Classes based on the six ability scores

[dangerous jack]

I actually really liked the d20 Modern system (but never got to run or play in it). But I think I'd only like it in a fairly real-world-based campaign. In 4e terms, if you were restricted to the martial power source, then this system would work really well for me. But for D&D, I need to be able to be a wizard, cleric, druid, or psion at 1st level.

Now, I think it would be interesting if you wanted to make a whole bunch of subclasses based on the six ability scores and do something like the following:
Fighters:
Str = Slayer
Con = Knight
Dex = Swashbuckler
Int = Tactician
Wis = Zealot
Cha = Warlord

Rogues:
Str = Thug
Con = Daredevil
Dex = Thief
Int = Surgeon
Wis = Opportunist
Cha = Charlatan

But that could end up causing problems in other ways ("I want to play a high-dex daredevil").

 

[Kzach]

Yep, you're describing d20 Modern. I didn't love the system. It worked fine, but for me it lacked flavor and wasn't even close to evocative. I don't want to play Constitution guy, I want to play a knight thundering across the battlefield.

I've never, ever, claimed to be original; my memory is too poor to recall where I left my pencil five seconds ago, let alone what I've read or played over the last twenty-odd years.

I do vaguely recall playing d20 Modern briefly and thinking pretty much the exact same things, though. But I'm not advocating losing classes or even basing classes on abilities, simply that they come before choosing classes so that powers/feats/skills, etc. can be tailored better towards that focus. In other words, fitting a round peg to a round hole, instead of what I often end up having to do with the rigid systems of D&D, which is to ram square pegs into round holes.

This would actually open up more variety rather than close people in on 'builds'. Not many people want to play a character that doesn't have good synergies with its class abilities. How many rogue players would play a rogue with a Dexterity of 14 in 4e? And if they did, even I would call them silly for doing so. But maybe the rogue has everything the player wants, but he wants to base his character around Wisdom and not Strength or Dexterity or Charisma because that's not how he envisages the character.

The amount of times I've had to ignore ability scores for the sake of my character vision is pretty much on a 9/10 ratio to the point where often I just don't play those characters and end up going with some CharOp build since it's just easier to justify in my head how the character looks on paper and how that translates in my imagination.

A good personal example of this is one of my favourite characters of 4e who is an Avenger. The Avenger class is PERFECT for my character concept with all but one flaw... I simply don't perceive him as being Wise and his Strength score is too low because I have to prioritise Wisdom and Dexterity. If I compromise those abilities, then he doesn't perform the way I envisage him working. So I'm caught between either not playing him because the stats don't line up with how I see him, or ignoring what the stats say and envisage him as being 6'5" tall and exceptionally muscled despite his 12 Strength and being a crazy, charge into the fray and pursue his quarry with blind vengeance and raging hatred despite his 18 Wisdom.

Now, if I could build that very same character with the very same class and powers, using Strength as his primary and Dexterity as his secondary, and by doing so having those abilities work just as well as if he'd chosen Wisdom + Dexterity, then I'd be a much happier camper.

This notion of straight-jacketing into 'logical' roles based on 'logical' assumptions, ie. that a fighter should be strong, a rogue should be dexterous, a wizard intelligent, etc. leads to illogical and unreasonable restrictions. Not every fighter has to be 18 Strength and 16 Con.

 

[BobTheNob]

Not my preference. I was more for finding a way that every stat has relevance to everyone regardless of class.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Ya, I'd rather choose class first, and then prime requisite ability score. So you can be a smart fighter, or strong wizard, or whatever, but class has primacy.

They'll have to flatten the power curve, though, as I think this sort of optimization could result in even more extreme min-maxing.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, to me, D&D is an archetype and class based game. Ability scores are tertiary after class and race.

but it would be great each each ability score mattered for each class. But then a lot of class feature would have to be added in and feel forced. Instead each class could be given 4 ability scores they care about.

Fighter
Str: Melee attack
Dex: Ranged attack
Con: Brute attacks
Wis: Opportunity attacks

Rogue
Str: Melee Sneak attack
Dex: Ranged Sneak attack
Int: Poison and Gadget user
Cha: Scroll and Wand user

Cleric
Str: Melee Cleric
Int: Domain spellcasting
Wis: Divine Spellcasting
Cha: turn Undead/Demon/Devil

Wizard:
Con: Evocation & Transmutation DC Donus
Int: Base DC
Wis: Necromancy & Divation DC bonus
Cha: Illusion & Enchantment DC bonus

 

[Starfox]

My feeling on 5E now (based on what has been said about it, but not verified by any means) is that the classes there will be very tied to one attribute each. This is because of the emphasis of attribute rolls/bonuses rather than skill points, BAB or other class attributes. If a Fighters chance to hit is based on Strength more than level, then Strength becomes mandatory for the fighter (well, it always was, but even more so).

I kind of like this idea, because it lets you step outside the normal class and role simply by swapping your attributes around. For example, I am right now playing a 3E Bard whose best attribute is Strength. Cha is actually my fourth best stat (we have very generous stat allocation). Suddenly the Bard becomes a fighter who gives bonuses to those around him rather than a trickster spellcaster/buffer. I like this kind of class flexibility.

What I don't like is something that was prevalent in all editions but 3E (3.5, Pathfinder), namely that if you had a poor guiding stat, you could never ever learn a certain skill/ability well. This is especially true for things that could basically go on another attribute, such as Clim/Athletics being Strength based (might as well be Dex) - meaning that if you are a weak sneak-thief with low Str, you will never be good at climbing. In fact, I feel skills should have two guiding stats, allowing players to select which one to use (perhaps at a slight cost).

I dislike the idea of using your stat of choice for abilities, tough. MMOs like Champions and games like 4E did this, and the effect was that the stats became pretty meaningless. I can see the paladin getting a hefty bonus for Cha is combat, but it should not replace strength entirely.

 

[GunbladeKnight]

I would personally like to see each class based around three abilities: primary stat, secondary stat, and constitution. (Or you could just say primary and secondary stat if you feel that constitution should not have priority). I still think class choice should be first, race second, and attributes third.

Skills: I liked the idea of half your level adding to skills in 4E, but I preferred the ability to choose how good you were in different skills as 3E. Perhaps attributes never negatively affect your skills, but still provide bonuses? Or you gain a bonus to your skills equal to the attribute score?

The biggest thing they need to do is reduce the MAD of some classes (think 3E paladin and monk). They did this nicely in 4E, but I was not a fan of the at-will/encounter/daily system.

 

[Croesus]

Not many people want to play a character that doesn't have good synergies with its class abilities. How many rogue players would play a rogue with a Dexterity of 14 in 4e? And if they did, even I would call them silly for doing so.

...snip...

A good personal example of this is one of my favourite characters of 4e who is an Avenger. The Avenger class is PERFECT for my character concept with all but one flaw... I simply don't perceive him as being Wise and his Strength score is too low because I have to prioritise Wisdom and Dexterity. If I compromise those abilities, then he doesn't perform the way I envisage him working. So I'm caught between either not playing him because the stats don't line up with how I see him, or ignoring what the stats say and envisage him as being 6'5" tall and exceptionally muscled despite his 12 Strength and being a crazy, charge into the fray and pursue his quarry with blind vengeance and raging hatred despite his 18 Wisdom.

I see where you're going with this and agree with the goal, but I'd rather accomplish it by de-emphasizing ability scores altogether. They should still have some impact, but not to the level of 3.x and 4E. More along the lines of 1E, possibly even less.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I see where you're going with this and agree with the goal, but I'd rather accomplish it by de-emphasizing ability scores altogether. They should still have some impact, but not to the level of 3.x and 4E. More along the lines of 1E, possibly even less.

From what I've read, I get the feeling there will be more emphasis on Ability Scores (serving as defences/saving throws/skills).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This may surprise some, but I could get behind this if done right.

Just as a frex, I could totally see an arcane or psionic class built with Con as its casting stat. Most of its powers & abilities would center on self-targeted shape-changing/polymorphing, with the Con being what controls things like how many changes per X time period, how thorough or fast the change may be, how big a size differential or material difference could be, etc.

(Possible Bonus Feats: Endurance, Toughness)