iover the top at it. C The gm tried to insulate the game from problematic situation A or B & the entire group turns their nose up at the "not objectively better in every way" trash magic item.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 27, 2022)

payn said:


> I dont mind MADness at all. I just think the system has to account for it. Since 3E, there is this idea you must max primary and forget about the rest. I dont think that's quite as punishing in 5E, but neither is it rewarded in play.




The biggest problem is when you tie important aspects of the class's power to higher ability score.

In 5e, the number of spells you can prepare, as well as the Spell DC/to Hit, is partially governed by Intelligence. In 4e, it was spell rolls. In 3e: not only was DC determined, it was a factor in starting spells known and bonus spells. In AD&D, the number of spells you could learn, max spell level, and chance to learn spells were all governed by it. In Basic: you got a bonus to your Xp. 

In every edition but Basic, high Intelligence literally defined how good a wizard you were. The gulf between a 13 and a 16 was massive: it determined how hard your spells were to resist, how many you know, and even how often you can use them. In Basic; it was 5% xp.  Every edition but Basic all but demands you put your highest score in Int and do nothing but improve said score (either because it would become a roadblock if you reached high level without an equally high Int score or because the monster/save math demands you max your saves/attack). Basic just meant you'd level a little faster. 

If D&D returned back to decoupling raw spell power with Intelligence (for wizards, replace caster stat as appropriate for other classes) you wouldn't see the raw dash to get 20+ Int scores as soon as possible. And I think that would be healthy for the game. But I don't suspect people are quite willing to have Int be a minor or non-factor in spellcasting just yet...


----------



## payn (Sep 27, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> The biggest problem is when you tie important aspects of the class's power to higher ability score.
> 
> In 5e, the number of spells you can prepare, as well as the Spell DC/to Hit, is partially governed by Intelligence. In 4e, it was spell rolls. In 3e: not only was DC determined, it was a factor in starting spells known and bonus spells. In AD&D, the number of spells you could learn, max spell level, and chance to learn spells were all governed by it. In Basic: you got a bonus to your Xp.
> 
> ...



I hear ya. I do think stat caps helps in this regard compared to 3E/PF1, but also see that every wizard has nearly identical stats issue. Its not just wizards either, any caster or non-caster is going to have an array or two that every player chooses. I think decoupling some of stat mod weight and placing it on class would help out. Though, I do think there ought to be more that the stats do for characters in general. Each stat should be attractive and dumping should be painful, IMO of course.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 27, 2022)

payn said:


> I dont mind MADness at all. I just think the system has to account for it. Since 3E, there is this idea you must max primary and forget about the rest. I dont think that's quite as punishing in 5E, but neither is it rewarded in play.



I kinda don't mind it if it means balancing things that are sort-of equally important. For example, one stat determining accuracy, another power (damage), and a third endurance, and needing to balance these against one another.

There are two problem with this, though. One is that it's only interesting as long as the stats are reasonably balanced against one another. In D&D, they're generally not. Accuracy and power are generally the same stat, which skews the balance. The other is that if you add stats outside the prime ones, they tend to become dump stats by necessity. So a fighter will have great Strength or Dexterity, good Con, and likely mediocre stats otherwise. It really isn't possible to be good at both social stuff and a competent fighter – no popular jocks or himbos here.

That's why I like the way the Troubleshooters does it: there are no interdependencies between skills. You want to be the world's best lockpick while also being loud and clumsy? Just get yourself a good Prestidigitation skill and don't worry about the Agility or Stealth skills. It also neatly bypasses the discussion about what skills should be based on what stats. Should Intimidation be Strength, Charisma, or either? None! That way, things are open for both the Gentle Giant (strong but non-scary), the Thug (strong and scary), the Creep (verbal and scary), and the Bard (verbal and non-scary).


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 27, 2022)

To me each class should have an important choice of Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary scores. 

To the point that the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary scores of every member of a class should tell you more or less how it plays.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Sep 27, 2022)

I like some flexibility. A fighter, paladin, artificer, or ranger should work fine as strength or dex. Maybe warlock should be able to choose int or cha as their casting modifier.

But I don't want it completely freeform. Barbarians hitting people with their int, or wizards casting with their strength is a complete no go for me. I already hate it how certain subclasses do weapon attacks with their casting stat (hexblade, battlesmith, and armourer).


----------



## payn (Sep 27, 2022)

Staffan said:


> I kinda don't mind it if it means balancing things that are sort-of equally important. For example, one stat determining accuracy, another power (damage), and a third endurance, and needing to balance these against one another.
> 
> There are two problem with this, though. One is that it's only interesting as long as the stats are reasonably balanced against one another. In D&D, they're generally not. Accuracy and power are generally the same stat, which skews the balance. The other is that if you add stats outside the prime ones, they tend to become dump stats by necessity. So a fighter will have great Strength or Dexterity, good Con, and likely mediocre stats otherwise. It really isn't possible to be good at both social stuff and a competent fighter – no popular jocks or himbos here.
> 
> That's why I like the way the Troubleshooters does it: there are no interdependencies between skills. You want to be the world's best lockpick while also being loud and clumsy? Just get yourself a good Prestidigitation skill and don't worry about the Agility or Stealth skills. It also neatly bypasses the discussion about what skills should be based on what stats. Should Intimidation be Strength, Charisma, or either? None! That way, things are open for both the Gentle Giant (strong but non-scary), the Thug (strong and scary), the Creep (verbal and scary), and the Bard (verbal and non-scary).



Yeah I dont think I like the idea of troubleshooters at all. It sounds very min/max. I like stat and skill dependency because I want MAD characters. The troubleshooter method sounds like you can have your cake and eat it too, but that totally depends on the player playing up the dumps. Im seeing red flags already with players I know. 

I would prefer to leave skills as is (well actually greatly expand the skill system but that's another thread) and look more at damage, accuracy, perception, and initiative. I'd prefer to remove stat dependency from those things. I really like the idea up thread about having a primary stat, a secondary stat, and a tertiary stat based on sub-class. I'd lvoe to go even beyond that, but due to 5E design thats just not in the cards. Essentially, I want to get away from every fighter has x,y,z array and every wizard has a,b,c array like we have in most modern games now.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 27, 2022)

payn said:


> Yeah I dont think I like the idea of troubleshooters at all. It sounds very min/max. I like stat and skill dependency because I want MAD characters. The troubleshooter method sounds like you can have your cake and eat it too, but that totally depends on the player playing up the dumps. Im seeing red flags already with players I know.



The thing is that there are no dump stats, because there are no ability scores. Mechanically, there are skills (28 of them) on a percentile scale, and binary abilities (sort of like feats that let you improve certain skill rolls, use skills in different ways, and similar benefits). So if you want to be a lockpicking lawyer, you make sure you have a good skill level in Red Tape, Prestidigitation, and/or Security. Red Tape would cover both knowledge of law and bureaucracy, arguing in court, and (with the Called to the Bar Ability) having contacts in the realms of law. You don't need to have a high Agility, because that's a different skill (covering parts of what D&D calls Athletics and Acrobatics), and you certainly don't need to have a high Intelligence or Charisma because those don't even exist.

You still get plenty of differentiation of character, but you don't get the "Bard" syndrome where the guy with high Charisma grabs all the social skills and monopolizes all the social interaction.


----------



## beancounter (Sep 27, 2022)

No one is preventing anyone from building the character concept they want. Unfortunately, the reality is, a fighter with an 19 Strength is likely to be more effective in combat than one with a strength of 8.

It would be feasible to give a fighter with a high wisdom some advantages in combat, but that would really complicate the tables.

Of course we could do away with ability score bonuses all together so that everyone is equal....


----------



## Undrave (Sep 27, 2022)

beancounter said:


> No one is preventing anyone from building the character concept they want. Unfortunately, the reality is, a fighter with an 19 Strength is likely to be more effective in combat than one with a strength of 8.
> 
> It would be feasible to give a fighter with a high wisdom some advantages in combat, but that would really complicate the tables.
> 
> Of course we could do away with ability score bonuses all together so that everyone is equal....



Who was it that said 'players will optimize the fun out of your game'? That's pretty much how it goes when certain stats can be more important than another.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Sep 27, 2022)

beancounter said:


> No one is preventing anyone from building the character concept they want. Unfortunately, the reality is, a fighter with an 19 Strength is likely to be more effective in combat than one with a strength of 8.
> 
> It would be feasible to give a fighter with a high wisdom some advantages in combat, but that would really complicate the tables.
> 
> Of course we could do away with ability score bonuses all together so that everyone is equal....



Fighters and Strength have always been their own kettle of fish compared to other classes and attributes, O-3e, anyways.

Except for strength, a bonus was nice but not really important. The bonus that you received from level soon matched or outweighed whatever impact your attributes had. Bonus spells from wisdom? Awesome at second level, not so big at 9th. Magic items could boost an attribute by 1-2 points, but again, it was a relatively minor change.

Strength, however, was the main boost to fighter damage. Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength allowed for significant boosts to damage output. The bonus to hit was nice, but at high level you were going to hit anyways. The question was are you going to do enough damage soon enough. That's why strength items, of all the stat boosting items, were the only ones that increased the Strength attribute where you could get +6, +9, +12 to the die roll just from the attribute.

With 5e, rather than having the bonus from level soon outweigh the bonus from attributes, they're fairly matched. A third to a half of your bonus comes from the attribute throughout all the levels.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 27, 2022)

I just think Secondary and Tertiary scores s the way.

For example Fighter

Primary
Strength- For Powerful Melee Attacks
Dexterity- For Powerful Ranged Attacks.

Secondary
Constitution- For bonus HP and Runic DC (for Rune Knight)

Tertiary
Intelligence- For bonus Fighting Styles, Spell DC (For Eldritch Knight), and Psi DC (for Psi Warrior)
Charisma- For Morale bonus and DC (For Knight Commanders) and Spell DC (for Shadow Warriors)


But a Cleric

Primary
Wisdom- For Spell DCs

Secondary
Strength- For Melee Attacks
Charisma- Channel Divinity

Tertiary
Dexterity- For AC for Light and Medium Clerics
Constitution- For HP


----------



## beancounter (Sep 28, 2022)

Undrave said:


> Who was it that said 'players will optimize the fun out of your game'? That's pretty much how it goes when certain stats can be more important than another.



Stats by themselves don't drain the fun out of a game. It's primarily from the mixing and matching of abilities from multi classing. Eliminate multi classing, and you reduce a big part of that issue.

Also, some classes are intrinsically stronger than others, such as the Paladin. That's a game balance issue, not the fault of the player.

It's also up to the DM to limit the magic items available to the players.

A skilled DM can provide a challenge to players at any optimization level, but it's ultimately up to the DM to reign things in before they get out of hand.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 28, 2022)

I played around with the idea of Dexterity only contributing to attack rolls, and Strength only contributing to damage.  I generated some graphs showing every combination with modifiers totally +5 (e.g. Str 10/Dex 20, Str 14/Dex 16, etc.), vs. AC that ranges from 10 to 20.

In general, and unsurprisingly, Strength was more important against low ACs, and Dex against high ACs.  Other unsurprising takeaways:
 - Increasing PB was equivalent to lowering AC (i.e., it benefits Str builds more than Dex builds)
 - The break-even point between Str and Dex shifts in favor of Dex with 2H weapons (because the bonus damage is a lower % of base damage)

(It should be obvious that increased +hit has diminishing returns, whereas +dmg does not, except in the sense of overkilling enemies.)

Two other things I played with:
 - Minimum strength of 13 for wielding a 1d8 weapon one-handed, and I added a new category of 1d10 weapons with Str 17+.  (One thing I liked about this is that it gave something to odd scores.)
 - Increased Crit range with high Dex.  I both tried a tiered thing like the above, and also just a Crit range of 20 - Dex mod.

Both of those changes shifted around the graphs and had the sort of impacts you would expect, but nothing that really shook things up.

The most interesting takeaway is that in many cases the optimum setup was a blend of Str and Dex.  E.g., depending on armor class and which of the optional rules I added, sometimes 16/14 or 14/16 outperformed either 10/20 or 20/10.  Which is kinda cool.  I mean, you _should_ be able to build your character the way you like, without feeling like you have to maximize a particular stat.

BUT....

If ultimately it doesn't matter which blend of stats you take, doesn't that make the choice as meaningless...from a game design perspective...as if you have to maximize one over the other?

So really this experiment just pushed me more toward the conclusion that attributes are poor game design, unless you are going old school and rolling dice for stats, in order.  As soon as you make ability scores a player choice it becomes meaningless.  IMO.


----------



## Amrûnril (Sep 29, 2022)

And now the UA has "Primary Ability" as a codified class element. That's disappointing, though not unexpected. On the plus side, this means it's potentially a topic for the next survey.


----------

