• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E Classes - Primary Stat Secondary Stat

ccs

39th lv DM
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.
I disagree on the warlock since the class is all about patrons & pacts. If making a deal for power with some entity like a Great Old One, Arch-Fey, intelligent weapon, "darkness" etc isn't a function of Cha then I don't know what is.
After that (spell saves, attack/damage mods, etc) it's just a measure of how much power you've been granted. And like a sorcerer you don't neccecarily need to understand the power, just channel it.
 

Coroc

Explorer
If, then rather Ranger Dex Con thats the classic Approach (in 1e Rangers even had 2d8 starting HP)

And rogue Dex Cha??? Surely not, it's Dex Int, i agree that rogues should have perception keyed from int eventually.

Sorcerer it is Cha Con unless you totally remod the sorc. I know it started as an Int class but sorcerer is uncontrolled raw Magic it does not have to do with learning, laws and logic.

I would require sorcerers to have a non lawful, preferable chaotic alignment. Fighter should be eventually a Dex / Con Option but it is the same like rogue with perception and wis, it just has a three attribute dependancy for that class, those two classes got the most attribute increases anyway to compensate.

As by PHB there is another factor you might not have taken into account: the three classic saves are Con Wis and Dex, many spells of the charm class have been shoehorned into the Cha save (to make this stat even stronger) , personally i had prefered if 5E had stayed with the 3 save concept of 3E, and do e.g. Str checks for those situations where it does make most sense e.g. getting caught or grappled, but i can live with how it is, and it is not perfectly balanced but pretty good.
 

Coroc

Explorer
[MENTION=6801226]MechaTarrasque[/MENTION] #18 I much prefer your Approach over the OP. The only Combo i tend to disagree is Artificer being Int Str, rather do Arti Int Dex and Bladesinger Int Str, the rest is thought out really good.

Otoh i would totally allow the houserule that Fighters can intimmidate with Str instead of Cha, Barbarians and Dwarf Fighters alternatively with Con. I see no Problem to key of some skills from other than the normal Attribute like 5E already does for athletics / acrobatics.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
I disagree on the warlock since the class is all about patrons & pacts. If making a deal for power with some entity like a Great Old One, Arch-Fey, intelligent weapon, "darkness" etc isn't a function of Cha then I don't know what is.
After that (spell saves, attack/damage mods, etc) it's just a measure of how much power you've been granted. And like a sorcerer you don't neccecarily need to understand the power, just channel it.
You are free to disagree, of course. I think it's simply a matter of from what direction you're looking at a warlock. What's the concept's "fluff" angle?

It sounds to me that your angle is under the impression that gaining a patron (pact comes later and isn't really anything more than a secondary mechanics feature) is something the "warlock" somehow initiates and, I guess, "makes/forces/entices" the entity to become their patron because they're just so gosh darn likeable and/or persuasive. If that is the case, then sure, Charisma makes sense.

My angle is more from the...well, complete opposite side.

The patron is the one making the decisions here. Calling the shots. They are going to grant/imbue you with power and show [dare I say, "teach"] you how to do things with that power (or at the very least show you how YOU can figure it out on you own). They aren't doing it from the goodness of their heart. Even if they aren't actual devils or incomprehensible horrors from "the Beyond" warping your mind or coveting your soul, they have their OWN reasons for agreeing to enter into this tutorial situation with some [formidable or pitiable or "has some potential"] *gag* mortal. THEY decide. The warlock doesn't "make/convince" them. They become your "Patron" because they are giving you something so you GIVE/do something for them -that's your [com]Pact- even if that "something" is completely some amorphous, undefined, behind the curtain, implied fluff, and unused in actual game play.

The warlock does, however, need to know and learn from their instructions, even if it's cryptic hints or brain-warping visions, enough to learn how to use their powers. Instruction. Application & accumulation of Knowledge...a.k.a. Intelligence.
 
[MENTION=6801226]MechaTarrasque[/MENTION] #18 I much prefer your Approach over the OP. The only Combo i tend to disagree is Artificer being Int Str, rather do Arti Int Dex and Bladesinger Int Str, the rest is thought out really good.

Otoh i would totally allow the houserule that Fighters can intimmidate with Str instead of Cha, Barbarians and Dwarf Fighters alternatively with Con. I see no Problem to key of some skills from other than the normal Attribute like 5E already does for athletics / acrobatics.
Thank you. I was picturing artificers as blacksmiths, but swapping dex with the 'singer would work too.

It occurred to me later, but I forgot the ancestral barbarian, which would have been a better wisdom one than the zealot
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
To harken back to my last post -wherein I define/describe/pair the 4 "big class" abilities for their classes and then define/view Con & Cha as the "good for everybody" abilities - and apply Con and Cha as the "subclass" variants. So each kind of class gets 3 (the default/basic) and then the Con. class and the Cha class.

You end up with a solid 12 class game system. (...and then, yeah, sure, you can do other ability combinations in supplements and additional manuals)

So, you would end up with a [specifically D&D, I wouldn't necessarily use these exact groupings/class options] game offering...

Fighters: Str.
--Barbarians: Str. + Con.
--"Knight/Cavalier/[*whisper* Wah-lahd]" of whatever class title seems the best/strongest concept: Str. + Cha.

Wizard: Int.
--Warlock: Int. + Con.
--Sorcerer: Int. + Cha.

Clerics: Wis.
--Druid: Wis. + Con.
--Priest/Occidental Monk/non-martial-caster cleric: Wis. + Cha. (I think -and I don't know/play it- this is what PF calls an Oracle?)

Rogues/Thieves: Dex.
--Ranger: Dex. + Con.
--Bard: Dex. + Cha.

Not a bad looking batch of would-be heroes to make some fun groups/parties out of.
 
I always figured warlocks and charisma was more about "I saw something that should make my brain melt out of my ears, and I didn't go [completely] insane [at least not mumbling to my self and permanently huddled in the first corner I found insane] long enough to make a deal", and we need a stat to justify mental resilience, but wisdom is out (because if you any wisdom, you would have avoided the scary something in the first place), and charisma works a little better than intelligence for that (self absorbed beats thinking about the scariness too much). Admittedly that works for one set of stories, but I think that is a good rational for why the warlock might of worked better with a third axis on the grid (so add "nature of relationship" to patron and pact implement, where student is int and petitioner is cha)
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad day
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.
It's too far from D&D to incorporate, but if we're going to have ability scores, I'd love to see just a few that apply to all characters, but like current proficiency vs. non-proficiency only apply to things the classes focus on.

Like maybe Might, Savvy, Will (or whatever, this is off the top of my head). By default they don't add to anything.

A caster could gain Might proficiency to spell damage as it represents for them magical might, a Barbarian might gain Might proficiency to melee damage and AC (or Damage Resistance) as it's showing off their physical perfection, etc.

But allow it to be more granular - an archer might add Might to ranged but not melee damage, a gish-type could add Savvy to melee attacks, touch spells attacks and save DCs, and to AC and saves if they are already augmented by magic.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
I always figured warlocks and charisma was more about "I saw something that should make my brain melt out of my ears, and I didn't go [completely] insane [at least not mumbling to my self and permanently huddled in the first corner I found insane] long enough to make a deal", and we need a stat to justify mental resilience, but wisdom is out (because if you any wisdom, you would have avoided the scary something in the first place), and charisma works a little better than intelligence for that (self absorbed beats thinking about the scariness too much). Admittedly that works for one set of stories, but I think that is a good rational for why the warlock might of worked better with a third axis on the grid (so add "nature of relationship" to patron and pact implement, where student is int and petitioner is cha)
See, you say "Mental Resilience" and I immediately see/hear/say "Right, Intellgence." Your brain could handle it. You could rise above/reason past or around or out of the brain-melt. That's falls, textbook, into Int. for me.

Personality. General "Likeability" or (what would be the opposite of likeadbility?) "Infamy/Noteriety[?]." Persuasiveness. Outward Impression. And, if one wants to add it into their character's profile, general "attractiveness" and how that influences all of the aforementioned (since that whole "Comeliness" thing crashed and burned before 2e ;) hahaha.) That's what I've come to understand [and separate it out from Int & Wis] the mental stat abstraction of Charisma.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Yet anOTHer way to go, would be to divvy stats up by general class category but assign groupings of classes to EACH/every attribute.

Each attribute, let's say to begin with -initial manual, gets 3 classes to call its own. That, of course, makes the game's initially offing 18 classes...seems kinda big/a lot for starting player choices. BUT, it's certainly one way to go for people who like TONS of options. Or, if you do 2 options per, then you're back at the "standard" average of 12 again.

STRENGTH CLASSES: The classes who hit hard.
Fighter (obvs): default guy.
Barbarian: the hits hard poster child guy.

DEXTERITY CLASSES: The classes that are fast and agile.
Rogue/Thief: default guy.
Ranger: the "move, strike, move, hide, strike, move some more" guy.

CONSTITUTION CLASSES: The classes that endure bodily strain.
Druid: default guy.
Paladin: New twist on an olde classic, the "I endure worldly strain (temptations) in the name of my deity/ideals/oath. I endure sooo much, sooo well, my deity/ideals/oath grants me powers" guy. Wisdom will still be important. Yes. Charisma will still be important. Yes. But make the Paladin class built around being TOUGH -physically (divine health, anyone?), mentally (resisting fears, charms), in battle, in leadership, in general- moreso than "strong" or "wise." Paladins' aren't greatwarriors because they hit hard. They're great warriors because they are going to STAND THEIR GROUND (physically and ethically/morally) against the torrents of evil and chaos always seeking to bring them down. That guy on the cliff atop a pile of devil bodies. THAT guy. THE Paladin. An exemplar of Constitution.

INTELLIGENCE CLASSES: The classes that cast spells.
Wizard/Mage: default guy.
Warlock: I use smarts and ambition or tricks and deception to bilk power from others.

WISDOM CLASSES: The classes that channel power.
Cleric: default guy.
Monk: the "...focused totality of my spiritual enlightenment..." guy

CHARISMA CLASSES: I say make this the long elusive weapons & magic/combo classes attribute.
Bard: default guy.
"Sorcerer": spell sword/eldritch knight/bladesinger/innate magic guy.
 
Last edited:
See, you say "Mental Resilience" and I immediately see/hear/say "Right, Intellgence." Your brain could handle it. You could rise above/reason past or around or out of the brain-melt. That's falls, textbook, into Int. for me. <br>
<br>
Personality. General "Likeability" or (what would be the opposite of likeadbility?) "Infamy/Noteriety[?]." Persuasiveness. Outward Impression. And, if one wants to add it into their character's profile, general "attractiveness" and how that influences all of the aforementioned (since that whole "Comeliness" thing crashed and burned before 2e <img title="Wink" class="inlineimg" alt="" src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/wink.png" border="0" smilieid="5"> hahaha.) That's what I've come to understand [and separate it out from Int & Wis] the mental stat abstraction of Charisma.
<br>
I think the justification for using charisma as a casting stat was that it was "strength of personality", which may or may not mean "force of will."  I think "not going crazy" is more a wisdom thing (which I tend to think of as "sees the 'true' mystical nature of reality"), but that brings up issues (clerics vs. warlocks, and the whole "warlock is doing something foolish" trope).  I have read too many Weird Tales type stories where the smart guy looks where he isn't supposed to and gets eaten (or worse), so I figure that if smart guys tend to make unsuccessful warlocks, successful warlocks must have something else going for them (although a case for good con, as opposed to cha, might work, as in if my body can support my mind to make a tough concentration save, it can help when looking the Queen of Air and Darkness).  I don't feel too strongly about it, though, as I think warlock is definitely a class that could be free of a primary stat (leaving that to subclasses).<br><br>If the goal is to get one or more classes out of the cha casting business, my vote is for sorcerers to be the arcane wisdom class (as sorcerers being attuned to magic fits the "sees the 'true' mystical nature of reality" idea really well).<br><br><br>
 

jgsugden

Explorer
My thoughts on class design for the future of the game....

  • Every character has a class, race, and background.
  • Every class has both subclasses and role options.
  • Subclasses would be fairly thematic (sort of like backgrounds are in 5e, but with a bit more meat on the bones), while roles would give characters more substantive abilities (like we see in subclasses in 5E).
  • Every class would have one primary ability score.
  • There would be five roles for each class - one tied to each of the none-primary ability scores for the class.
  • Subclass abilities would either rely upon the prime attribute, would be attribute agnostic, or would have different versions that interact with each role.
  • Example: Fighters (class) would be strength characters (primary ability score) and would have five available roles (Artillery - Dexterity, Brute - Constitution, Tactician - Wisdom, Strategist - Intelligence, Field General - Charisma. Then it would have subclasses that were more thematic (Gladiator, Soldier, Spellsword). Characters would also have backgrounds that are class agnostic like in 5E (Sailor, Acolyte, etc...) A fighter might elect to be a Field General / Gladiator / Acolyte with abilities triggering off of Strength and Charisma, or a Spellsword / Tactician / Sailor with Strength and Wisdom based abilities.
  • Example: Wizards (class) would be intelligence characters (primary ability score) and would have five available roles (Warmage - Strength, Spellweavers - Dexterity, Lifeleech - Constitution, Balancers - Wisdom, Chaoswielders - Charisma). Subclasses might be Researchers, Battlewizards, etc... A wizard might be a Chaoswielding Battlewizard Sailor - a wizard that uses not just his intellect, but his force of will (charisma) to craft powerful magics in battle. Or he might be a Spellweaving Researcher Acolyte that specializes in magics that he can craft in fine detail, allowing him to sculpt out allies in blasts or alter a spell that impacts only humanoids so that it impacts animals instead.
 
My thoughts on class design for the future of the game....

  • Every character has a class, race, and background.
  • Every class has both subclasses and role options.
  • Subclasses would be fairly thematic (sort of like backgrounds are in 5e, but with a bit more meat on the bones), while roles would give characters more substantive abilities (like we see in subclasses in 5E).
  • Every class would have one primary ability score.
  • There would be five roles for each class - one tied to each of the none-primary ability scores for the class.
  • Subclass abilities would either rely upon the prime attribute, would be attribute agnostic, or would have different versions that interact with each role.
  • Example: Fighters (class) would be strength characters (primary ability score) and would have five available roles (Artillery - Dexterity, Brute - Constitution, Tactician - Wisdom, Strategist - Intelligence, Field General - Charisma. Then it would have subclasses that were more thematic (Gladiator, Soldier, Spellsword). Characters would also have backgrounds that are class agnostic like in 5E (Sailor, Acolyte, etc...) A fighter might elect to be a Field General / Gladiator / Acolyte with abilities triggering off of Strength and Charisma, or a Spellsword / Tactician / Sailor with Strength and Wisdom based abilities.
  • Example: Wizards (class) would be intelligence characters (primary ability score) and would have five available roles (Warmage - Strength, Spellweavers - Dexterity, Lifeleech - Constitution, Balancers - Wisdom, Chaoswielders - Charisma). Subclasses might be Researchers, Battlewizards, etc... A wizard might be a Chaoswielding Battlewizard Sailor - a wizard that uses not just his intellect, but his force of will (charisma) to craft powerful magics in battle. Or he might be a Spellweaving Researcher Acolyte that specializes in magics that he can craft in fine detail, allowing him to sculpt out allies in blasts or alter a spell that impacts only humanoids so that it impacts animals instead.
Interesting idea, but would you also include the straight Wizard, whose primary is Intelligence and his secondary is Intelligence? He is just the stereotypical wizard. If yes then you are talking about 36 classes and subclasses in total.

Can you make them all distinct enough for people to care?
 
I do not like it when idiots try to be mages or weaklings try to be fighters, so I have always preferred a system that required a minimum in one primary stat to qualify for a class. But I never liked it when a class required two stats, or even worse, three. Though I could see assigning a secondary required stat to some sub-classes that would rely on it. I would do primary stat to be a minimum of 10, to show you would at least be average in that profession, and a secondary stat for a sub-class would be a minimum of 12, to show you have skill at it. And if I only went with a primary stat requirement, that would be 12, same as for multi-classing.
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
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.
Fate Accelerated switched from Attributes that describe the character to "Approaches" that describe the action. So, instead of a variant on D&D: they use Forceful, Clever, Sneaky, Quick, Careful, and Flashy. (Not saying those are the best or perfect choices for D&D).

The neat thing about it is that any of them could describe any class.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app
 

Advertisement

Top