Index of Attribute Dependency

[Gralamin]

This Index focuses on what attributes need to be high for class to generally get the "best" use out of its class features. Some, or all of these might be eliminated depending on the build.

In addition, each build is classified into Class "Types."
Caster Types tend to require the attribute(s) that their Spellcasting System works on [Primary Casting Stat(s)]. They also tend to need a high constitution to mitigate their otherwise low Hit Points
Commander Types tend to require a high Charisma, and many get use out of intelligence and strength. Constitution is also needed to mitigate their hit points.
Gishs tend to combine casting and combat and thus tend to need Strength, constitution and their Primary Casting Stat(s).
Skill Monkeys tend to require a high intelligence score, as well as a high Dexterity score, as many tend to also be combatants. Skill Monkey's also become the face of the group when there is no Commander, and thus find high Charisma useful. Constitution is also useful.
Skirmishers tend to rely on moving and attacking, and usually therefore find Dexterity useful. Skirmisher's also tend to be substitute skill monkey's, and can therefore use high Intelligence. Some also have some form of casting or special attack requiring another high stat. Constitution is also useful.
Warriors tend to be in melee combat, and therefore need high Strength and Constitution. Due to a Warriors skill with Heavy Armor, they tend not to need a high dexterity.

In addition, there are the classes marked Other, which depending on their choices can fit into many groups.

Classes also have SAD, MAD or DAD, as is noted in the table. These are based off class features, and in some cases such as the fighter, just the Stats it tends to need to do well. The second one is avoided wherever possible. Classes with Other also include what they need to do well. Your Build might Remove, Demote, or Promote this status.



Er, what do SAD, MAD and DAD stand for?

Single Attribute Dependency
Multiple Attribute Dependency
Dual Attribute Dependency

Table 1: Index of Attribute Dependency, Listing
{table=head]Class|Source|Page|Class Type|Attribute Dependency?|Str|Dex|Con|Int|Wis|Cha
Archivist|HH|82|Caster|DAD|-|-|-|Yes|Yes|-
Ardent|CP|5|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|-|Yes|-
Artificer|ECS|29|Other|DAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|Yes
Barbarian|PHB|24|Warrior|MAD|Yes|Yes|Yes|-|-|-
Bard|PHB|26|Commander|DAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|Yes
Beguiler|PH2|6|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|-
Binder|TM|9|Other|DAD|-|-|Yes|-|-|Yes
Cleric|PHB|30|Caster|DAD|-|-|-|-|Yes|Yes
Crusader|ToB|8|Warrior|MAD|Yes|-|Yes|-|-|Yes
Divine Mind|CP|9|Gish|DAD|Yes|-|-|-|Yes|-
Dragon Shaman|PH2|11|Commander|DAD|-|-|Yes|-|-|Yes
Dragonfire Adept|DM|24|Other|DAD|-|Yes|Yes|-|-|Yes
Dread Necromancer|HH|84|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|-|-|Yes
Druid|PHB|33|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|-|Yes|-
Duskblade|PH2|19|Gish|MAD|Yes|-|Yes|Yes|-|-
Factotum|Du|14|Skill Monkey|SAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|-
Favored Soul|CD|6|Caster|DAD|-|-|-|-|Yes|Yes
Fighter|PHB|37|Warrior|DAD|Yes|-|Yes|-|-|-
Healer|MH|8|Caster|DAD|-|-|Yes|-|Yes|-
Hexblade|CW|5|Gish|MAD|Yes|-|Yes|-|-|Yes
Incarnate|MoI|20|Other|MAD|Yes|-|Yes|-|Yes|-
Knight|PH2|24|Warrior|MAD|Yes|-|Yes|-|-|Yes
Lurk|CP|13|Gish/Skirmisher|MAD|-|Yes|Yes|Yes|-|-
Marshal|MH|11|Commander|MAD|-|-|Yes|Yes|-|Yes
Monk|PHB|39|Skirmisher|MAD|Yes|Yes|Yes|-|Yes|-
Ninja|CAd|5|Skill Monkey|DAD|-|Yes|-|-|Yes|-
Paladin|PHB|42|Warrior|MAD|Yes|-|Yes|-|Yes|Yes
Psion|XPH|19|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|-
Psychic Warrior|XPH|24|Gish|MAD|Yes|-|Yes|-|Yes|-
Ranger|PHB|46|Skirmisher|MAD|Yes|Yes|-|-|Yes|-
Rogue|PHB|49|Skill Monkey|MAD|-|Yes|-|Yes|-|-
Samurai|CW|8|Warrior|MAD|Yes|-|Yes|-|-|Yes
Scout|CAd|10|Skirmisher|SAD|-|Yes|-|-|-|-
Shadowcaster|TM|111|Caster|DAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|Yes
Shugenja|CD|10|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|-|-|Yes
Sorcerer|PHB|51|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|-|-|Yes
Soulborn|MoI|25|Other|MAD|Yes|-|Yes|-|-|Yes
Soulknife|XPH|26|Skirmisher|MAD|Yes|Yes|Yes|-|-|-
Spellthief|CAd|13|Skirmisher|DAD|-|Yes|-|-|-|Yes
Spirit Shaman|CD|14|Caster|DAD|-|-|-|-|Yes|Yes
Swashbuckler|CW|11|Warrior|DAD|-|Yes|-|Yes|-|-
Swordsage|ToB|15|Skirmisher|MAD|-|Yes|Yes|-|Yes|-
Totemist|MoI|29|Other|MAD|Yes|Yes|Yes|-|-|-
Truenamer|TM|198|Caster|DAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|Yes
Warblade|ToB|20|Warrior|MAD|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|-|-
Warlock|CAr|5|Other|DAD|-|Yes|-|-|-|Yes
Warmage|CAr|10|Caster|DAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|Yes
Wilder|XPH|29|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|-|-|Yes
Wizard|PHB|55|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|-
Wu Jen|CAr|14|Caster|SAD|-|-|-|Yes|-|-[/table]
{table]Total|12 SAD, 19 DAD, 19 MAD|17|15|22|17|15|24[/table]

Post any errors here, and they will be fixed.

Edit: Table slightly shrunken.
Edit 2: Total Row Added.
Edit 3: Archivist Fixed!
Edit 4: An Additional Table. Looks Clunky though. It will also have errors.
Edit 5: Huge Changes! Table 2 Deleted, Table 1 Changed Drastically, new description, Etc.
Edit 6: Moved the table row out cause it was annoying.

[Icewalker]

Er, what do SAD, MAD and DAD stand for?

Handy table though. Good to look through if you are rolling separately for stats and need to find a suitable class.

[Gralamin]

Er, what do SAD, MAD and DAD stand for?

Handy table though. Good to look through if you are rolling separately for stats and need to find a suitable class.

Single Attribute Dependency
Multiple Attribute Dependency
Dual Attribute Dependency

[triforcel]

I must say that I'm surprised to see Charisma as the most shared state. But then again I haven't read about half those classes.

[Jack Mann]

Archivist is a dual-ability caster. He uses wisdom to determine his bonus spells.

[Gralamin]

I must say that I'm surprised to see Charisma as the most shared state. But then again I haven't read about half those classes.

I Was also surprised to find Half the Base Classes that I know of use Charisma, honestly.

Edit: Thanks Jack. Fixing.

[BardicDuelist]

This is really useful. Getting bookmarked.

[0oo0]

is there a way to point out how dependent on MA a class is? I say this because both Monk and Crusader are MAD by your table, but monks are usually thought of as too MAD to really function, while from what i've read here (I don't have the book) Crusaders are well balanced good characters. Would bringing up VAD (variable ability dependency) again work or would it make things needlessly complex? A rogue would like a good Dex, Int, and Cha, but can be made into a viable character that just focuses on one or two of the stats. A monk can't really do this. Anyone have a input? or does this as good as we can get?

[Gralamin]

is there a way to point out how dependent on MA a class is? I say this because both Monk and Crusader are MAD by your table, but monks are usually thought of as too MAD to really function, while from what i've read here (I don't have the book) Crusaders are well balanced good characters. Would bringing up VAD (variable ability dependency) again work or would it make things needlessly complex? A rogue would like a good Dex, Int, and Cha, but can be made into a viable character that just focuses on one or two of the stats. A monk can't really do this. Anyone have a input? or does this as good as we can get?

Good Question. I do not know of a way to do this without over complicating it, But I can make a note that some of these abilities may be unneeded for all builds (like a fighter with Dex), and that some classes are more severely MAD.

Or I could rate each skill 1 to 6, and Leaving a * by those that are "Pick One"
Hmm.

[Tor the Fallen]

Maybe just put an asterisk next to any attributes that aren't absolutely necessary; knights and fighters don't need dex as much as the monk, as they can wear chunky armor.

[Exarch]

Unless I missed something, shouldn't the beguiler be SAD? His spells and spell DCs are based off of Int, and Dex isn't anymore important to him than any other full caster.

Cleric also depends on Charisma for his Turn Undead. And why does the Paladin need Dex, but not the Fighter? Not to mention, as sad as the Truenamer is, doesn't it only need Int?

[Kurald Galain]

is there a way to point out how dependent on MA a class is? I say this because both Monk and Crusader are MAD by your table, but monks are usually thought of as too MAD to really function,
That's because a crusader has good class abilities, whereas a monk has crappy ones. Furthermore, there's a difference between "has class abilities depending on this stat" (e.g. crusader, paladin) and "desperately needs this stat to be high in order to function (e.g. wizard, monk).


Would bringing up VAD (variable ability dependency) again work or would it make things needlessly complex?
Imho, yes - even the distinction between DAD and MAD is pushing it.
Aside from that, I think that any class with d4 hit points should be considered dependent on constitution.

I believe the artificer and binder qualify as casters (at least, in play style). Factotum plays like a skill monkey, imo. Spellthief is a skirmisher, most of the time. I'm not really sure where to put warlock and dragonfire adept, I suppose it depends on your invocations.

[Gralamin]

Good Question. I do not know of a way to do this without over complicating it, But I can make a note that some of these abilities may be unneeded for all builds (like a fighter with Dex), and that some classes are more severely MAD.

Or I could rate each skill 1 to 6, and Leaving a * by those that are "Pick One"
Hmm.

I Put up the second table, but I don't Really like it, as it depends too much on what you are trying to do.


Unless I missed something, shouldn't the beguiler be SAD? His spells and spell DCs are based off of Int, and Dex isn't anymore important to him than any other full caster.

Cleric also depends on Charisma for his Turn Undead. And why does the Paladin need Dex, but not the Fighter?
Good Point. Will be Fixed Promptly

Not to mention, as sad as the Truenamer is, doesn't it only need Int?
Nope, Its save DC's are built off Charisma.


That's because a crusader has good class abilities, whereas a monk has crappy ones. Furthermore, there's a difference between "has class abilities depending on this stat" (e.g. crusader, paladin) and "desperately needs this stat to be high in order to function (e.g. wizard, monk).


Imho, yes - even the distinction between DAD and MAD is pushing it.
Aside from that, I think that any class with d4 hit points should be considered dependent on constitution.

I believe the artificer and binder qualify as casters (at least, in play style). Factotum plays like a skill monkey, imo. Spellthief is a skirmisher, most of the time. I'm not really sure where to put warlock and dragonfire adept, I suppose it depends on your invocations.

While Constitution is usually a good idea, by no means is it needed for play.
As for your other ideas, I'll put them in.

See any other Mistakes? Just yell at me!

[Anxe]

That's supercool. And for my complaint. Don't Monks need Charisma for their Lay on Hands?

[Gralamin]

That's supercool. And for my complaint. Don't Monks need Charisma for their Lay on Hands?

Since when did Monks have Lay on Hands? Wholeness of Body doesn't require an attribute.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh, I just thought of something... what is the definition between a "half-caster" and a "gish"?

I suppose the paladin and ranger don't fit the usual definition of "gish" (although they are more warrior and skirmisher, respectively, than half-casters). However, a hexblade is most definitely a gish, and so is a psywar, and iirc the lurk as well.

And if the dragon shaman is a commander, why isn't the bard?

(edit) I'd say ninja is a skirmisher as well. I realize one can't pigeonhole everything, but creating a role title that only one class fits into is kind of impractical.

[Anxe]

Since when did Monks have Lay on Hands? Wholeness of Body doesn't require an attribute.

Oh my bad. Thought it was called Lay On Hands. And that it was based off charisma. Sorry. I'm gonna go hide in my cave of shame now.

[Kurobara]

I think bard should get a **. Depending on your focus, it's entirely possible to get a bard with a Charisma-only requirement (casting or dual casting/music focus) or even barely any if you focus on music really hard - most of that goes off of Perform ranks or checks, which you can get pretty decent even without a good Charisma. Sure, they make decent skill-monkeys, but they don't necessarily have to be.

[Gralamin]

Oh, I just thought of something... what is the definition between a "half-caster" and a "gish"?

I suppose the paladin and ranger don't fit the usual definition of "gish" (although they are more warrior and skirmisher, respectively, than half-casters). However, a hexblade is most definitely a gish, and so is a psywar, and iirc the lurk as well.

And if the dragon shaman is a commander, why isn't the bard?

Good to have you around finding my mistakes.

Warrior and Skirmisher does fit better, and Bard should be a commander.

According the sticky Gish means

Gish: A fighter/wizard multiclass character, specifically one capable of casting higher level spells and surviving melee combat. May also be broadened to refer to any combination of warrior/arcane (or psionic caster) classes. Hybrid classes such as bards, duskblades, hexblades, and psychic warriors are generally not considered examples (multiclass characters only). Originates from the term for a Githyanki war wizard (in 2e, a fighter/wizard or rogue/wizard).
Which is something I don't agree with. I personally would say that the Bard is not a Gish, though a Duskblade, hexblade, and psychic warrior is. Does that make any sense? I'm unsure how to word it.

The Half caster on the other hand is classes like the Ranger and Paladin. They have spells, but they are just sort of there. They are the types who you can forget they had spells easily, and most of the times find their spells of a little to no use.

So I guess I consider a Gish something that has casting as a main ability, for the purpose of enhancing the Fighting aspect.


I think bard should get a **. Depending on your focus, it's entirely possible to get a bard with a Charisma-only requirement (casting or dual casting/music focus) or even barely any if you focus on music really hard - most of that goes off of Perform ranks or checks, which you can get pretty decent even without a good Charisma. Sure, they make decent skill-monkeys, but they don't necessarily have to be.

Good point. Bard is the only core class that I'm not very good with :smallbiggrin:

[Anxe]

Basically to be a Gish the character has to have something in its classes' names associated with swords or fighting.

[deadseashoals]

Why are Psychic Warriors dependent upon Dex? They don't seem any more dependent on Dex than a fighter, given that they have similar roles and armor proficiencies.

[Fizban]

Basically to be a Gish the character has to have something in its classes' names associated with swords or fighting.
I disagree. From what I know, the term gish originated in 2nd ed, used for githyanki fighter/wizards. Nowadays from what I've seen it applies to making a caster that can survive in melee, but still cast almost as good as normal. Mechanically, this means raising hp and BAB, while only losing 2-4 whole spellcasting levels. It almost by definition requires multiclassing.

Duskblade can be a gish, though his spells are mostly blasting, and so won't be as powerful as a normal wiz/sor gish. The Hexblade is a half caster: his spells don't do enough to really be useful when compared to a full caster, and his caster level is based off of 1/2 his class level. A Hexblade's spells are minor abilities that come in handy, but are not his main feature.

I'm not really sure how to classify a Psychic Warrior, but gish works well enough. Most gishes focus on buffing and utility spells, and the powers on the Psychic Warrior list do that very well.

[Gralamin]

I disagree. From what I know, the term gish originated in 2nd ed, used for githyanki fighter/wizards. Nowadays from what I've seen it applies to making a caster that can survive in melee, but still cast almost as good as normal. Mechanically, this means raising hp and BAB, while only losing 2-4 whole spellcasting levels. It almost by definition requires multiclassing.

Duskblade can be a gish, though his spells are mostly blasting, and so won't be as powerful as a normal wiz/sor gish. The Hexblade is a half caster: his spells don't do enough to really be useful when compared to a full caster, and his caster level is based off of 1/2 his class level. A Hexblade's spells are minor abilities that come in handy, but are not his main feature.

I'm not really sure how to classify a Psychic Warrior, but gish works well enough. Most gishes focus on buffing and utility spells, and the powers on the Psychic Warrior list do that very well.

I agree with your idea of what a gish is. Though I consider a Hexblade a gish, as it is said that a duskblade does everything a Hexblade does better.

[shadowdemon_lord]

For the record, I think every class in the game should have a high con. Save or Die spells are almost exclusively fort saves, and lots and lots of things can do raw damage at range ignoring cover, having HP's is just good, cause blaster casters with the proper metamagic feats in combination with archers can really drop casters fast if they don't have such great HP's.

[0oo0]

Another random idea that may or may not work here would be to give each archetype certain abilities that help them function in their role, and then give each specific class their own AD based off what directly effects class abilities.

I was thinking something like
Warriors: Con, Str, Dex
Caster: Primary caster stat, Con
Skirmisher: Dex

Just basically says what abilities serve anyone in that roll well, while each class gets a more specific description as to which stats you should focus on. I'm not sure how well this would work, or if there would be too much overlap for this to be viable. Just a thought.

[Dhavaer]

Why is Shadowcaster listed as Wisdom dependant?

[OneWinged4ngel]

1) What's the point of this listing? Seriously, I don't get what purpose it's supposed to serve other than "just cuz." What useful purpose does a labeled index of what category of attribute dependency you think x class is serve? I really can't think of anything.

2) It's wrong. For all that you list so many classes as needing or "wanting, but not necessarily needing" attributes, in MANY of the cases you actually list stuff that you'd be perfectly fine not investing much in or even dumping (indeed, many artificers trash their charisma, and the Artificer's guide tells you not to invest in it for a reason. They seriously want things like Dex more.) as indispensable.

3) It's wrong in yet another way: attribute dependency depends as much on build as class. An archer fighter, for example, is usually going to depend largely on his dexterity. A warrior cleric may focus on Strength more than Charisma. A grapplemancer wizard will want to raise his strength. A carmendine monk will want more int. Many swordsages are going to want strength. And so on and so forth. When you get down to making a table of "in what order things are useful", that just goes even further towards presenting the utterly false notion that class (as opposed to build) determines what ability scores you should invest in.

[kjones]

Good table, but why do you have a category of "Healer" when the only class in that category is, um, the Healer? Just call him a "caster".

[Indon]

I think the Monk should get an Asterisk for Strength, as a monk can be focused around Dex/Wisdom in combat.

I also think the Scout should be listed as Int*, for the same reason as the bard and rogue; the Scout has a long skill list and I feel they qualify as skill monkeys at least as much as the Bard does.

[Miraqariftsky]

Oh my bad. Thought it was called Lay On Hands. And that it was based off charisma. Sorry. I'm gonna go hide in my cave of shame now.

If'n I don't offend, methinks ye were referring to the Paladin's Lay On Hands ability.

[PnP Fan]

For Angel: The first thought I had when I saw this table was that it would be useful for determining effective multi-classing options, to pair classes that have the same types of attribute dependancy, so as to avoid a character who is so MAD, that he requires 5 or 6 good attributes to be effective.

You are correct, there are builds that tend to focus on one group of attributes over others, so you can certainly make that dex/int fighter, instead of a power attacking monster with a crazy strength, and this table fails to account for that.

However, there are classes like the cleric or paladin, who have special abilities that are directly tied to an attribute (wis and cha in these cases), and this table could be used to locate those specific dependancies.

Of course, when you start including class variants (urban ranger, divine paladin), some of that is bound to change too.

So, in short, I think that's what the INTENT of the chart is, I'm not sure how well it actually accomplishes that goal though.

[Aquillion]

I must say that I'm surprised to see Charisma as the most shared state. But then again I haven't read about half those classes.Because Charisma is a stat with relatively few uses otherwise. Almost everyone can benefit from at least a little con, dex, and wis, for saves if nothing else; more skill points from int never hurts, while even for a non-melee class, str will at least add carrying capacity.

Charisma, though? You need, at most, one person in your entire group with high charisma. Otherwise, everyone else could just take a 3 with only the occasional problem. Hence, Charisma is a popular stat for classes to depend on, just to give more people a reason to have it.


I think the Monk should get an Asterisk for Strength, as a monk can be focused around Dex/Wisdom in combat.No. Not without something to add Dex or Wisdom to hit, at least, which goes outside the scope of the table (with that, lots of classes can reduce or eliminate their Str dependency). Otherwise, monks are one of the most Str-dependant classes in the game-- since they're a melee class with 3/4 BAB, they need Str to make up the difference, even moreso than (say) a Barbarian needs it. A Barbarian with somewhat low Str is weakened, sure, but a monk with somewhat low Str can't hit at all. Even if you're just making a Stunning Fist monk (which has severe limits), you still have to be able to hit for Stunning Fist to work.

I think the table gets Con dependency wrong, though... It seems to be written with the assumption that all melee builds must give Con top priority, and nobody else should. Sure, anyone can benefit from Con, but the classes who need it most are the ones with small HD (especially melee classes with small HD). A fighter wants con, yes, but they have decent HD and a good fort save already. I would say that con is more important to a rogue, even, since rogues don't have high Fort saves otherwise, have a small HD, yet need to get close to use Sneak Attack... it depends how the rogue in question is being played, yeah, but generally.

Con is also the second-most important stat for a lot of otherwise SAD classes... no matter how well you play your wizard, you'll take damage eventually. You don't want to be left with just your D4s when that happens.

[Gralamin]

Another random idea that may or may not work here would be to give each archetype certain abilities that help them function in their role, and then give each specific class their own AD based off what directly effects class abilities.

I was thinking something like
Warriors: Con, Str, Dex
Caster: Primary caster stat, Con
Skirmisher: Dex

Just basically says what abilities serve anyone in that roll well, while each class gets a more specific description as to which stats you should focus on. I'm not sure how well this would work, or if there would be too much overlap for this to be viable. Just a thought.

Thats a good Idea actually consider it stolen. The table will be trimmed down accordingly.


Why is Shadowcaster listed as Wisdom dependant?

Apparently its useful for scrying based classes. I'll drop it though.


1) What's the point of this listing? Seriously, I don't get what purpose it's supposed to serve other than "just cuz." What useful purpose does a labeled index of what category of attribute dependency you think x class is serve? I really can't think of anything.
Multi-classing mostly, as well as gestalt. Not all of us also remember that The Truenamer needs Charisma off of our heads also, and can just serve as a reference.
Its like having a description for each term as it comes in a rulebook, and a glossary in the back. This would be the Glossary, while the "Abilities" section of the class description would be the Term's description.


2) It's wrong.
Stop there and read the first post.

The table will contain Errors, as I am not familiar with all these classes, and thus have only read their "Abilities" section.


For all that you list so many classes as needing or "wanting, but not necessarily needing" attributes, in MANY of the cases you actually list stuff that you'd be perfectly fine not investing much in or even dumping (indeed, many artificers trash their charisma, and the Artificer's guide tells you not to invest in it for a reason. They seriously want things like Dex more.) as indispensable.
While true, the Artificer's Handbook is just one way for it to work. You can get pretty high UMD with charisma, if your build is focused that way and you have Marshal 1 for example. I'm also trimming it down to essentials, as well as listing Stats that are good for the Archetype, but not necessarily needed in separate Descriptions.


3) It's wrong in yet another way: attribute dependency depends as much on build as class. An archer fighter, for example, is usually going to depend largely on his dexterity. A warrior cleric may focus on Strength more than Charisma. A grapplemancer wizard will want to raise his strength. A carmendine monk will want more int. Many swordsages are going to want strength. And so on and so forth. When you get down to making a table of "in what order things are useful", that just goes even further towards presenting the utterly false notion that class (as opposed to build) determines what ability scores you should invest in.
Builds are beyond the scope of this table. A Build can drastically alter the way a class is played, and what is needed. This is a general description of what the class uses for its class abilities. As I said Above, the table is being fixed, and it is in "Beta" if you like.
Would it make it better if I put "This Index Focuses on what attributes need to be high for class to get the 'best' use out of its class features. Some, or all of these might be eliminated depending on the build."?


Good table, but why do you have a category of "Healer" when the only class in that category is, um, the Healer? Just call him a "caster".

The Healer would be a caster, I might just shove it into other though, because I am very hesitant to call it a Healer.


I think the Monk should get an Asterisk for Strength, as a monk can be focused around Dex/Wisdom in combat.

I also think the Scout should be listed as Int*, for the same reason as the bard and rogue; the Scout has a long skill list and I feel they qualify as skill monkeys at least as much as the Bard does.

While true, I am as I said improving the table, and hopefully eliminating these problems.


For Angel: The first thought I had when I saw this table was that it would be useful for determining effective multi-classing options, to pair classes that have the same types of attribute dependancy, so as to avoid a character who is so MAD, that he requires 5 or 6 good attributes to be effective.

You are correct, there are builds that tend to focus on one group of attributes over others, so you can certainly make that dex/int fighter, instead of a power attacking monster with a crazy strength, and this table fails to account for that.

However, there are classes like the cleric or paladin, who have special abilities that are directly tied to an attribute (wis and cha in these cases), and this table could be used to locate those specific dependancies.

Of course, when you start including class variants (urban ranger, divine paladin), some of that is bound to change too.

So, in short, I think that's what the INTENT of the chart is, I'm not sure how well it actually accomplishes that goal though.

I've labeled my Intent above. For the Dex/INT Fighter, thats a build that goes beyond the scope of the general purpose of this thread. I can say that a Fighter Generally requires Strength. Saying that a Fighter need not take Strength is beyond this thread's scope.


Because Charisma is a stat with relatively few uses otherwise. Almost everyone can benefit from at least a little con, dex, and wis, for saves if nothing else; more skill points from int never hurts, while even for a non-melee class, str will at least add carrying capacity.

Charisma, though? You need, at most, one person in your entire group with high charisma. Otherwise, everyone else could just take a 3 with only the occasional problem. Hence, Charisma is a popular stat for classes to depend on, just to give more people a reason to have it.
It does make sense, It was just surprising as I honestly didn't believe there was that many.


No. Not without something to add Dex or Wisdom to hit, at least, which goes outside the scope of the table (with that, lots of classes can reduce or eliminate their Str dependency). Otherwise, monks are one of the most Str-dependant classes in the game-- since they're a melee class with 3/4 BAB, they need Str to make up the difference, even moreso than (say) a Barbarian needs it. A Barbarian with somewhat low Str is weakened, sure, but a monk with somewhat low Str can't hit at all. Even if you're just making a Stunning Fist monk (which has severe limits), you still have to be able to hit for Stunning Fist to work.
Good thing someone else out there represents Scope.


I think the table gets Con dependency wrong, though... It seems to be written with the assumption that all melee builds must give Con top priority, and nobody else should. Sure, anyone can benefit from Con, but the classes who need it most are the ones with small HD (especially melee classes with small HD). A fighter wants con, yes, but they have decent HD and a good fort save already. I would say that con is more important to a rogue, even, since rogues don't have high Fort saves otherwise, have a small HD, yet need to get close to use Sneak Attack... it depends how the rogue in question is being played, yeah, but generally.

Con is also the second-most important stat for a lot of otherwise SAD classes... no matter how well you play your wizard, you'll take damage eventually. You don't want to be left with just your D4s when that happens.
As I said, Improving table, will be trimmed, etc.

[cupkeyk]

Bards aren't commanders the same way that factota aren't, they can opt to fill one of several roles in the party.

Artificers need charisma because many of their class abilities rely on UMD.

[Gralamin]

Bards aren't commanders the same way that factota aren't, they can opt to fill one of several roles in the party.
No. Bards are Commanders, due to their music. Combine that with their job as Party Face, and the fact they are alright combatants and spellcasters, then you can see the Commander aspect. A Factotum is a Jack of All trades. A Bard pretends to be one.


Artificers need charisma because many of their class abilities rely on UMD.
Charisma's only useful to an Artificer if his build is focusing on Charisma anyway. Otherwise it is unneeded.

[Quincunx]

Handy! I was thinking of the consequences of tweaking stat generation in favor of MAD characters--

1d8+8 for SAD characters: Caps at 16 at creation, but suffers far less from the possible negative ability modifier
1d8+10 for DAD
1d10+10 for MAD

--but didn't have a reference for which classes would get which bonus. Now I do!

[Ne0]

Are there really any classes to which Con is not important? Apart from maybe a couple that were specifically designed around not being dependant on HP or something like that (which seems highly unlikely to me)... :smallconfused:

[Zincorium]

Are there really any classes to which Con is not important? Apart from maybe a couple that were specifically designed around not being dependant on HP or something like that (which seems highly unlikely to me)... :smallconfused:

Dread necromancer...if you're starting at level 20. Green star adept, under similar conditions for the same reasons.

Essentially, there are no classes that retain their con which aren't better off having a high score. It's just less fatal for some of them than others.

[namo]

Nice table ! I made a similar one for myself some time ago... then lost it.

Of course, some things tick me off, but there has to be a measure of arbitrary - most classes are too complex to be labeled easily in the first place.

I don't see Binders as casters, but it's hard to fit them in any of your categories. Perhaps "Other" would be better.

[Gralamin]

Ne0: Con is important yes, and thats why its listed in the class type description for every class type.


Nice table ! I made a similar one for myself some time ago... then lost it.

Of course, some things tick me off, but there has to be a measure of arbitrary - most classes are too complex to be labeled easily in the first place.

I don't see Binders as casters, but it's hard to fit them in any of your categories. Perhaps "Other" would be better.

I was told to move them to casters earlier in the thread.

[namo]

I was told to move them to casters earlier in the thread.

Yeah, he's wrong. :smallwink: "Others" is better, they can be very competent meleers from low to mid-levels.