D&D General 6 Ability Scores but 4 Classic Classes?

[Yaarel]

yep Precision is ( under Champions 4th ed ) called Find Weakness;
netherveless Rogues ( I truly don't know why ) make me think of Thugs, or Violent Thieves

I think of "Thug" as a Rogue subclass, something like a Rogue-Fighter multiclass.

 

[Minigiant]

What is this balance you keep talking about?
From the guys who created balance come the several versions of the ranger, the champion, the twilight cleric, the artificer, the rune knight, a combat encounter system that is bonkers and a daily healed-like rest mechanic.

I'm more inclined to put it down to not thinking out the box

The balance of classless feat based D&D would be so bad it would make a grognard praise 4e.

I mean getting Wildshape under 5 feats without stat require would be a nightmare

 

[le Redoutable]

I think of "Thug" as a Rogue subclass, something like a Rogue-Fighter multiclass.

if you say so, for me it's ok ( as I am not a native Englishman and may have wrong defines )

 

[le Redoutable]

oh! by the way ( à la Columbo ) Rogue translate ( in French ) to Voyou ( and the scope of the Voyou is to get caught and put in jail )
while the Thief is merely a Voleur

 

[le Redoutable]

is there any link ( with Rogue ) to a Kid ?

edit: no, this one is ' en trop '

 

[Yaarel]

if you say so, for me it's ok ( as I am not a native Englishman and may have wrong defines )

In English, "rogue" mostly connotes antisocial, untrustworthy, and aggressive. Its connotation of violence does happen, such as for a "rogue elephant", that is separate from the herd, erratic, and dangerous. At the same time, rogue isnt always pejorative, and can have an independent bad-ass appeal, like "going rogue", doing something nonconformist, or deviating from the superficial talking points of a group.

A "thug" connotes violent gang warfare.

 

[niklinna]

I'm bored so

Hm. One dimensional characters with only a single main stat, huh

• Strength: Bully. If you can hit first you do a lot of damge. If. Odds are you're gonna get hit and go down crying. Until then, you can move heavy things, which might be useful.
• Dexterity: You actually have a chance of surviving because you can dodge things and navigate hazardous terrain and I suppose hiding somehow has to do with dexterity. But again if you do get hit, you are gonna go down. If a spellcaster, you specialize in spells with somatic components. Hand gestures are fiddly.
• Constitution: Oh hey, you can take a beating, and maybe resist some poison or disease, if those are things. Too bad you can't really do anything.
• Intelligence: You are very smart. Or maybe you just know lots of facts? Maybe you can solve puzzles, and maybe survive a hostile glance or even a solid punch. You know what spells use what material components spells need so you do better with those.
• Wisdom: You are very wise. Whatever that means, in comparison to smart. Wisdom apparently has something to do with gods and nature okay sure. So you can be a cleric or a druid. You don't need components like the others do, you just need to be wise.
• Charisma: People just like you. Maybe even monsters too. And maybe you are good at singing, and lying? But not dancing, that is for Dexterity. If your DM is kind enough to use social rules, or cater to people who want to play social characters, you can get by in town adventures, and maybe with sentient NPCs elsewhere too. Spells with a verbal component are your thing. Because you are good at talking and singing and stuff.

Let's try two-dimensional characters, sort of

• Strength & Constitution: A proper fighting type, most likely a barbarian, but also a fighter could be.
• Strength & Dexterity: A regular fighting fighter.
• Strength & Intelligence: I guess you are Beast from the X-Men. Or Bruce Banner. Oh wait that is not D&D. Oh! Roy from Order of the Stick is strong and smart, and that is D&D. So there you go.
• Strength & Wisdom: Classic front-line cleric I suppose. Or a paladin. Except we don't want overlap so
• Strength & Charisma: Everybody likes a shining paladin in white armor.
• Dexterity & Constitution: This could be a certain type of ranger, especially if you don't mind a non-magic ranger.
• Dexterity & Intelligence: The clever nimble catburglar type maybe.
• Dexterity & Wisdom: Well I'm not sure what this would be.
• Dexterity & Charisma: You can pick someone's pocket and then convince them someone else did it? or you are really good at cheating in poker and suchlike. Which comes up all the time in D&D.
• Constitution & Intelligence: A wizard who is hard to kill?
• Constitution & Wisdom: You are a survivor. You know the tricks to navigate hostile terrain and societies, and can tough it out when that isn't sufficient. Another good option for a ranger perhaps. Oh no dreaded overlap again. I'm tired, you figure it out.
• Constitution & Charisma: Hey! Let's add a warlord class who inspires others by leading from the front.
• Intelligence & Wisdom: I am gonna suggest the thaumaturge from Pathfinder 2 just because I love the class concept even if Pathfinder 2 gives me hives worse than D&D does.
• Intelligence & Charisma: The mastermind-type rogue who gets others to do your dirty work for you. Not ideal for a PC class. Maybe an investigator type who can find clues and knows facts and can question people? Or I guess bard would be a good fit here.
• Wisdom & Charisma: The warlord who leads from the back?

But in all seriousness, I would go with BECM. I know you're shocked and surprised, because I'm always cheering for that particular edition of D&D, but I stand by it. It even has the Prime Requisite mechanic that pretty much outlines exactly what you're describing.

Strength: Fighter​

Intelligence: Magic-User​

Wisdom: Cleric​

Dexterity: Thief​

Constitution: Dwarf​

Charisma: Halfling​

Elves get thrown under the bus Strength or Intelligence, whichever is higher.

Yeah this works well enough for becmi.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Dexterity & Wisdom: Well I'm not sure what this would be

Monk maybe?

Wisdom & Charisma: The warlord who leads from the back?

Nice!

 

[niklinna]

Monk maybe?

Ah yes, the monastic aesthetics who practice rigorous mental and physical training and discipline in order to become superior. How could I forget

 

[TwoSix]

The balance of classless feat based D&D would be so bad it would make a grognard praise 4e.

I mean getting Wildshape under 5 feats without stat require would be a nightmare

If you're going to make a classless, feat-based 5e, it's important to remember that you don't have to make it so every 5e class is exactly replicable within the system. If certain class features don't work, just change them or drop them.

It's better to build your system with its own coherent logic.