d20 class design and attribute dependency

[Mendicant]

When designing and evaluating d20 classes, what do you think is the "sweet spot" in regards to attribute dependencies? I'm thinking in terms of a healthy balance here, not necessarily raw power; the classic problem is MAD, but a class which is extremely "pointy" can be problematic in its own way. That said, I'm actually of two minds on SAD, since it can encourage the idiot-savant but it also allows greater flexibility in assigning ability scores for RP purposes.

How heavily do you think a class should lean on a particular attribute or two? How spread out would you like a starting character's stat array to look? (With the character still effective, of course.) How ok are you with stat-dumping as an assumed or even necessary part of character optimization?

[Venger]

MAD is bad design. it's difficult to effectively maximize more than one or two ability scores. this is especially present with noncasters, since they often need to rely on all physical stats in addition to one or more mentals. if you're retooling or making your own classes, make them SAD whenever possible.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd say 3 is about right, with one or two being primary and the rest being secondary. A (properly written) paladin should need Strength, with a side of Charisma and Constitution. A ranger needs Dex and Str, with a side of Wis. And so on.

[Vhaidara]

I generally favor DAD (Dual Ability Dependence), while ignoring Con in the assignment (because everyone needs that).

Also, I generally prefer it to be Str or Dex plus a mental score for anyone who isn't purely focused on magic

[eggynack]

I kinda like what the cleric has. You're SAD, in that you only really need wisdom to function, but you also gain benefit from about as many stats as a monk does. You don't get much stat replacement, and like the ability to hit stuff, so strength and dexterity are good, everyone likes constitution, charisma runs turn undead, and intelligence helps if you want to go skillful (and is probably the least critical of the set). You end up with a wide variety of good ways to assign stats, without feeling left behind when you don't have massive numbers everywhere.

[Mendicant]

MAD is bad design. it's difficult to effectively maximize more than one or two ability scores. this is especially present with noncasters, since they often need to rely on all physical stats in addition to one or more mentals. if you're retooling or making your own classes, make them SAD whenever possible.

Here's my problem with SAD--for all its benefits, it tends to hollow out the value of ability scores as a descriptive tool, and they might as well just be jettisoned completely. Like, look at DA: Origins. You've got these attributes that supposedly reflect what kind of person the character is, but really they're just numbers that need to go up (or don't) and have little to no meaning outside of keeping the character's combat abilities level-appropriate. I can look at a D&D stat array and make inferences about that character's physical makeup, foibles, even personality. A DAO character's 10 cunning means basically nothing other than he doesn't power any class abilities with it. If you make everybody SAD, they're going to pump that one score as much as they can, stick the leftovers in DEX and CON usually, and call it a day.


I'd say 3 is about right, with one or two being primary and the rest being secondary. A (properly written) paladin should need Strength, with a side of Charisma and Constitution. A ranger needs Dex and Str, with a side of Wis. And so on.

This is more along the lines I'm thinking currently. 1 primary, 1 or 2 secondaries, and then ACFs/Archetypes/Build Alternatives which allow for some flexibility. (IE, Your archer paladin no longer needs Str but does need Dex, your mystic paladin gets good enough spellcasting and a divine vigor ability that allows a drop in Con in favor or Wis, etc.)

Edit:

I kinda like what the cleric has. You're SAD, in that you only really need wisdom to function, but you also gain benefit from about as many stats as a monk does. You don't get much stat replacement, and like the ability to hit stuff, so strength and dexterity are good, everyone likes constitution, charisma runs turn undead, and intelligence helps if you want to go skillful (and is probably the least critical of the set). You end up with a wide variety of good ways to assign stats, without feeling left behind when you don't have massive numbers everywhere.

Yeah, this is definitely my preference if you're going to go SAD.

[Vhaidara]

Um, DA:O ability scores never claimed to say anything about your character's personality. And honestly, neither do statblocks in DnD. I'm going to play my character according to their personality, regardless of their ability scores. In fact, it bothers me when, because of low scores, my character cannot mechanically accomplish what their fluff says they can.

[SinsI]

There is a big, big difference between attribute dependency for casters and non-casters. Wizard with Int 10 is unplayable, while a Warblade with 10 in Str, Con and Dex is perfectly fine.
I think classes should be like Warlock and Dragonfire Adept - able to function with any attributes.

[Vhaidara]

Well, a Wizard with an 11 is playable. And will still be a full powered T1. IIRC, the only time that you can't cast your highest level spell is level 3 (4 gets you the level point, and from there you need to devote a spell to +stat.

Which actually means an 11 Cha Sorc is always able to cast their highest level spell.

Also, your example is hideously contrived. It's like saying "Casters aren't too strong. All you have to do is remove casting and they're balanced!"

[Mendicant]

Um, DA:O ability scores never claimed to say anything about your character's personality. And honestly, neither do statblocks in DnD. I'm going to play my character according to their personality, regardless of their ability scores. In fact, it bothers me when, because of low scores, my character cannot mechanically accomplish what their fluff says they can.

Right, DA:O's attributes don't really say much of anything at all about the characters they're assigned to, even though they've got these thematic tags like "cunning" and "strength". That raises the question of why even have the added complexity they create. It's not like you couldn't have just flat level-dependent bonuses and some kind of perk system to add customization and call it a day. Put another way: if you're going to dump Int and Cha because you don't need them and want the chargen resources somewhere else, but you don't want to play your character as sort of dumb and inarticulate, what value is that statblock providing?

[eggynack]

Well, a Wizard with an 11 is playable. And will still be a full powered T1. IIRC, the only time that you can't cast your highest level spell is level 3 (4 gets you the level point, and from there you need to devote a spell to +stat."
Yeah, I've run the numbers a few times, because the whole, "Which classes are NAD?" issue comes up ridiculously often, and that's the breakdown of it assuming that you keep up with your +int item. You can even do a bit better if you craft, which you have a good chance of being able to do due to your wizardly nature, and of course, something as simple as running a gray elf will keep you in tip top shape for every level even off of a starting score of ten.

[lsfreak]

Put another way: if you're going to dump Int and Cha because you don't need them and want the chargen resources somewhere else, but you don't want to play your character as sort of dumb and inarticulate, what value is that statblock providing?

The problem here is that there's such a disconnect between the heroes and the everyday folks. Int8-9 or Cha8-9 probably isn't even noticeably different from anyone else, they're solidly average - more than 20% of people are supposed to fall in that range. Maybe you'd notice a few things if you spend a lot of time around the person. It's not until you get to Int6 or Cha6 that mental or social impairment should really start to be obvious, and it's not common at all to have a PC with stats that low.

I'd say having one stat as primary and one-two with solid secondary benefits is good. Swordsages, cleric-based "paladins," bards, and totemists are probably close to ideal in terms of MAD-ness.

[Ellowryn]

I think if nothing else there should incentive for any class to try and keep multiple attributes high. An odd enough example is the Warmage, it really only needs Cha to function but it has a (rather crappy) class feature that boosts the damage of its spells by having a high Int. You do not need the attribute, but it does help with the primary function of the class to invest in it.

[SinsI]

Also, your example is hideously contrived. It's like saying "Casters aren't too strong. All you have to do is remove casting and they're balanced!"

It doesn't change much though - good classes should have good abilities that can function with any attributes. Caster-like dependence should be avoided at all costs.

[martixy]

Um, DA:O ability scores never claimed to say anything about your character's personality. And honestly, neither do statblocks in DnD. I'm going to play my character according to their personality, regardless of their ability scores. In fact, it bothers me when, because of low scores, my character cannot mechanically accomplish what their fluff says they can.

Very much this. With all the versatility of 3.5 it's that much more annoying when you can't pull of some cool concept just because of low abilities. Especially relevant for the MADdies.

[Endarire]

D&D 5E has an implicit (maybe also explicit) philosophy about class design: 3 stats per class are important, with rare exceptions.

Everyone needs/benefits greatly from a higher DEX and CON. Everyone. Thus, what's the other important stat? CHA for Sorcerers/Wizards/Bards. STR & CHA for Paladins (and less so DEX for those who prefer heavy armor). STR for other melee types. INT for Wizards. WIS for Clerics & Druids. Non-casting Rogues have it easy, needing only to focus on DEX & CON.

In 3.5, everyone already has a sort of benefit from every stat. DEX and CON are most pronounced among all character types, but INT affects skill points, WIS affects Will saves, STR affects carrying capacity, and CHA affects social situations (mostly low-level).

I'd rather have fewer stat dependencies. I, like many people, will determine what stat is most important and perhaps what's second most important and boost those in order. It's simple, it's effective, and that's how I've been trained. I like it. Spreading myself around makes me feel meh about my focus.

All these aforementioned notions are from the mechanics only. I play characters' personalities as I like. I just disconnect mechanics and RP. My character is smart because he's smart. Having the mechanics to back that up are a separate thing.

[squiggit]

Streamlined and reduced dependency can be nice, but I think 5e goes way too far in the other direction, with most classes (everything sans battlemage archetypes, monks and battlemaster fighters) just really having one single stat that defines them. It gets too formulaic when every build is just "Max out your main stat, dump extras in con and dex and maybe wis".

Worse, you don't even have a lot of variation in those stats. At least 4e had floating secondary stats for some of the classes. Which I always thought was a bit strange, people complained about 4e stat distributions being too limited but 5e takes them even farther for most classes.

[prufock]

I personally feel that the ideal design is that all stats are useful, some more than others, ranked accordingly, but subject to differences based on your build.

Casters and pseudo-casters (psionics, etc) should be dual-stat dependent for spells - one stat for ability to cast and bonus spells (normally Int for arcane and Wis for divine), one for DCs (Charisma).