Removing the link between class and ability

[Markn]

All fighters use Str, all rogues use Dex, all Clerics use Wis (or Str). Is this a requirement anymore? Are there benefits to removing the link between class and ability?

4E has made some improvements over previous editions. First, each class uses its own ability rather than EVERY class using STR to do melee attacks and DEX to do ranged attacks. Second, each class can get extra benefits by focusing on a second ability and then choosing appropriate powers that match the concept. However, the implementation of the second ability and lack of powers available don't really make Rogue A all that much different from Rogue B except in rare instances. Plus, we still maintain the stereotypes that have always existed - rogues are dextrous, fighters are brutes, etc. Ultimately, classes, even with different subtypes (such as Brutal Rogue vs Artful Dodger Rogue) are still very similar most of the time.

But what if, the link to the ability score was removed completely? I could envision a dextrous rogue, a brute rogue, a charasmatic rogue or even an intelligent rogue.

During character creation, I choose the stat that my powers key off of, allowing me to play the concept of my character as I see it, as opposed to always having to choose Dex.

This would create vastly different character designs within the same class. The characters would likely be focused on different skills and the fluff of powers could easily be re-skinned to meet your view of your character. Roleplaying an archtype that you read in a novel or envision is much easier since you aren't limited to an arbitrary stat.

Is this going too far, loosening things up too much? Or would this improve the system. Is this a sacred cow that does not need to exist anymore?

 

[ggroy]

Are you suggesting a classless point buy type system?

The closest such thing I can think of offhand that has a resemblance to d20 systems like D&D, would perhaps be 2E Mutants & Masterminds with the Warriors and Warlocks supplement.

 

[Meek]

I like the idea, but it would either make 4e classes even more generic than they are now (it doesn't what score you use, you end up doing the same thing) or it would require even larger amounts of powers than there are now, which would be a HUGE amount of work (you'd need powers to support every score). I think 4e's done well enough with its builds so far. Rogue A and Rogue B might feel the same, but a Strength Cleric and a Wisdom Cleric play very differently. A Thaneborn Barbarian and a Whirling Barbarian play very differently. Some classes are better differentiated than others.

 

[RangerWickett]

I dunno. I personally prefer the older style, where how you were most effective in a fight depended on where your talents lay. So if you were strong, you wanted to hit hard with big things. If you were nimble, you wanted to hit and run or fight from afar. If you were big enough, you could just grab someone and take the hits as you slowly crushed them. Mental abilities generally only helped with planning or subterfuge, or with magic.

Now, it wasn't as balanced then as it is now, but it fit the way I envision combat better. If I could revise 4e with regards to ability scores in combat, I might consider creating a list of combat powers for each ability score, and have them available to any class. That would require tons of rewrites, though, and probably an overhaul of the existing class system.

Maybe there would still be classes, but they'd work different. The Striker class would offer a variety of class abilities to increase damage - sneak attack (prereq: Dex 15), divine aim a la avenger (prereq: Wis 15), arcane power a la sorcerer (but it affects all your attacks, prereq: Cha 15), brute strength (extra [w] of damage per attack, prereq: Str 15).

The Defender class would likewise offer different marking options based on what stat you focus in. Leader would enhance the party in different ways (not quite sure how this works, though; how does being nimble make your allies better in combat?). You could sort of 'multi-class' too, if you had high stats in two different abilities. It would give you a reason to go for two 16s instead of an 18 and a 12.

As for powers, you'd have Str powers that targeted AC and let you use your strength in different ways: pushes, slides, knock prone, high [w] damage, 'reaping strike' style hits, and so on. You'd have a few weaker options that involve heavy thrown weapons.

Dex powers would either focus on nimble melee (giving bonuses when attacking with light weapons, shifting a lot, making multiple light attacks, targeting Ref), or precision ranged attacks (ignoring cover and concealment, extra damage if you aim, multiple attacks again, etc.). Also a fair number of reaction or interrupt defensive powers.

Con powers would be about using your size and durability. Lots of grappling. Smash enemies against each other or against walls and floors. Throw them. Pin them. Bonus saves to avoid physical ailments.

Int powers might be based on inflicting conditions. Mostly they'd be minor actions that let you make follow-up secondary attacks if you hit with a primary attack using another power. Like you spend a minor action to aim your next arrow for his knee to slow him. Or you apply poison to your blade, or pin him in a sleeper hold, and so on. Also giving good tactics to your allies.

Wis powers might let you figure out your opponents' moves to get bonuses against them, or to notice weak spots. Maybe some reactions so that if an opponent attacks and misses, you can inflict conditions. Think judo. Probably a lot of defensive powers. A good support ability score, but hard to use on the offensive. Sort of like playing blue/white in Magic: the Gathering.

Cha powers are showy or deceptive, and like with Int they'd mostly be minor actions that enhance your other powers. Feints, sliding foes by 'tricking them into moving,' demoralizing them. Also bolstering your allies.

Sorry for the tangent there.

For your original idea, I am intrigued by the idea of a strong wizard who somehow creates fire with his muscles, but I guess if you do that, ability scores lose all their point. Aside from the occasional skill check, what mechanical impact do they have?

I mean, sure, from a flavor perspective, saying "I create fire with my muscles" is different from "I create fire with my keen understanding of arcane lore," but mechanically there's no difference between the Str-wizard and the Int-wizard. So if there's no difference, why have ability scores in the first place?

 

[Markn]

Are you suggesting a classless point buy type system?

No. Just that if I want to make a Rogue with powers that key off of Cha I can. Or a fighter that is based off of Cha.

 

[Cadfan]

How far do you intend to go with this? Could people choose to have their hit points key off of a score other than constitution? Could they change the origins of their diplomacy score? Would you prefer to just go whole hog, and let people have generic, unlabeled ability scores like "attack"?

 

[Markn]

Now, it wasn't as balanced then as it is now, but it fit the way I envision combat better. If I could revise 4e with regards to ability scores in combat, I might consider creating a list of combat powers for each ability score, and have them available to any class. That would require tons of rewrites, though, and probably an overhaul of the existing class system.

Maybe there would still be classes, but they'd work different. The Striker class would offer a variety of class abilities to increase damage - sneak attack (prereq: Dex 15), divine aim a la avenger (prereq: Wis 15), arcane power a la sorcerer (but it affects all your attacks, prereq: Cha 15), brute strength (extra [w] of damage per attack, prereq: Str 15).

The Defender class would likewise offer different marking options based on what stat you focus in. Leader would enhance the party in different ways (not quite sure how this works, though; how does being nimble make your allies better in combat?). You could sort of 'multi-class' too, if you had high stats in two different abilities. It would give you a reason to go for two 16s instead of an 18 and a 12.

As for powers, you'd have Str powers that targeted AC and let you use your strength in different ways: pushes, slides, knock prone, high [w] damage, 'reaping strike' style hits, and so on. You'd have a few weaker options that involve heavy thrown weapons.

Dex powers would either focus on nimble melee (giving bonuses when attacking with light weapons, shifting a lot, making multiple light attacks, targeting Ref), or precision ranged attacks (ignoring cover and concealment, extra damage if you aim, multiple attacks again, etc.). Also a fair number of reaction or interrupt defensive powers.

Con powers would be about using your size and durability. Lots of grappling. Smash enemies against each other or against walls and floors. Throw them. Pin them. Bonus saves to avoid physical ailments.

Int powers might be based on inflicting conditions. Mostly they'd be minor actions that let you make follow-up secondary attacks if you hit with a primary attack using another power. Like you spend a minor action to aim your next arrow for his knee to slow him. Or you apply poison to your blade, or pin him in a sleeper hold, and so on. Also giving good tactics to your allies.

Wis powers might let you figure out your opponents' moves to get bonuses against them, or to notice weak spots. Maybe some reactions so that if an opponent attacks and misses, you can inflict conditions. Think judo. Probably a lot of defensive powers. A good support ability score, but hard to use on the offensive. Sort of like playing blue/white in Magic: the Gathering.

Cha powers are showy or deceptive, and like with Int they'd mostly be minor actions that enhance your other powers. Feints, sliding foes by 'tricking them into moving,' demoralizing them. Also bolstering your allies.

Sorry for the tangent there.

For your original idea, I am intrigued by the idea of a strong wizard who somehow creates fire with his muscles, but I guess if you do that, ability scores lose all their point. Aside from the occasional skill check, what mechanical impact do they have?

I mean, sure, from a flavor perspective, saying "I create fire with my muscles" is different from "I create fire with my keen understanding of arcane lore," but mechanically there's no difference between the Str-wizard and the Int-wizard. So if there's no difference, why have ability scores in the first place?

Good post!

Your tangent is very intriguing. That would be something that I think would be an improvement in the game myself. What could be done, to avoid a massive system rewrite, is to move some of that into feat territory. For example, someone with a Cha 15 would have access to a feat that would slide a target 1 (additional) square.

As for my suggestion, there may some limitations to it. Perhaps not all all abilities should/could be available.

Ultimately, as it currently stands, when you play a certain class, you are locked into a certain stereotype - some moreso than others. 4e is about options, and the game has opened up more options than ever before but now the sterotypes are becoming the limiting factor. Often, a class, no matter the build will choose the same dump stat making them all similar. Fighters often choose low Cha (this is an example only). This in turn affects skills, available utility powers (especially with the inclusion of skill powers from PHB3), which in turn affects roleplaying and again which in turn affects the concept that a person envisions. I've heard plenty of times the statement of "I can't play the character concept I want to play because it doesn't exist in D&D". This resonates with a certain portion of the population, and they find it hard to get into D&D because of it and so choose other systems.

I will grant, that I COULD, as a fighter, have a high Cha, but that is going so far outside the norm, that it will hamstring performance to a degree that most people won't even entertain the notion.

Perhaps, more would be required to be changed than just the opening up of powers keying off any ability scores. If this were coupled with feats that I mentioned for your system at the beginning of this post, that would again differentiate the class but still allow the player to play the concept as he sees fit. I could choose a fighter off of dex, but then look at feats that let me do extra things that you list underneath Dex, such as shifting, etc. In fact, I would go so far as to say that using feats to differentiate characters by enhancing powers while opening up the use of powers from any ability would make concepts more attainable and classes feel more different.

Essentially, you are choosing the class, pick the ability that fits your concept to key your powers and then using feats to further the concept allowing you to do more stuff than someone who wasn't as skilled in that the ability. This idea exists today, but its more in the math than the availability of what you can do with yoru powers.

 

[Markn]

How far do you intend to go with this? Could people choose to have their hit points key off of a score other than constitution? Could they change the origins of their diplomacy score? Would you prefer to just go whole hog, and let people have generic, unlabeled ability scores like "attack"?

Good questions. Is there a benefit to going that far? I would think not. Most of those things don't affect overall character concepts. while they could be done, the benefit of making those changes, brings added complexity to the game that I think would be negative. Having said that, some skills seem to have arbitrary abilities assigned to them but thats beside the point.

I also would want to maintain the D&D game. Generic ability scores like "attack" would be too far outside the norm. In a response I had to RW, I added that it might be necessary to change feats a bit so that choosing a feat with a prereq of Dex 15 for example would allow for a rider on your powers that let you shift 1 square after the attack. Another feat might let you shift before the attack, while others down the line would increase the range. This further enhances that fighter who wants to go the dex route, by letting him affect all his powers giving him differnt options than what Str fighter would have with his Str based feats. In the end, the combination of class powers along with ability pre-req'd feats could open up some interesting possibilities while maintaining a "classed" approach as opposed to a classless game that some posters are concerned about.

Just to be clear, I don't have any plans of actually doing this. It's more of a thought exercise than anything else.

 

[Markn]

A Thaneborn Barbarian and a Whirling Barbarian play very differently. Some classes are better differentiated than others.

Very true.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I like the idea, it adds more character flex without the costs of feats (or the obligatory 'born under a bad sign' unless your CON is high!). What would need to be done as well IMO is to divide up all the other things abilities do so as to make them more equal. For example ATM DEX gives greater benefits (AC, basic, initiative) than STR melee:, carrying capacity) which is > INT (languages). So those other things incl skills need to be spread around. make initiative key of WIS or whatever. Another option is to make them key off the best of two skills in the way that NADs do.

Then I would be happy in pick your own key abilities, otherwise every wizard would use DEX or CON for their primary and the other for the secondary.

EDIT: I would also get rid of all ability score requirements for anything, such as feats.