Class Design: One Primary Attack Stat

[Nahat Anoj]

I really like classes that have one primary attack stat. That is, for most of their powers, these classes uses one stat for attack and damage modifiers, and they have secondary stats that do extra effects. I feel that classes with one primary attack stat are more unified in theme and have more streamlined, more intuitive mechanics, both in play and during character creation. Here are the classes (so far) that are designed this way:

Artificer
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Fighter
Rogue
Swordmage
Warlord
Wizard

Here are the classes that have more than one attack stat:

Cleric
Paladin
Ranger
Warlock

I feel that these four classes could benefit from redesign. Indeed, on RPG.net user Scarik and I posted some of our work on the cleric and paladin. I've got the paladin's powers up to epic level all finished, go here if you are interested in seeing them.

We agreed that clerics be Wis primary with Str/Cha secondary, paladins Cha primary with Str/Wis secondary, and rangers be Dex primary with Str/Wis secondary. Scarik actually suggested that warlocks be Con primary with Int/Cha secondary, and that seems reasonable to me (provided tieflings change to get +2 Con/+2 Int, which also seems reasonable to me).

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the invoker preview tonight, as I wonder if the trend of one primary attack stat will continue. Because all of the newer classes have one primary attack stat, I wonder if Wizards made this a design goal just before or soon after the PHB was released. If the currently unpreviewed classes (invokers, sorcerers, shamans, wardens) from PHB 2 all follow this pattern, I'd say it's a safe bet that it's something they shoot for at least.

 

[Mort_Q]

Here are the classes that have more than one attack stat:

Cleric
Paladin
Ranger
Warlock

You can play all of those with one primary stat is you choose your powers appropriately.

It's like they're two (or more) classes in one.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

You can play all of those with one primary stat is you choose your powers appropriately.

It's like they're two (or more) classes in one.

Oh, I know. An in fact, that's exactly what I want to avoid. Say you're a tactical warlord with a good Int and okay (but not high) Cha. Because all of your powers center on Str, you are still decent to-hit with those inspiring warlord powers. I feel this is much stronger than, say, what is the case for the cleric.

I realize, of course, that most people feel "two classes in one" might be a design strength. And it may be best in the long run to not be constrained by the one primary attack stat philosophy. But I think the benefits at streamlining play and character creation, coupled with reinforcing the core theme of the class, make it a worthy change.

 

[reticent]

Personally I feel mono-stat classes favor races with the appropriate stat bonuses too much, particularly in point build environments.

 

[WalterKovacs]

With Divine Power and Arcane Power, etc ... eventually there wll hopefully be enough powers for each build that the dual classes aren't so bad. The dark pact at least gave human warlocks the ability to go all charisma or all con with their at-wills.

Going forward, they seem to want to go with the single attack stat, and two secondary stats each tied to a class feature. If nothing else, it let's it work well right off the bat without having to use splat books or online articles to make them work. Ultimately, they can make two similar classes with different attack stats, like wizard and sorceror, instead of having something like the paladin. At least with the cleric and ranger, it fits how the ranged and melee attacks using different stats, but with the paladin, outside of some implement powers, they have weapon based powers for both charisma and strength based paladins.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Hmm, I like the project in general, but I'm reluctant when it comes to Warlock Pacts.

The differences in stat choices between the pacts is both a nice piece of flavor and a way to differentiate play styles.

But it's a minor reluctance I'm certain building the class off of CHA and then having INT and CON as the bonus stats could work fine.

Right now, though, Warlock is the only CON based class. CON needs some love.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I certainly don't like STR clerics, they should be WIS>Cha/STR as you suggested IMO. And reducing a paladin's reliance of lots of stats is also good (can't remember the 'phrase' for reliance on more than one stat...brain-fart)

But the ranger and warlocks are fine, they are like more than one class, maybe they should be split.....

Edit: I would prefer a 2 wep fighting striker class, with no naturey rubbish added on; 2 builds a more offensive 2 x1 hand weps (tempest) and a more defensive one handed and off hand (swashbuckler?) build, STR > DEX/CHA based. Then the ranger could be ranged and beast DEX >STR/WIS based.

Warlocks should probably just stay I guess, thinking about it. the pacts and differing scores work OK. Each pact just needs enough good powers that a CHA pact is not loosing out over a CON pact at certain levels, or vice versa

 

[Jhaelen]

I realize, of course, that most people feel "two classes in one" might be a design strength. And it may be best in the long run to not be constrained by the one primary attack stat philosophy. But I think the benefits at streamlining play and character creation, coupled with reinforcing the core theme of the class, make it a worthy change.

I guess, I belong to the majority, because I'd prefer if all classes had several attack stats. It would open up more paths for multi-classing and thus variety.

With Divine Power and Arcane Power, etc ... eventually there wll hopefully be enough powers for each build that the dual classes aren't so bad.

This is what I hope for as well. Once you can choose from 4-8 powers at every level for your favorite attack stat, there's no longer any 'disadvantage' for classes with dual attack stats.

 

[darkwing]

I dislike attributes because the character should be based on their powers and feats, not some numbers picked at creation. Without attributes, multiclassing would work much better.

 

[Tenniel]

I dislike attributes because the character should be based on their powers and feats, not some numbers picked at creation. Without attributes, multiclassing would work much better.

The number of stats could be trimmed down.

Body (Str/Con), Mind (Int, Dex i.e. Kinesthetic intelligence) and Soul (Wis/Cha) oops I've pinched Guardians of Order intellectual property! You can view each DnD stat pair as an inwards (Con,Int,Wis) and outwards (Str,Dex,Cha) manifestation of body/mind/soul.

If you did this you would probably want to make classes use one stat as primary and another as they secondary. So (for example) Devoted Clerics would need to have Body or Mind as a secondary (instead of being Wis Prmry/Cha Scndry, which are both Soul). Tricky for fighters' stat based weaponry, though.

You could still have build options. For example, Mind/Soul for Archer Rangers and Body/Soul for TWF Rangers.

And the range of possible stat values could be trimmed.

Primary (say... +4 heroic,+6 paragon,+8 epic) , Secondary(+2 heroic,+3 paragon,+4 epic) and Tertiary(+0 heroic,+1 paragon,+2 epic).

Not exactly stat-less, but it could open up some more multiclassing options. You would also need to do something for stat pre-reqs for feats. e.g. Lt Shield Prof might require Body to be primary or secondary.

Issue with this is that class would undoubtly define stats, unless you didn't mind about the secondary effects.