Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 5839708" data-attributes="member: 2303">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starfox, post: 5839708, member: 2303"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification