D&D General What kind of class design do you prefer?

[el-remmen]

This is why the "only need 3 classes" or "only need 4 classes" ideas for D&D come out looking silly and just wishes. Because many D&D archetypes are so different that even pondering putting them together destroys the concept of the whole.

How can you combine the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin if 3 of the classes have different prime attributes, spell lists, maneuver lists, and ribbon features? Your grandparent class becomes either meaningless or overly important. Youll either fail to broaden the class or just create new classes anyway as 2 members of a class would have nothing in common.

Personally, I'd prefer for character classes to potentially benefit from multiple ability scores - sure, a high-ish score in their prime requisite, but moderate scores in other abilities being just as important or filling the gap if you just have a moderately high score in the prime. This would also push some specialty classes like paladin back to requiring multiple high scores to be played "optimally" - but then again, I hate optimizations and builds as an end goal.

My #1 design philosophy is that PCs should mostly have to choose between multiple "sub-optimal" choices when taking actions then mostly relying on one or two optimal choice all the time.

 

[billd91]

That's stat requirement and a HD.
The 1e monks required Str and Con too.

How many times has a Ranger use their Con score or Con mod in a class feature?
Once. in 3e at 3rd level for something that gets ignored by 50% of tables and cancelled by common magic spells and items.
The D&D ranger has never been con based.

The only historic Con based class that still exists in D&D is the Warlock.

That‘s more of an effect of Constitution being underused in non-hit point and non-Fortitude Save ways - things all classes benefit from.

However, you’re underestimating the point of the ranger‘s double hit die at first level. The Con hp bonus was per die, meaning a double helping at first level, and not limited to +2 like non-fighters. There was a significant motivation to max out Con in 1e for rangers because they benefited like no other PC.

 

[Undrave]

So, what would your three-per-stat list look like?

After seeing what everybody else was posting I decided to give this a shot, just for fun...

STR:
Weaponmaster (Striker type Fighter)
Barbarian
Ranger (Melee type with some nature magic/utility)

CON:
Sentinel (Defender type Fighter)
Sorcerer
Warden (Defender with nature magic and transformations)

DEX:
Rogue
Monk
Archer (Folds tons of ranged weapon archetypes that don't fit the Rogue, including the Hunter Ranger and Arcane Archer)

INT:
Artificer
Wizard
Warlord

WIS:
Beastmaster (Ranger with a little more magic than regular, gains summoning spells)
Cleric
Druid

CHA:
Bard
Paladin
Warlock

Of course, this is something I sorta threw together but I don't think it looks too bad! Obviously the concept wouldn't be to turn every class into a SAD one, but rather to allow the other attributes to be used to differentiate your character from others of the same class with subclass features and stuff.

 

[payn]

I'll go out on the limb and say I like when classes can be made with any combo of stats. I do not like some modern takes where X class uses 2-3 stats dump the rest, and Y class uses a different 2-3 stats and dumps the rest. In 3E, having an above average INT was useful to many fighter characters, but you could certainly dump it a be effective too. The outcomes would operate slightly different and made replay-ability high. I'm a firm believer that in any system I can make the same class feel different repeatedly via personality, but I particularly enjoy it when variable stats can give you more diversity in class mechanics repeatedly too.

 

[Undrave]

I'll go out on the limb and say I like when classes can be made with any combo of stats. I do not like some modern takes where X class uses 2-3 stats dump the rest, and Y class uses a different 2-3 stats and dumps the rest. In 3E, having an above average INT was useful to many fighter characters, but you could certainly dump it a be effective too. The outcomes would operate slightly different and made replay-ability high. I'm a firm believer that in any system I can make the same class feel different repeatedly via personality, but I particularly enjoy it when variable stats can give you more diversity in class mechanics repeatedly too.

Personally I'm a fan of the 4e design where your subclass informed your secondary ability and all classes could have multiple choices of secondary score.

You had Rogues who wanted STR to be their second strongest stat, Barbarians who wanted high WIS, Wizards who made use of high CON, Sorcerer who could want high STR, Clerics with high CHA were possible, and the Warlord had subclasses for INT, CHA, WIS and even one that wanted to balance INT and CHA.

I think 5e is too rigid in the way it handles ability scores. A lot of classes don't even have secondaries enforced by the rules while others do (looking at you, Monk!) and those that do don't actually get a choice so you end up with bog standard stat line on all members of the same class. And CON always ends up being in third place because HP (when it's not in second place).

 

[payn]

Personally I'm a fan of the 4e design where your subclass informed your secondary ability and all classes could have multiple choices of secondary score.

You had Rogues who wanted STR to be their second strongest stat, Barbarians who wanted high WIS, Wizards who made use of high CON, Sorcerer who could want high STR, Clerics with high CHA were possible, and the Warlord had subclasses for INT, CHA, WIS and even one that wanted to balance INT and CHA.

The stat dilemma (for me) in 4E was one of the biggest complaints I had about it. It felt like you can be a sneak thief rogue, or you can be a tough thug rogue. Beyond that, there wasn't a whole lot of choice built into the class options. Multi-classing was kneecapped to make matters even more difficult. That may have changed after x,y,z supplements came out, but I didn't stick around for them. Worse, a lot of folks want to be able to call the stat that governs their defenses (dex/int for reflex, etc...) I eventually have to ask why have stats at all if they all come out to the same in the wash?

To be fair to 4E, PF2 is even worse. If you dont follow 1-2 stat arrays, your character will be completely ineffective. Sub-classes or paths dont use much variety at all so its even more homogeneous. They also grabbed the hybrid MC design from 4E to make it even more claustrophobic. Paizo designed this clever little A,B,C stats system, but its all for nothing ultimately. Window dressing at that point, so once again, im left asking why even have stats? Just dole out offense and defense based on class and sub-type.

I think 5e is too rigid in the way it handles ability scores. A lot of classes don't even have secondaries enforced by the rules while others do (looking at you, Monk!) and those that do don't actually get a choice so you end up with bog standard stat line on all members of the same class. And CON always ends up being in third place because HP (when it's not in second place).

Yeap, stats are not that interesting in 5E, even though there was a big push to make them all matter during design. I do feel like I can open up character options more than 4E/PF2, which is nice, but not as much as 3E/PF1 allowed. I'd like to see design in the future that places a need/want on all stats. It should be a trade off on the things you are good at, and not good at. Being weak in a stat shouldn't be as effective/ineffective as 3E/PF1 era tho.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really dislike tying classes to a single stat. That is basically the source of all the fighting about ASIs and whatnot. All classes should be MAD, requiring three or so scores roughly equally. Then it would be way less of a feels bad situation if your species can't get the best score in one of them. And even aside the species issue, it would lead to less cookie-cutter stat spreads.

 

[Undrave]

I really dislike tying classes to a single stat. That is basically the source of all the fighting about ASIs and whatnot. All classes should be MAD, requiring three or so scores roughly equally. Then it would be way less of a feels bad situation if your species can't get the best score in one of them. And even aside the species issue, it would lead to less cookie-cutter stat spreads.

I think it would lead to MORE cookie-cutter spread, IMO. It'll end up like the Monk where they all have the same stat spread and no ability to branch out into off-class stats.

Needing only 1 stat to make your core combat abilities work means you can do whatever you want with the rest of your points. You could invest in INT as a Barbarian and not be punished for it.

The stat dilemma (for me) in 4E was one of the biggest complaints I had about it. It felt like you can be a sneak thief rogue, or you can be a tough thug rogue. Beyond that, there wasn't a whole lot of choice built into the class options. Multi-classing was kneecapped to make matters even more difficult. That may have changed after x,y,z supplements came out, but I didn't stick around for them. Worse, a lot of folks want to be able to call the stat that governs their defenses (dex/int for reflex, etc...) I eventually have to ask why have stats at all if they all come out to the same in the wash?

It's true that the implementation at the start wasn't the best, but I still think working on the concept could work.

And I don't see a problem with NADs, it usually lead to interesting choices. The CHA rogue was better at Will defence but the STR thug was better at Constitution... And you can give subclasses that double down on the same NAD pair a buff so that it becomes more of a difficult choice. Do I get this really cool ability or better defences?

 

[payn]

It's true that the implementation at the start wasn't the best, but I still think working on the concept could work.

And I don't see a problem with NADs, it usually lead to interesting choices. The CHA rogue was better at Will defence but the STR thug was better at Constitution... And you can give subclasses that double down on the same NAD pair a buff so that it becomes more of a difficult choice. Do I get this really cool ability or better defences?

Just back to sneaky rogue or thug rogue, doesnt make any difference. Thats the problem I'm talking about. I want more than two types of rogues. I want to skill, feat, class, multi-class, archetype into a dozen different rogues. Problem we ran into in the past is it was too easy to make a character so spread thin they were average at best at anything. Thats the nut to crack for me, and cutting back to rogue A or Rogue B design just doesnt get it done.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it would lead to MORE cookie-cutter spread, IMO. It'll end up like the Monk where they all have the same stat spread and no ability to branch out into off-class stats.

It doesn't need to be like that. There could be some diminishing returns for maxing everything. And if all classes are MAD then there simply needs to be more ability points. The point buy currently is far too stingy anyway.

Needing only 1 stat to make your core combat abilities work means you can do whatever you want with the rest of your points. You could invest in INT as a Barbarian and not be punished for it.

Sure, but I think that is boring as hell. If the situation is that all characters of given class have a same score in their main stat, then I feel the system has failed.

But if there is one main stat per class, then that stat should cost more. That way the trade-off would be upping your main stat or several of secondary stats. At least then there might be several equal(lish)ly valid ways to build your character.