Class Ideas for the various Stat Combos

Edit- This is just a fun thought on what you tend to associate with certain primary/secondary abilite.  These are not mandatory stats just trends.  For example, we usually see High STR/CON characters play fighters.

Please comment to add your own ideas, I'll update the list as we go =) We can certainly have repeats, but it'd be cool to get ideas for each.

(First Stat Primary, Second Stat Secondary)

Strong Characters:
STR/CON Strongguy Fighter, Thug Rogue
STR/DEX
STR/INT
STR/WIS Weaponmaster/Guardian Fighter
STR/CHA Inspiring Warlord, Intimidating Fighter

Tough Characters:
CON/STR Barbarian (Raging)
CON/DEX Tough Woodsman Ranger, Shadow Assassin
CON/INT
CON/WIS Battlemind
CON/CHA Warlock (turning his body into a conduit of massive power)

Agile Characters:
DEX/STR Swashbuckling Fighter
DEX/CON
DEX/INT  MacGyver Rogue
DEX/WIS -Tracking Rogue (Rangery), Archer
DEX/CHA -Trickster Rogue (Thief)

Smart Characters:
INT/STR - Warlord that runs in to fight beside his allies
INT/CON - Wizard (needs to be able to handle the magic ripping through his body and mind?)
INT/DEX - Swordmage
INT/WIS - Strategist Warlord
INT/CHA

Perceptive Characters:
WIS/STR
WIS/CON
WIS/DEX
WIS/INT
WIS/CHA Ardent (needs to be able to feel what teammates feel)

Willful Characters
CHA/STR Paladin, Inspiring Warlord
CHA/CON Cleric
CHA/DEX
CHA/INT Bard
CHA/WIS  Warlock (need to be able to see through tricks or get backed into a bad deal)
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
I was watching a movie about US Rangers (military special ops). If there is anything that exemplifies a Ranger, it has to be Constitution. These are TOUGH warriors who specialize in survivalism. Same is true for ancient scouts and so on.

CON-DEX Ranger

DEX-WIS Archer



Also the “skillful” Fighter that is proficient at many Fighting styles, and perceptively Guarding. The mental ability is extremely important.

STR-WIS Weaponmaster Fighter, Guardian Fighter
I like CON/X for Warlocks and STR/(INT or CHA) for Warlords

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Warlords an incredibly varied lot... Taclords Int/Str, Inspiring lords Cha/Str, LazyLords, Int/Cha...or Int/Wis or variations there of.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

On the subject of varied subtypes, I can also conceive of bards represented by every CHA/X combination.

The proposed system oddly shoe-horns design, and contributes to the undesirable "grid-filling" that 4E attempted to avoid (much to its own chagrin). 

Danny

What's this list about?
Abilities should give room for customization and even allow for some unusual stats, they should definitely be not something that has to be this or that way by all means.
IMO, I don't want classes tied to abilities, at least not directly. It REALLY depends on the goals for the character what abilities are key. I'd rather see class features that are at most only loosely attached to abilities. All of the pillars are abstract enough that no single ability makes sense to use exclusively for any one pillar for a given class. Let certain combat manuevers use non-str/dex abilities, and let spells use an appropriate ability (or one of several abilities) regardless of class.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I like CON/X for Warlocks and STR/(INT or CHA) for Warlords



I made a comment, but why is it that we see CON associated with Warlocks?  I remember you could go CON or CHA in 4e but didn't remember why.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Because a Warlock needs lots of stamina and physical resiliency to be able to forge Pacts with Outerwordly beings anf Entitys.
60% of a Warlock spells use CON in 4e.

WHile depending on your Pact you can have COn/CHA or CON/DEX or CON/INT.

WHat i loved to is to see a better though out and writen version of the Hexblade.

No more of the stupid "you need to hold both implement and pact weapon" stuff, more distinct and viable options.


@why warlocks could be Con based.

Many warlocks make pact with or tap into dangerous powers. These links can be physically taxing. Some warlocks are conduits of the powers great power and merely direct it in a rudimentary manner. A warlock who links himself with the energy of the Nine Hells might create a portal to Avernus and said portal MIGHT NOT be necessarily at the tip of their fingers. Ouch.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I made a comment, but why is it that we see CON associated with Warlocks?  I remember you could go CON or CHA in 4e but didn't remember why.

I never really got that either.  I think it's a "strength of the blood" and a lot of "blood magic" type stuff - from what I recall, the one that used CON was the super evil pact.

Honestly, though, it seems more likely that they were trying to shoe-horn CON into being the main stat for at least one sub-class, and this was their best try.  Constitution is really an entirely defensive/endurance type value, so it doesn't make a ton of sense that it should be the main offensive stat for any class, but that's just me working off of the base-less assumpton that any of these words actually represent anything.

The metagame is not the game.

I know this has been addressed and argued before, but the default stat for clerics is Wis and it has been for a very long time.  I know how you and I feel about cha, but I think we need to recognise that Wis will be 99% the clerics primary ability. 

I would like a simple Cha option available for Cleric casting, but that is wishful thinking.

Str/Cha Intimidating Fighter
Dex/Cha Swashbuckler Fighter
Can I just advocate for having no, or very few attributes being tied directly to classes?  I mean, sure, for casting stats, it's inevitable, but otherwise, can we just avoid that?

I'd like to just see armed combat stick with Strength or Dexterity, the casting classes get a key stat (like Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics, etc.) and leave everything up to personal taste. 
Con/Dex: shadow assassin

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Can I just advocate for having no, or very few attributes being tied directly to classes?  I mean, sure, for casting stats, it's inevitable, but otherwise, can we just avoid that?

I'd like to just see armed combat stick with Strength or Dexterity, the casting classes get a key stat (like Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics, etc.) and leave everything up to personal taste. 



This is more of a "when I think of a character whos highest stats are CHA then INT" I tend to think of bard.  Not to say all bards will have CHA/INT as their best stats, but for characters who (ignoring any class features) utilize CHA most and INT second most, that tends to be characters I'll often associate with a bard- using his powerful force of personality and backing it up with a lot of knowledge.

I like creating a level 0 character who gets only race and background, and playing it without any class abilitlies.  In doing so I think you'l find that you stick to your highest ability scores (human nature) and will likely roleplay a character that would be best described as a certain class. 

@Ksorkrax, its just a list of ideas nothing more.  I'm not suggesting that if you have these abilites you must play X, or vice versa.  I just like thinking- if I had really high X and Y what would I roleplay that like, and what would he end up becoming.

@Phillip, lol yea I do end up just swapping them.  My next game I'm running we're changing the name of a few things for sake of the non-rpg veterans.  They tend to look at me weird when I try to explain why wisdom is called wisdom, etc.  We may never get our wish for organized play, but houserules are once again pushed as a thing, so play CHA all you want =)
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
DEX/INT: Mcgiver Rogue
@why warlocks could be Con based. Many warlocks make pact with or tap into dangerous powers. These links can be physically taxing. Some warlocks are conduits of the powers great power and merely direct it in a rudimentary manner. A warlock who links himself with the energy of the Nine Hells might create a portal to Avernus and said portal MIGHT NOT be necessarily at the tip of their fingers. Ouch.

Im not a fan of the servile or sinister flavor of the Warlock, but this Constitution as primary ability makes sense. It also explains why Wizards tend to perceive Warlocks as “cheating” when using magic. The Warlocks dont rely on Intelligence or even Charisma to harness and control magic. Rather the Warlocks rely on *physical* toughness to unleash some otherworldy source.
Can I just advocate for having no, or very few attributes being tied directly to classes?  I mean, sure, for casting stats, it's inevitable, but otherwise, can we just avoid that?

I'd like to just see armed combat stick with Strength or Dexterity, the casting classes get a key stat (like Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics, etc.) and leave everything up to personal taste. 

Personally, I like each class have a primary ability, then builds within the class having two or three secondary abilities that supply some benefit if high, such as riders on spells, nifty tricks with weapons, and so on. Basically, what 4e players call “A classes”. With a single primary, and multiple options for secondary.
 
I also think each class should identify which ability it is “not”.

× Primary ability
+ Secondary abilities for various builds
± Neutral ability
− Useless ability


 
Wizard:
×Int
+Cha +Wis +Con
±Dex
−Str
Warlock:
×Con
+Cha +Int +Dex
±Str
−Wis
Fighter:
×Str
+Con +Wis +Dex
±Int
−Cha
Paladin:
×Cha
+Wis +Str +Con
±Dex
−Int
Cleric:
×Cha
+Wis +Con +Str
±Int
−Dex
Rogue:
×Dex
+Wis +Cha +Str
±Int 
−Con
Ranger:
×Con
+Dex +Wis +Str
±Int
−Cha
Barbarian:
×Con 
+Str +Wis +Dex
±Cha
−Int
Berserker:
×Cha
+Con +Wis +Str
±Dex
−Int
Bard:
×Cha
+Int +Wis +Dex
±Str
−Con
Druid:
×Wis
+Cha +Int +Con
±Dex
−Str

Something like that.
Personally, I like each class have a primary ability, then builds within the class having two or three secondary abilities that supply some benefit if high, such as riders on spells, nifty tricks with weapons, and so on. Basically, what 4e players call “A classes”. With a single primary, and multiple options for secondary.

I'd personally like for every character to care about every stat for some reason--100% MADness.  I'll accept some favoring Strength because they primarily care about hitting stuff hard in melee or Dex if they care about sneaking around/ranged attacks/etc. or whatever, but the concept of a "dump stat" is a design flaw from my perspective.

I also dislike the idea of "secondary stats" with riders because it takes away a lot of character options.  You, for example, have Charisma as a useless ability for a Ranger.  What if I want to play a Ranger and be Charismatic?  Why should I be mechanically penalized for a choice like that?

I much prefer stats doing what they do independent of class abilities.  Strength always makes you strong because it's Strength--it never somehow makes your sorcerer spells deal more damage, it just makes you Strong.  I realize, again, that "Casting Stats" exist and must be assigned*, but beyond that, I don't want classes forcing me into certain stat builds in order to be optimal.

*For the record, I'd like the casting stats to be:
Wizard: Intelligence
Sorcerer: Charisma
Warlock: Charisma 
Cleric: Wisdom
Druid: Wisdom
Bard: Charisma (with a spell-less option)
Paladin: Wisdom
Ranger: Intelligence
Swordmage/Duskblade/Gish/Whatever they call the hybrid arcane warrior: Intelligence
IMO there isn't a need for a casting stat at the class level, it just has always been that way. I'd much prefer it to be at the spell or spell group level. That would allow for specializations that make more sense, like all enchantment spells being based off of Cha, etc.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
IMO there isn't a need for a casting stat at the class level, it just has always been that way. I'd much prefer it to be at the spell or spell group level. That would allow for specializations that make more sense, like all enchantment spells being based off of Cha, etc.

I'd love that, but I think it implies weird things for Clerics.  It works great for arcane magic, but not so much for divine, and I wouldn't want arcane magic to be arbitrarily more MAD than divine.
IMO there isn't a need for a casting stat at the class level, it just has always been that way. I'd much prefer it to be at the spell or spell group level. That would allow for specializations that make more sense, like all enchantment spells being based off of Cha, etc.

I'd love that, but I think it implies weird things for Clerics.  It works great for arcane magic, but not so much for divine, and I wouldn't want arcane magic to be arbitrarily more MAD than divine.

Not sure why that would be the case. A cleric serving the goddess of love and beauty might have domain spells focusing on charm effects and persuasion, both of which would be Cha-based. A cleric of hunting/nature might focus on transmutation (Con), summoning (Cha?), and/or Divination (Wis). Chances are each domain could have an associated ability, but I'd rather see more diversity than that. Having non-wis clerics would allow for more potential character concepts without hindering their overall effectiveness.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
IMO there isn't a need for a casting stat at the class level, it just has always been that way. I'd much prefer it to be at the spell or spell group level. That would allow for specializations that make more sense, like all enchantment spells being based off of Cha, etc.

I'd love that, but I think it implies weird things for Clerics.  It works great for arcane magic, but not so much for divine, and I wouldn't want arcane magic to be arbitrarily more MAD than divine.


Actually, the Cleric is weird anyway, more jack-of-all trades than the Bard. The Cleric build depends on the sacred archetypes, and can really be anything from a white mage to a templar knight. They even make great archers.

A Cleric is already MAD, and feels ok needing Cha, Wis, Con, and Str, perhaps in that order. Int seems useful on occasion.

Divine magic is already diverse. Probably “faith healing” (positive energy) makes most sense wielding Charisma.

Wisdom for being in tune with nature, in tune with planar travel, teleportation, etherealness, astral projection.

Wisdom would also handle divination magic. 

I also feel Clerics should handle the “quintessence”, the fifth element, being the substance of spirit, by extension force and light. Thus handle telekinesis too, possibly using Charisma, moving stuff by the force of will. Levitating, telekinetic motions, auras of light, and so on feel angelic.

Combat buffing magic might rely on Cha, but could alternatively rely on Con or even Str, to physically withstand the flow of divine power.
Personally, I like each class have a primary ability, then builds within the class having two or three secondary abilities that supply some benefit if high, such as riders on spells, nifty tricks with weapons, and so on. Basically, what 4e players call “A classes”. With a single primary, and multiple options for secondary.

I'd personally like for every character to care about every stat for some reason--100% MADness.  I'll accept some favoring Strength because they primarily care about hitting stuff hard in melee or Dex if they care about sneaking around/ranged attacks/etc. or whatever, but the concept of a "dump stat" is a design flaw from my perspective.

I also dislike the idea of "secondary stats" with riders because it takes away a lot of character options.  You, for example, have Charisma as a useless ability for a Ranger.  What if I want to play a Ranger and be Charismatic?  Why should I be mechanically penalized for a choice like that?

I much prefer stats doing what they do independent of class abilities.  Strength always makes you strong because it's Strength--it never somehow makes your sorcerer spells deal more damage, it just makes you Strong.  I realize, again, that "Casting Stats" exist and must be assigned*, but beyond that, I don't want classes forcing me into certain stat builds in order to be optimal.

I agree MAD is appealing - just saying a meaningful weakness is important for a deep character.



*For the record, I'd like the casting stats to be:

Wizard: Intelligence
Sorcerer: Charisma
Warlock: Charisma
Cleric: Wisdom
Druid: Wisdom
Bard: Charisma (with a spell-less option)
Paladin: Wisdom
Ranger: Intelligence
Swordmage/Duskblade/Gish/Whatever they call the hybrid arcane warrior: Intelligence

I feel strong about the Cleric needing Charisma as the *leader* of a spiritual *community*.

While I think of the Paladin as a Knight in shining armor, with an “aura” of Charisma, I agree Wisdom is also vital.

To me, Rangers seem more like incredibly tough and observant warriors - Con and Wis. They are wilderness survivalists. The urban variety does similar as special ops.
IMO there isn't a need for a casting stat at the class level, it just has always been that way. I'd much prefer it to be at the spell or spell group level. That would allow for specializations that make more sense, like all enchantment spells being based off of Cha, etc.

I'd love that, but I think it implies weird things for Clerics.  It works great for arcane magic, but not so much for divine, and I wouldn't want arcane magic to be arbitrarily more MAD than divine.

Not sure why that would be the case. A cleric serving the goddess of love and beauty might have domain spells focusing on charm effects and persuasion, both of which would be Cha-based. A cleric of hunting/nature might focus on transmutation (Con), summoning (Cha?), and/or Divination (Wis). Chances are each domain could have an associated ability, but I'd rather see more diversity than that. Having non-wis clerics would allow for more potential character concepts without hindering their overall effectiveness.


Because the Wisdom stat was initially created specifically to give Clerics a casting stat.  

It was, basically, "Intelligence is our 'spellcasting' stat, but I don't think all Clerics should necessarily be smart (even though real clerics have always been and probably always will be, some of the most learned people on the planet), so we need another stat."

"Ok, let's make it Piety."

"Well, sure, but at least with Intelligence, non-spellcasters can use it--who cares how Pious a fighter is?"

"Hmm, good point, we'll call it Wisdom."

If you decouple Wisdom from divine magic, you might as well dump the attribute entirely.  I mean, tying Perception and Willpower to Wisdom was a 3rd edition construct and has never made sense anyway. 
I do think tying Perception to Wisdom (accurate, precise, tracking details) makes sense. And tying Willpower to Charisma makes sense (sense of self, force of personality).

But Storyteller, you convince me, most reallife Clerics are also scholars, and the Cleric needs access to an Int build.

Definitely, the game needs to decouple divine magic from Wisdom. Divine magic includes a variety of tropes, only some of it relates to Wis. Much of it relates to Cha.
Evangelist = Charisma
Teacher = Intelligence
Disciplinarian = Wisdom

hmmmmm ok teachers need all three.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


cha·ris·ma




noun, plural cha·ris·ma·ta [-muh-tuh] 
1.
Theology a divinely conferred gift or power.


2.
a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.


3.
the special virtue of an office, function, position, etc., thatconfers or is thought to confer on the person holding it anunusual ability for leadershipworthiness of veneration, or the like.

--------------------

Which makes sense for a cleric or anyone skilled in leadership.

--------------------



wis·dom



noun



1.
the quality or state of being wise knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action;sagacity, discernment, or insight.


2.
scholarly knowledge or learning: the wisdom of the schools.


3.
wise sayings or teachings; precepts.

4.
a wise act or saying.



-----------------------




To me, this is something the player should be able to express (or not) through roleplay regardless of class, and shouldn't be a latent characteristic which can be trained. Though I don't see how the base attributes could be muddled with at this point.
 



Lol yea it always comes back to this.  Personally I list Wisdom as Perception on my players sheets and ignore the term Wisdom.  works much better for me. (In my games most casters use charisma, but some use intelligence)

@Storyteller,Haldrik  I'm 100% MAD for all characters, even before classes are considered.  Dump stats create targets for enemies to abuse.  I love the every stat saving throw, it's really helped me with that.

Offtopic, has anyone considered why we are using terms like ability/skill checks or saving throws?  I can't think of a case where it makes less sense to say "Roll CHA" or "CHA 13 ends" to designate "Make a CHA check" or "Save ends (CHA DC 13)"
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Lol yea it always comes back to this.  Personally I list Wisdom as Perception on my players sheets and ignore the term Wisdom.  works much better for me. (In my games most casters use charisma, but some use intelligence)

I'm with you on that one.

On a side note, is anyone else getting this forum thread to be super wide in your browser?

The metagame is not the game.

Actually don't think classes need primary ability scores, the class features do.

Simple Weapons: STR
Martial Weapons: STR
Finesse Weapons: DEX
Bows, Light crossbows, and Slings: DEX
Heavy Crossbows: STR
Wizardy: INT
Divine Magic: WIS
Divine Channel: CHA
Divine Smiting: CHA
Natural Magic: WIS
Bloodline Magic: CHA
Pact Magic: CON
Combat Tactics: INT
Inspirations: CHA

So a Fighter has


  • Simple Weapons Martial Weapons

  • Finesse Weapons

  • Bows, Light crossbows, and Slings

  • Heavy Crossbows


So a Fighter is STR and DEX


A Wizards has


  • Wizardry

  • Quarterstaffs

  • Slings

  • Daggers



So a Wizard is INT, DEX, and STR

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Actually, Orzel, that makes a lot of sense.  I would disagree with heavy ranged weapons being STR, and I would probably classify a quarterstaff as a DEX weapon (could go either way there), but this is a great method of determining what your main stats "should" be.

The metagame is not the game.

Actually, Orzel, that makes a lot of sense.  I would disagree with heavy ranged weapons being STR, and I would probably classify a quarterstaff as a DEX weapon (could go either way there), but this is a great method of determining what your main stats "should" be.



Heavy crossbows to me are STR as you need a great deal of it just to point it straight.

But the real application of listing them as features is it help you understand the classes that get them.
Pre-3e, bards used druid magic but from 3e on they used bloodline magic... Are they WIS or CHA based? Or are bards a special CHA based druid? Or do they have their own magic type?

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I see what you're getting at.  I think I agree with the end results, but not the method for getting there.  That is to say, Fighters are strength-based because they use martial weapons, and it is not the case that martial weapons are strength-based because fighters use them.  Bards should be charisma-based because they use bloodline magic, and if they're actually using druid magic then they should be wisdom-based instead.

The heavy crossbow thing.... you might be right, for as long as they avoid giving equipment a minimum required strength to use.  Just adding a simple line, like "requires STR 13 to use proficiently" would solve everything.

The metagame is not the game.

A few miscellaneous things:

The definition of Charisma on literally every other site that isn't dictionary.com lists the "extraordinary ability to influence others" definition as number one, and the religious meaning as last, if they even bother to include it.

A Quarterstaff is a Finesse Weapon, but the Wizard doesn't get all finesse weapons, just the specific ones listed.

I'd bet almost anything that the Heavy Crossbow being Strength-based is a typo, though I've seen some pretty valiant efforts to justify that nonsense as purposeful.  I mean, seriously, the category of complex missile weapons were listed as being tied to Strength, not just the Heavy Crossbow alone as a special circumstance--do you really expect an entire category of Strength-based missile weapons that the vast majority of classes won't be proficient in?

I like the concept behind Orzel's list (obviously, as I advocated something virtually identical earlier in the thread), but I don't agree with some of the specifics.  I think tying Pact magic to Con and Bloodline magic to Charisma is pretty backwards--I fully recognize that you're trying to match the 4e classes, but, come on--a deal I made with someone is based on the toughness of my body, but something in my blood is based on my personality instead of, well, my body?  

It's not even like Sorcerers in 3rd edition really were all that much concerned with "bloodline" or whatever--they were just able to manipulate the raw stuff of magic using pure force of will/personality.  The idea of them having magical ancestry was only a justification for that, not the focus.  "Oh, yeah, he's good with science because his dad was Albert Einstein" doesn't mean that Einstein Jr.'s skill should really be "bloodline science."

Further, the idea of calling Bardic magic bloodline magic is silly, too--that's just trying to force them into your categories.  Bards have used a different kind of magic in almsot every edition for one, and in 3rd, they were Charisma based for absolutely no reason other than having mercy on Bardic player's point buy.  If you must, why not call it "Bardic Magic?"  Because honestly, I can't come up with any other category name for which it'd make sense for Bards to have Charisma spells.
I agree that Sorcerers should be the Con/Cha (based on bloodline) class, with warlocks being more Int/Cha focused. Assuming warlocks in general are the ones that make the "better deal" and aren't the smucks who chose poorly, then sometimes you can out-smart your patron, not out-bargain them.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
@thestoryteller

The reason why I think Pact Magic is CON and Bloodline magic is CHA is because of my interpretation of arcane magic through the editions.

Wizards use INT because they cast spells through the inherent laws and rules of arcane magic. They learn the ins and outs and use reasoning to understand why seemingly random and unconnected events like saying funny words, making silly hand gestures, and holding strange items create fireballs and flight. They have to do it this way as they are not magical creatures. They are humanoids manipulating magic.

But some beings are magical. Dragons and fey are inherently magically. They are magic and they influence it through pure force of will. When a human says fire, nothing happens. When a red dragon says fire, someone burns. Sorcerers are of the blood of these naturally magical beings. And when the great great great granddaughter of a red dragon says fire, someone burns.

Now warlocks cheats. They don't spend years learning the rules of magic. Nor are many of the lineage of magical creatures. Instead a warlock MAKES themselves magic or makes a pact with someone who can. They are transformed either temporarily or permanently into a magical creature. This process is dangerous and physically taxing so the more fortitude the warlock has, the better they can be a conduit for the power. They are the James Rhodes to Tony Stark if the War Machine armor is fused to them. They barely know how the stuff works. And their arcane power is limited only by their own constitution.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Actually. With the warlock pacts of 4E, CHA also makes sense with the mysterious nature of the warlock magic.

Infernal: You are physically being transformed and linked to the Nine Hells. This requires a great deal of fortitude.
Fey: Fey gifts are less taxing and rely more on the warlocks ability to force the power via will.
Star: The abberant nature of the star pact is painful, physically horrific, hard to control, and confusing.
Dark: Pact with the darkness of the Underdark follows only those charismatic enough to convince it to work.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Str/Dex  fighter
Str/Con  barbarian
Str/Int   ranger
Str/Wis  Cleric
Str/Cha  Paladin
Dex/Con  ninja
Dex/Int   illusionist
Dex/Wis  monk
Dex/Cha  thief
Con/Int   psionicist
Con/Wis  brute
Con/Cha  druid
Int/Wis    archmage
Int/Cha   bard
Wis/Cha  ruler 
A Quarterstaff is a Finesse Weapon, but the Wizard doesn't get all finesse weapons, just the specific ones listed.

The Quarterstaff as a Dex weapon sounds right.

I like the concept behind Orzel's list (obviously, as I advocated something virtually identical earlier in the thread), but I don't agree with some of the specifics.  I think tying Pact magic to Con and Bloodline magic to Charisma is pretty backwards--I fully recognize that you're trying to match the 4e classes, but, come on--a deal I made with someone is based on the toughness of my body, but something in my blood is based on my personality instead of, well, my body?

That was my first reaction too, but then I realized, “bloodline” doesnt really mean “blood”. It means ancestry. So who are the ancestors? If the magic comes from Fey ancestry, then it may well be Charisma magic. If it comes from Elemental ancestry, it could be similar. Or simply from a Human family that produces a high frequency of psychics - likewise Charisma if telepathic charmers or Wisdom if second-sighted seers.
 
Personally, I like the suggestion of the Warlock using Con. To me it clearly conveys the Warlock doesnt really understand the magic that they are wielding - they are “cheating” at magic. They simply unleash some eldritch force by means of some process that darker spirits have set up for them - by means of their pact.
  


As an aside, for me, the English meaning of the word “sorcerer” is so strong, I hope D&D doesnt misapply it. A sorcerer is someone who preforms magic by means of *spirits*. Usually black magic. Sorcerer is an appropriate name for a mage who traffics with devils, demons, and undead. But it seems the wrong name for a mage whose magic is innate. Enchanter, evoker, even psychic, even witch, are better names for innate magic.



Further, the idea of calling Bardic magic bloodline magic is silly, too--that's just trying to force them into your categories.  Bards have used a different kind of magic in almsot every edition for one, and in 3rd, they were Charisma based for absolutely no reason other than having mercy on Bardic player's point buy.  If you must, why not call it "Bardic Magic?"  Because honestly, I can't come up with any other category name for which it'd make sense for Bards to have Charisma spells.

To me, Bard in the sense of the magic of music, is the same thing as Enchantment (mental effects), being the magic of ones own mindforce, and in this sense Charisma. But using voice and mnemonics, or instrument as implements to focus the intended effect.
The Quarterstaff as a Dex weapon sounds right.

Now, if only I could get a spear/glaive/naginata type polearm in the Finesse category (via some means other than "Hey, DM, can I used the stats for a quarterstaff but describe it as having a blade?").

 That was my first reaction too, but then I realized, “bloodline” doesnt really mean “blood”. It means ancestry. So who are the ancestors? If the magic comes from Fey ancestry, then it may well be Charisma magic. If it comes from Elemental ancestry, it could be similar. Or simply from a Human family that produces a high frequency of psychics - likewise Charisma if telepathic charmers or Wisdom if second-sighted seers.

Then it probably shouldn't be called "bloodline magic" so much as "innate magic" or something of that nature. 
 
 Personally, I like the suggestion of the Warlock using Con. To me it clearly conveys the Warlock doesnt really understand the magic that they are wielding - they are “cheating” at magic. They simply unleash some eldritch force by means of some process that darker spirits have set up for them - by means of their pact.

I personally kind of hate the idea that the Warlock is "cheating" because I love the mechanical concept of an at-will caster, but strongly dislike the surrounding fluff of making dark deals to get it.  Plus, if he's cheating, it should be because he tricked magic/the being he has a pact with, not because he's super tough (even if it is evocative of channeling magic through one's body).  In a way, I think the Warlock concept could be expanded to cover the "Shaman" creative space by just stating that the powers come from dealing with otherworldy beings of some kind, and not cementing in stone the idea that the deal is necessarily uneven or unsavory.  And when it comes to making magical deals, I just can't believe that any stat but Charisma is more appropriate.   
  
 As an aside, for me, the English meaning of the word “sorcerer” is so strong, I hope D&D doesnt misapply it. A sorcerer is someone who preforms magic by means of *spirits*. Usually black magic. Sorcerer is an appropriate name for a mage who traffics with devils, demons, and undead. But it seems the wrong name for a mage whose magic is innate. Enchanter, evoker, even psychic, even witch, are better names for innate magic.

I'm having a very hard time finding a definition of Sorcerer that brings spirits or black magic into it--in fact, barring the RPG "Sorcerer" (which I dislike anyway) every source I found simply considers it a synonym for magician.  And, when there are multiple names for spellcasters in a given setting, I've generally seen the word "sorcerer" applied to the "good guys" or to some neutral parties.

To me, Bard in the sense of the magic of music, is the same thing as Enchantment (mental effects), being the magic of ones own mindforce, and in this sense Charisma. But using voice and mnemonics, or instrument as implements to focus the intended effect.

To me, it's hard to think of Bards as "musical."  I always viewed them more like storytellers than musicians, probably due to my obsession with folklore/myth/legend/etc. and knowing what Bards were historically.  I actually though Bards made more sense in the earlier editions when they cast Druid spells, since that at least puts them in the same culture.  But then, I also prefered Rangers casting Magic User spells, so whatev, maybe I'm just stodgy.  

Anyway, to me, the Bard's music had less to do with the "magic of song" and more to do with, "I do a little bit of everything, and that includes studying a little bit of magic."  To that end, I feel like 2e nailed it, since they had a spellbook and cast just like wizards.  In 3rd, I really liked the "Bardic Music" concept as long as it wasn't actually music, but rather generally being inspiring and stuff, but felt like the spells totally felt out of place given the shift in focus from "I'm a rogue/fighter/wizard" to "I buff people with my class features."

So, the short version:

If Bards are going to be close to their historical counterparts, give them Druid spells, and at that point, the casting stat could easily be justified to be any of the three mental stats.

If Bards are going to be jacks of all trades, then they should cast like a Wizard using intelligence, representing the fact that they studied just a little bit.

If Bardsa re going to be focused on the "magic of song," then I kind of don't think they should cast spells in any sort of traditional way, but rather have a new subsystem entirely tied much more closesly to music.  Maybe assign each "key" as a stance, and have harmony abilities (you use an instrument for) that provide buffs as long as they are maintained, melody abilities that do something positive immediately, and some dissonance abilities that have aggressive effects.  Or, I don't know--this isn't a "build a bard" thread. 

Sign In to post comments