Class Design: One Primary Attack Stat

Rechan said:

I like the dual-stat classes a lot, because they clearly have different feel, look, and behavior; a Str Cleric and a Wis cleric fight much different compared to the difference between Tactical and Inspired Warlord.

Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment completely - but because some classes are not that way, dual-stats get disadvantaged technically. In other words, dual-stat classes are only underpowered when compared to single-stat classes. If everyone was dual-stat, it'd be much more even, and more classes would have alternate flavors. In theory it's great: but in practice it just underpowers certain classes needlessly.

As for the OP, I think it's a much more complex problem to "fix" a dual-stat class than just switching one stat for another on your primary attacks; for one thing, having non-weapon attacks target AC puts them at a big disadvantage (Wis vs AC is bad, since AC is usually higher than Fort/Ref/Will or at least AC expects proficiency bonuses from weapons). On the other hand, if you tried to get around this by using a non-strength-based weapon attack, that doesn't make any sense for strength-based weapons. In other words, using Cha to swing a mace is a very awkward mechanic (especially since you'd have to switch back to Str for a basic melee attack).

What you end up with is only Str-based characters using weapons of any significance (Fighter, Warlord) while non-Str-based characters end up using "implements" to do damage in a non-melee way (laser Clerics). They wanted Clerics, Rangers, and Paladins to carry weapons (i.e. strength-based weapons), so they added options for those classes. But in the end, this made them much weaker.

So maybe the lesson at the end of the day is: hybrid classes still kinda suck?

evilbob said:

I agree with this sentiment completely - but because some classes are not that way, dual-stats get disadvantaged technically. In other words, dual-stat classes are only underpowered when compared to single-stat classes. If everyone was dual-stat, it'd be much more even, and more classes would have alternate flavors. In theory it's great: but in practice it just underpowers certain classes needlessly.

Click to expand...

Could you please demonstrate how the dual-stat classes are technically weaker? Put aside the 'Melee attack w/ cha = awkward' (Because I actually like that mechanic), and just explain how those classes are weaker than mono-stat classes.

I just haven't seen any proof of this claim that dual-stat = weak compared to mono-stat.

I understand the idea of "If you're not Str focused, your Basic attacks suck", but aside from "Commander's Strike", I rarely see PCs using basic attacks at all; rarely do people on the battlefield in my games incur OAs, period, and thus the only time basic attacks would come in, imho, would be monsters that make PCs use basic attacks against PCs.

This also doesn't matter for non-melee classes; Archer rangers have little use for basic melee attacks for OAs. Wisdom clerics and Warlocks are in the same boat as Bards and Wizards - their stat isn't influential for melee, and unless the Warlock has a pact dagger/hammer/sword, they don't make melee attacks, period.

Also, the thing that breaks down this argument is the swordmage. All of his attacks, even his melee attacks with his weapon, derive from Int. The swordmage decides between Str and Con as their secondary. Well, if the Swordmage goes full Con and Int, then he has nada for Str-based attacks. And the Swordmage can take a feat to let him use his Int for basic attacks instead of Str.

evilbob said:

As for the OP, I think it's a much more complex problem to "fix" a dual-stat class than just switching one stat for another on your primary attacks; for one thing, having non-weapon attacks target AC puts them at a big disadvantage (Wis vs AC is bad, since AC is usually higher than Fort/Ref/Will or at least AC expects proficiency bonuses from weapons). On the other hand, if you tried to get around this by using a non-strength-based weapon attack, that doesn't make any sense for strength-based weapons. In other words, using Cha to swing a mace is a very awkward mechanic (especially since you'd have to switch back to Str for a basic melee attack).

Click to expand...

Well, that's exactly what Cha-based paladins do right now. See Bolstering Strike or Enfeebling Strike. Or see most of the swordmage's powers. Or see some of the druid's beast powers, which use Wis as the attack stat (although admittedly, druid Wis-based melee attacks are against other defenses, not AC). The mechanics work fine for those, IMO.

With Cha-based paladins, you could create a feat like Intelligent Blade master that lets pallies use Cha in place of Str for basic melee attacks. Alternatively, like some of the druid beast at-wills or some of the barbarian's at-wills, some number of the paladin's at-wills could be rewritten to allow their use as a basic melee attack in general, or they could be used as a basic melee attack under certain situations.

For example, in my rewrite of the paladin, they can use some of their at-wills against opponents marked by them. I let them use Holy Strike in place of the basic attack at the end of a charge against a marked opponent, and I let them use Enfeebling Strike if they want to make an OA against a marked opponent. (I may limit that to certain builds, similar to an invoker's covenants - I may call them "oaths")

So maybe the lesson at the end of the day is: hybrid classes still kinda suck?

Click to expand...

Nah, it just means that Str-based classes are better generic warriors, which for the most part I agree with. In my scheme, only fighters and warlords are Str-primary, so they are the best at generically smacking things around. I'm okay with that, as these two classes have the strongest "professional warrior" vibe to me. But it's not like Str-second swordmages, clerics, rangers, and paladins are out-and-out slouches with basic attacks, either.

Jonathan Moyer said:

Well, that's exactly what Cha-based paladins do right now.

Click to expand...

Wow, I had not noticed that. How weird. I mean, the Cha vs. Will or Cha vs. Ref make sense, but I guess you're actually adding in weapon proficiencies with those vs. AC attacks, since they are weapon and not implement, then? Well, fair enough: Cha-based weapon attacks FTW, I guess. (I still say: awkward...)

Rechan said:

Could you please demonstrate how the dual-stat classes are technically weaker?

Click to expand...

Maybe a better word is "strictly" weaker... But yes, they are weaker because you either:
a) need to put points into two stats instead of focusing in one, so one of your attack options and/or the rest of your character will be weaker (for example, the rogue can get an 18 in Dex with a racial bonus easily and still have lots of points left for other stats, but a Str/Wis cleric will either have to go lower than an 18 in one of those stats or will have very poor other stats - thus, weaker), or
b) focus entirely in one stat and ignore the other, meaning you have fewer options overall for power selections; for example, a Wis-only (laser) cleric would only be able to target Ref with at-wills, since there are only 4 options for at-will powers and they are necessarily choosing to ignore 2 of them (thus, weaker).

Sure, more content will make "b" easier to deal with, but it will also give the single-stat classes even MORE options as well, thus continuing the gap. So, they are technically / strictly weaker.

Does this translate into gameplay and/or playability and/or viability? I am not saying anything about these, one way or the other. This is only from a strict stats perspective. If your primary attacks are always 5% lower than another class, or you cannot choose from as much variety, then you are technically weaker by this definition.

I guess I'm just really not seeing the problem here...well, except for maybe with the Paladin, he's a bit odd (although Divine Challenge is largely to blame for that...)

Ranger: How is the Ranger weakened by being dual stat? You're not supposed to play hybrid Rangers, as evidenced by the fact that you pick either Two-Weapon or Archer style at character creation. If you're an archer, you can have an 8 STR and it doesn't really matter. With an At-Will like Nimble Strike, you can always shift away to make a ranged attack without provoking an OA. The only time they're at a disadvantage is for OA's, but then all the ranged classes are, because OA's are a melee thing (And with Martial Power, Ranger can actually do OA's with a bow now...).

Cleric: Again, not really seeing the problem here. The Attack powers are based off of Strength, while the ranged powers are based off of Wisdom. It's the same as the Ranger, in that they're two separate builds. Let's look at a sample of the powers up to Paragon, for example.

1 - You've got Righteous Brand and Priest's Shield (At-Will), Healing Strike and Wrathful Thunder (Encounter) and then Avenging Flame (Daily). All of these use STR and STR only...there are no secondary effects requiring either WIS or CHA.
2 - Divine Aid is only Utility here that uses a stat, and it uses CHA. Everything else is a static effect.
3 - Here you have Blazing Beacon and Split the Sky, both of which use STR and nothing else.
5 - Here it gets odd... Rune of Peace uses STR, Consecrated Ground uses CHA (which is a secondary stat) and Weapon of the Gods has no stat.
6 - Again, we have only one Utility needing an ability score, and that's CHA for Bastion of Health.
7 - Awe Strike and Strengthen the Faithful both use STR as the attack stat, while StF uses CHA as part of an effect of the power.
9 - Divine Power uses STR as the attack stat, and nothing else. Blade Barrier technically uses Wisdom, but only as a damage bonus, not an attack stat.
10 - As before, there's only one Utility here that uses a stat, and that's Mass Cure Light Wounds with CHA again.

So, out of the first 10 levels you have a choice at every level that doesn't go anywhere near Wisdom. Blade Barrier uses Wisdom, but since it's only for damage it's a perfectly viable for a Melee Cleric with a low Wisdom score, as he's just be missing some damage.

So where is this is MAD problem? Other than say, Turn Undead, there's nothing that you're forced to take so far that uses the WIS attribute. Sure, Turn Undead is useful, but there's many Channel Divinity powers, and that's just one. If you were a follower of the Raven Queen you might have Raven's Queen Blessing and use that every turn instead, since it increases your healing ability. So, at least for the first 10 levels, it's perfectly feasible for a STR Cleric to get along with nothing but STR and CHA and some heavy armor.

Granted, your power choices are limited and you every power won't be an ideal choice, but every class has that issue. A STR/CON Fighter using an Axe probably won't take Rain of Blows because he won't get the benefit out of it. He also probably won't take the Swordmaster PP because he won't get the benefit. All builds have certain "ideal powers" that compliment the build, the Cleric is no different...they're just more extreme because it's the primary stat that makes the choice less convenient, rather than a secondary stat or weapon choice.

For the sake of space, I won't do the same thing with the Paladin. Suffice it to say, the major issue with the Paladin is Divine Challenge. It never should've used Wisdom to figure out the damage. Divine Challenge is their "sticky" mechanic that keeps enemies focused on them. It needs to be a threat in order to do so, and having a 10 in CHA doesn't make it much of a threat...then all an enemy has to deal with is the -2 to hit from the mark.

This is further compounded by their limited healing ability having it's number of uses per day based on their WIS score. It's common to see STR/CHA Paladins that dumped WIS in order to maximize their DC damage. This is a problem, and should probably be fixed in some way. Perhaps DC could let you add WIS instead of CHA? Then it's relying on a secondary stat for the class, instead of a primary for one build.

On a side note, classes that are dual statted also make for good multiclass options. Clerics and Paladins MC well together, as does Fighter and Cleric or Paladin and Fighter. You can even toss Ranger into the mix. Even an Archer Ranger with a good WIS score can get some mileage out of the Laser Cleric powers. Rogues though? Not so much. Or Wizards? They're single stat classes, and as such you need to have a compelling reason to invest in their attack stat. Particular builds of the Fighter use DEX, but not all...or even most I would say. The Wizard suffers a similar issue. Sure, the Warlord can MC Wizard pretty good, but that's because they share a stat. Other classes though? Much harder...because if you're good at INT, then you won't be a good Wizard. Period.

Doctor Proctor said:

I guess I'm just really not seeing the problem here

Click to expand...

In case I wasn't clear in my OP, my "problem" isn't a game play or balance issue. I simply feel classes with one primary attack stat have a stronger, more unified theme and are more streamlined in play and character creation. It's purely a matter or personal preference and design aesthetic (although I think streamlining is in general a desireable goal). That's pretty much it. For some people that's not a compelling enough reason, but for me it is.

I'm generally happy to play all the classes as-is, as it's usually pretty straightforward as to how to do things. But I prefer it the "one stat" way, and I'm heartened to see the trend continue in the invoker. Now I just want to see the avenger, sorcerer, warden, and shaman to see if it holds throughout.

Is this like ... a charop issue?

'cos I've seen people:
Play classes like paladins and warlocks and have equal points in both primary stats, and are thereby weaker.
Play classes like warlord and due to a proliferation of power choice take powers that don't work very well together, and are thereby weaker.

Personally, I don't consider either to be a real problem ... I've seen cha-based paladins and str-based clerics own everything as streamlined combat machines.
Just some people make weaksauce characters.

Edit:
Oops, how did I miss the previous post? Sorry!

Hmm .. from a IC perspective, I think there are some fluff strength to the multistat approach.
In a campaign setting, you can make mechanics-supported fluff claims such as, "sure, most races have clerics, but ... Elven Clerics tend to be stay back and heal from the rear, whilst Orc Clerics tend to charge headlong into battle."

evilbob said:

Wow, I had not noticed that. How weird. I mean, the Cha vs. Will or Cha vs. Ref make sense, but I guess you're actually adding in weapon proficiencies with those vs. AC attacks, since they are weapon and not implement, then? Well, fair enough: Cha-based weapon attacks FTW, I guess. (I still say: awkward...)


Maybe a better word is "strictly" weaker... But yes, they are weaker because you either:
a) need to put points into two stats instead of focusing in one, so one of your attack options and/or the rest of your character will be weaker (for example, the rogue can get an 18 in Dex with a racial bonus easily and still have lots of points left for other stats, but a Str/Wis cleric will either have to go lower than an 18 in one of those stats or will have very poor other stats - thus, weaker)

Click to expand...

What?

I don't understand this at all.

What's the difference in a Cleric with a Wis 18 and Cha 14, and a Swordmage with Int 18 and Con 14? Those are the same. Both classes have 'your primary stat and your secondary stat' they are focused on.

The Str focused cleric doesn't need a high Wis, because he's a str focused cleric. He's not attacking with the Wisdom. If he wants to straddle both, that's his own damn fault, like a tactical warlord sacrificing a high Int so he can have an equal Int and Cha because he wants other powers.

b) focus entirely in one stat and ignore the other, meaning you have fewer options overall for power selections; for example, a Wis-only (laser) cleric would only be able to target Ref with at-wills, since there are only 4 options for at-will powers and they are necessarily choosing to ignore 2 of them (thus, weaker).

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean 'weaker'. Compare all the Paladin's At-Wills to the Warlord's At-Wills. They all target AC (well, Furious Smash targets Fort, but it's a different sort of power). So how are the Paladin's at-wills weaker than the Warlord's?

Also, you're talking about "choices". Let's go back to the Warlord. The Warlord focuses on Str, and chooses between Int and Cha. Your argument is that the Warlord is stronger because all of his powers key off Str, and so he is better because he has more choices for powers. However, a Tactical Warlord is going to benefit less from picking up a power that keys off his Charisma if his Int is higher. That power is weaker compared to his other options. Despite the fact of him having the option, that option is to choose a power that is weaker given his stats.

Fewer Options does not equal Weak. It might equal less fun, but it doesn't mean 'weaker' in terms of how powerful the class is. Weak means 'mathmatically inferior' or 'not as good as power x'. Everyone has the same amount of powers they get, so even if the cleric can only choose between 2 and the Warlord can choose between 4, both still only get 1, and if the Cleric's 2 encounter powers are on par with the Warlord's, they are not weaker compared.

So if you want to say 'strictly weak', then it's 'only weak if you define weak as not having as many options'. A better word would be 'Narrow-focused' or 'Constrained'.

While it would complicate the game, I wonder whether one quick fix for all the dual-stat classes would be to have the attack line for each power read:

Attack: Stat1 vs. Defense or Stat2 - 2 vs. Defense

This way, there is an incentive for sticking to powers that utilize your "best" stat, but you aren't penalized too heavily for picking a power that does not (maximum attack penalty of -2, and a lower ability modifier for damage).

Alternatively, this could be turned into a feat, for example:

Rechan said:

What's the difference in a Cleric with a Wis 18 and Cha 14, and a Swordmage with Int 18 and Con 14?

Click to expand...

This isn't related. I was talking about a cleric with a 16 in Str and 16 Wis or a paladin with a 16 Str and 16 Cha, vs. something like a rogue with an 18 in Dex or a wizard with 18 Int. A dual-stat character may choose to try to use both of their primary attack stats - and will thus be weaker, since it's almost impossible to get two 18s, and if you do you will likely have very poor other stats. I think you agreed with this in your post.

Rechan said:

Your argument is that the Warlord is stronger because all of his powers key off Str, and so he is better because he has more choices for powers.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Rechan said:

Fewer Options does not equal Weak.

Click to expand...

Simply put: I disagree. Less simply put: "strictly weaker" is being defined as "fewer options" for what I'm saying; fewer choices is overall technically inferior to more choices. If you're stuck on the particular word choice, that's cool; it's honestly not that important to my point. The dual-stat classes are "less than" the single-stat classes; that's what I am trying to convey.


FireLance: That's basically what I proposed over in the House Rules forum, except without the -2. I don't see a need for incentive to stay with one stat.