Removing the link between class and ability

[ggroy]

Agreed. While I like the idea of skills vs defenses (or a variant of it), the 4E skill system would knock the math way off making it too easy or too hard to hit.

One drawback in the case of too many skills, is where a system of skills vs. defenses starts to become unwieldy and messy. (ie. Such a system where there's over 50 or 100 different skills).

Another drawback is determining how to allocate points in a skills system, such that it minimizes munchkin style minmaxing. Everybody knows that munchkin powergamers will allocate all their points into the combat and defense skills, while all the other skills becomes "dump skill" stats.

 

[Destil]

What stops me from making all my stuff rely on Dex and Con (easily the best states. AC and HP/Surges, plus a lot of good skills in Dex).

 

[boar]

You would need some tweaking to make this system work, because as has been mentioned, the ability scores are not currently balanced. Wisdom affects 5 skills while Strength affects only 1, so why would I ever pick Strength? Currently, the fact that Strength is the defining stat for almost all of the melee classes is the balancing factor. Take that away and no one would ever pick it.

If your goal is to differentiate the classes more, your change doesn't really accomplish that. It's ironic that you focus on the Rogue class in your examples, because Dexterity is the stat that just about everyone would pick. In addition to hit and damage, it boosts AC, a key class skill (stealth), and initiative (for CA in the first round). No other stat gives so much in one tidy package.

Fighters fare little better. Everyone would either go Dex/Int so they could have defender AC in light armor, or Con for the hitpoints. "But that's powergaming!" you cry. "I would make a CHA fighter..." Well, that's nice. But it's simply not as good. And if you're willing to make a not-as-good character, you can already do that: you can make a perfectly fine fighter with 18 STR / 16 CHA (18 if you're a Dragonborn). So under your system, those who are willing to make suboptimal choices would gain nothing they don't already have, while everyone else would end up with even more homogenized characters.

 

[Markn]

Maybe it would make more sense to allow the player to choose a Primary and a secondary stat. The primary stat could only be chosen from a list of 3 abilities that match the intent of the class. For example, as a fighter, rogue or ranger you could have powers key off of str, dex or con but not Int, wis or cha. Wizards and clerics could use Int, Wis or Cha. This may be easier to explain than the wizard who uses Str to cast spells. Plus some classes can blur the mental/physical abilities with a few of each like Bards, Druids and Warlocks.

Then, perhaps, the secondary ability could be completely wide open. As a fighter I choose Str as my primary, then choose Cha as a secondary that through the use of feats affects my powers giving benefits similar to those proposed by RangerWickett. This would make for more diverse classes, and a vastly different feel.

4E is close to this concept in that they allow a variety of secondary abilities to have some effect, just not enough of an effect and the choices are still limited. There are not enough powers that use the role subtype and it usually only comes into play maybe once an encounter and often less than that. Additionally, since racial ability bonuses still exist, players are still encouraged to buid certain stereotypes and players that choose to go outside the norm would not be making a subpar choice.

The more I think about it, the more I think feats should open up/unlock extra abilities that can act as riders on powers becuase you are good in a skill or ability. This means if you are a Str/Cha fighter, you can accomplish a lot of different things from a Str/Con fighter even if you have identical powers. This greatly increases tactical options and thinking and diverses classes a lot. Again, the list that RangerWickett provides would be a great example of riders for powers either further enhancing them or giving additional effects.

 

[Markn]

You would need some tweaking to make this system work, because as has been mentioned, the ability scores are not currently balanced. Wisdom affects 5 skills while Strength affects only 1, so why would I ever pick Strength? Currently, the fact that Strength is the defining stat for almost all of the melee classes is the balancing factor. Take that away and no one would ever pick it.

If your goal is to differentiate the classes more, your change doesn't really accomplish that. It's ironic that you focus on the Rogue class in your examples, because Dexterity is the stat that just about everyone would pick. In addition to hit and damage, it boosts AC, a key class skill (stealth), and initiative (for CA in the first round). No other stat gives so much in one tidy package.

Fighters fare little better. Everyone would either go Dex/Int so they could have defender AC in light armor, or Con for the hitpoints. "But that's powergaming!" you cry. "I would make a CHA fighter..." Well, that's nice. But it's simply not as good. And if you're willing to make a not-as-good character, you can already do that: you can make a perfectly fine fighter with 18 STR / 16 CHA (18 if you're a Dragonborn). So under your system, those who are willing to make suboptimal choices would gain nothing they don't already have, while everyone else would end up with even more homogenized characters.

You raise some good points. Skills may need to be looked at, but there are other ways of balancing things. Obviously, I would need to give this more thought but here is just one example.

4e fighters are encouraged already to choose certain weapon groups. Make that choice even more meaningful. If you choose not to take Str and do a Dex/Int fighter, you are limited to the weapons you could use - in other words no heavy hitting weapons, just smaller, lighter weapons, maybe you don't have access to heavy armor. Additionally, maybe, weapons in fighters hands do things that weapons in non-fighter hands can do. A maul in a str fighters hands has a chance of doing additional damage or have some other rider. Maybe a rapier in a dex fighters hands can slide or push an opponent. If its not your key abilitiy you don't get the extra effects. This encourages different choices and could help mitigate the factors you mentioned.

I think the key would be, to give the player as much incentive to choose Str/Cha fighter as a Dex/Int fighter. So yeah, some things would have to be changed. I haven't considered all these angles yet.

 

[ggroy]

You raise some good points. Skills may need to be looked at, but there are other ways of balancing things. Obviously, I would need to give this more thought but here is just one example.

4e fighters are encouraged already to choose certain weapon groups. Make that choice even more meaningful. If you choose not to take Str and do a Dex/Int fighter, you are limited to the weapons you could use - in other words no heavy hitting weapons, just smaller, lighter weapons, maybe you don't have access to heavy armor. Additionally, maybe, weapons in fighters hands do things that weapons in non-fighter hands can do. A maul in a str fighters hands has a chance of doing additional damage or have some other rider. Maybe a rapier in a dex fighters hands can slide or push an opponent. If its not your key abilitiy you don't get the extra effects. This encourages different choices and could help mitigate the factors you mentioned.

I think the key would be, to give the player as much incentive to choose Str/Cha fighter as a Dex/Int fighter. So yeah, some things would have to be changed. I haven't considered all these angles yet.

Harder part is figuring out how to make a system that is relatively immune from munchkin powergamers abusing it. Eventually they'll figure out some combinations which are very overpowered.

 

[Markn]

Harder part is figuring out how to make a system that is relatively immune from munchkin powergamers abusing it. Eventually they'll figure out some combinations which are very overpowered.

True, but every edition has been plagued to some degree with this...

Edit - ggroy - Let me ask - assuming it was possible to do, do you think that would be a good direction for D&D, or no?

 

[ggroy]

Edit - ggroy - Let me ask - assuming it was possible to do, do you think that would be a good direction for D&D, or no?

Perhaps it could be for hardcore D&D players. I could certain get into something like this.

On the other hand, there's the issue of whether casual players and new players will be receptive to additional layers of complexity for 4E. In the case of D&D being the 800 lbs gorilla, maintaining market share is always an issue.

 

[Markn]

I'm not so sure its any more complex. In the coming weeks I will fool around with this and present what I have in mind as a cohesive unit.

One other thing, and its tangent to this, but I'm thinking there may also be a benefit to removing the role from the class as well. A wizard no longer is expected to be a controller or a cleric a leader. I'm thinking each class gets a free feat at 1st level such as the Controller Feat, or the Striker Feat which helps determine how powers work. This way the class is also more open ended. Still need to work out the logistics of this but its something I've thought about for the last few hours.

 

[ggroy]

In whatever scheme, I suspect the obvious power that will be abused by munchkins at lower levels will be the ranger's twin strike at-will power, whether through the ranger class or some multiclassing/hybrid classing/point-buy system.