D&D 5E Classes - Primary Stat Secondary Stat

Oh my.

I'd rather go the other way, and divorce classes from ability scores altogether - or maybe find some way to make all ability scores roughly equal in importance to any class.

So, like, give a fighter something that uses Intelligence, some other thing that uses Charisma, and make these things so that a fighter who pumps up his Intelligence and Charisma over Strength and Constitution is equally but differently as good as the stereotypical fighter.

And thus in doing so leave it up to each player to ppace his ability scores in whatever way fits his concept, without being constrained by the rules to play the stereotype.

If you do that then why bother to have ability scores at all? As an extension of your argument the strong gorgeous dumb as a rock guy should be a different but equally powerful wizard as the high intelligence wizard. Sorry that is just not how things work, create a system that makes it work and you divorce away the last small tenuous links that exist that try to make small portions of the game appear real and relate-able.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think the point (thast i strongly agree with) from ccs is that charisma was the god stat in 1e.

Not sure at all why op said it was near useless.

Only in a very narrow segment of the game related to NPC initial reaction to player and at really high scores (deity level) to have fanatical followers.

Once the swords and spells came out in the dungeon your Charisma score didnt do diddly.
 

The number of followers you had was tied to your cha slsuch that an 8 and a 15 were quite different.

If you used followers in the game it was having 1 untrustworthy extra dighter that may end up running with (think it was 3? Cant remember) much more reliable extra hands.

It was a big action economy boost.
 

Satyrn

First Post
If you do that then why bother to have ability scores at all? As an extension of your argument the strong gorgeous dumb as a rock guy should be a different but equally powerful wizard as the high intelligence wizard. Sorry that is just not how things work, create a system that makes it work and you divorce away the last small tenuous links that exist that try to make small portions of the game appear real and relate-able.
Fascinating.

I would have said what you're proposing would be a callback to the way 4e did things, but here you are suggestinging what I proposed would be a callback - where the "strong gorgeous dumb as a rock guy should be a different but equally powerful wizard as the high intelligence wizard" - and now I'm thinking that maybe 4e got it perfect.
 

Fascinating.

I would have said what you're proposing would be a callback to the way 4e did things, but here you are suggestinging what I proposed would be a callback - where the "strong gorgeous dumb as a rock guy should be a different but equally powerful wizard as the high intelligence wizard" - and now I'm thinking that maybe 4e got it perfect.

I am not trying to callback to anything. I never played any 4E, tried to read some of it but could not get interested.

My whole goal was to spread out usage of the ability scores. Right now things break down with Strength being the primary for two or three classes, Con is the primary for none, Dexterity is the primary for two to three classes (fighters can dex or strength pretty equally well), intelligence is primary for one class, wisdom is primary for three classes, and charisma is primary for three classes.

Summarizing them that way actually makes me wonder if I am doing too much work. Part of what I dont like is no primary for Con and only one primary for Intelligence. Accepting that Con might never have a primary maybe the easy solution is to change Warlock so their abilities are Intelligence based instead of Charisma. Then things are a bit more spread out.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
I think every ability is fairly well represented (some too much so, actually).

Strength is important for the Fighters. Anyone warrior-like should need some degree of physical strength.

Intelligence is important for the Wizards. Anyone wizard-like should need some degree of mental capacity, memory, and reason. This is actually one of the most UNDER-served abilities in 5e. Warlocks, certainly, at the least, should be Int.-based casters. Sorcerers can still be "Charisma-casters"...but Intelligence should be important to them to. Being able to understand how to work magic (arcane, at least) should be an intelligence thing, by definition.

Wisdom is important for the Clerics. Anyone priest-/mystic-like should need some degree of enlightenment and good judgement.

Dexterity is important for the Rogues. Anyone rogue-/thief-like should need some degree of agility, speed, hand-eye coordination.

Constitution is important for everyone. Everybody needs/wants more hit points. Certain classes are more reliant on this as a secondary ability than others. But it's useful for any character.

Charisma is important for everyone. Everybody at some point or another should need/want to be effective in their interactions with others in the game. So important, in fact, 5e specifically made a whole "pillar of the game" your interactions with others. Certain classes are more reliant on this as a secondary ability than others. But it's useful for any character.
 

Currently the way character classes are is rather ad-hoc. There is no desire to balance the classes between the stats which purely in my opinion is a mistake.
Just as a warning, this experiment has historically not gone well, because you end up redefining what stats mean and then everyone is confused why your Charisma replaces Strength when swinging a sword and the game is too silly to play. It's really hard to make Constitution a primary stat, because you can't reasonably attack anyone through it. The same was true of Charisma, before they redefined it to include innate magical power.

If you're familiar with the recently-defunct Diablo-clone known as Marvel Heroes, they attempted something very similar to this in their dying months. Leading up to that point, stat balance had gotten so bad that the only stats that anyone cared about were Strength, Energy, and Fighting; because those were the ones that affected your damage. Characters who punched or used most weapons (Juggernaut, Deadpool, Mister Fantastic) stacked Strength and Fighting because it let them hit harder. Characters who had powers, or used some weird weapons (Cyclops, Star-Lord, Doctor Strange) stacked Energy and Fighting. Durability, Intelligence, and Speed were all pretty much meaningless.

Their solution was to give every hero exactly two stats that they scaled from. For example, Mister Fantastic was defined as an Intelligence and Durability hero, so every point in either Intelligence or Durability gave him a bonus to damage; and every point in Strength or Fighting gave him effectively nothing. Even if you made him as strong as The Hulk, or as skilled as Elektra, he would never punch any harder. It was really bad, and the game didn't survive much after that.

I'm not saying that you're necessarily advocating for such an extreme, but that's the road which this line of thinking has traditionally ended up going down.
As you level up you gain major abilities that work off your primary stat and lesser but useful abilities that work off your secondary stat.
I think this is a great idea. Instead of saying that some characters can punch with their Strength and other characters can punch with their Dexterity or their Charisma, all stats should work the same for every class, but different classes should want different stats due to their specific combinations of abilities. "Everyone who cares about swinging a sword should care about Strength, at least a little bit," seems like a great place to start. But then you can distinguish classes by what else they can do.

If paladins care about both Strength and Wisdom, then it should be because they both swing a sword and cast divine spells. If they care about Charisma, then maybe it's because it augments their leadership abilities in some ways (such as through a special aura feature). If they don't particularly care about Intelligence or Dexterity, then it's because they don't have any class features which really rely on them.
 

That was my other thought but it would take a lot more work to put in a single post and would require as much or more work to implement. Barbarian would mean constitution and then the two to four subclasses that are based off a second stat.

I agree and you would probably end up reducing the number of classes just because there are a lot of boxes to fill. Just off the top of my head:

Barbarian (con) subclasses:
Totem (str)
Storm (dex) move like the wind
Zealot (wis) obsessed with little clues from whatever is zealous about
Berserker (cha) up the intimidation factor
Shaman (int) most iffy of my ideas

Fighter (str): subclasses:
Champion (con) simple fighter
Weapon Master (dex) good with a sword and a bow
Commando (wis) nature fighter
Warlord (cha)
Eldritch Knight (int)

Rogue (dex): subclasses:
Assassin (con) willing to wait in unpleasant conditions to get target
Ranger (str)
Monk (wis)
Thief (cha)
Arcane Spell Thief (int)

Cleric (wis) subclasses:
Druid (con) con increases the amount of time you can wildshape
Hospitaler [or however that is spelled] (str): heals and hits
Avenger (dex)
Evangelist (cha)
Invoker (int)

Channeler (cha) too many cha classes. subclasses:
Sorcerer (con)
Paladin (str)
Hexblade (dex)
Medium (wis) listens to the voices in his/her head
warlock (int)

Mystic* (int) subclasses:
Psychic (con) mutant vitality
Artificer (str)
Blade singer (dex)
Wizard (wis)
Bard (cha)

* or maybe student, mage, or anything that implies study is involved.

I suspect we would see a return of THACO before anything like this comes about, but it is an interesting line of thought.
 

ccs

41st lv DM
I think the point (thast i strongly agree with) from ccs is that charisma was the god stat in 1e.

Not sure at all why op said it was near useless.

No, the god stat has always been Dex.
Dex - affects your AC, your initiative, your chance to hit with ranged weapons, some saves and depending upon the edition your surprise odds/some skills/thieving abilities/chance to hit with some melee weapons/damage from ranged weapons & some melee. Even access to certain race/classes.

The point was that those who don't understand what stats do in a Role Playing game shouldn't be trying their hand at making rules concerning such things.
Indeed, the OP went on to amply demonstrate this. Not only don't they understand Cha, they don't understand Con.
 

ccs

41st lv DM
The number of followers you had was tied to your cha slsuch that an 8 and a 15 were quite different.

If you used followers in the game it was having 1 untrustworthy extra dighter that may end up running with (think it was 3? Cant remember) much more reliable extra hands.

It was a big action economy boost.

It could also make a big difference in the amount of treasure you could haul away (remember, 1 GP = 1xp - but you had to bring it home 1st), the amount of gear that could be carried, how often you replaced the horses/pack animals you left tethered outside the dungeon....
And then there's any social interaction, not just that initial encounter reaction roll. We talked to kings, haggled with merchants, persuaded people, negotiated, bluffed guards, intimidated foes/would-be foes, interrogated creatures, etc. Heck, there's been times where we've done one or more of these things while having lethal sword fights with the NPCs/monsters in question.
sometimes dice rolls were called for. Other times the DM has simply judged it based on the stat & intent.
I've done this stuff both as player & DM since BECMI all the way through into 5e. Haven't you?
 

Remove ads

Top