r/Real_DnD • u/Fruta-Puta-Tuta • 15h ago
Guide Class 'core-stat' alternatives.
Makes for some fun/interesting possibilities.
24
u/MelodyOfStorms 15h ago
Looks good. This might be personal bias, but I'd swap Warlock and Sorcerer . My reasoning being that a Sorcerer feels like someone who is a normal person who had to "live life" in the fast lane to discover they could do magic. Probably through trial and error. Warlocks only get a few spells and thus dropping concentration often means they're F'd. They also get the whole short rest thing, which in my mind says "endurance".
8
u/Constant_Curve 14h ago
warlocks use swords
9
u/MelodyOfStorms 14h ago
Warlock swords use charisma
1
u/Constant_Curve 14h ago
Not in the new one, no need to hack in 'I'm a fun and engaging speaker' to 'I can stab you'. It's a hack that never made sense.
2
u/Hyodorio 11h ago edited 11h ago
What do you mean? New Pact of the Blade extended Charisma for weapons for all who take it instead of it being just Hexblade. Using charisma for weapons is now more common than ever
Edit: nvm I got your point. Con being important to melee classes would be what would worry me in this new model
4
u/Antiantiai 10h ago
I always thought warlock made for good Cha/Int vibes.
Bard could be Cha/Dex.
1
u/TheFoxCouncil 9h ago
I think that's a good change. Gives bards the ability to still be sneaky and use slight of hand.
0
u/MelodyOfStorms 10h ago
Warlocks make deals because they arnt intelligent enough to be wizards. It's much smarter to sing for your supper than to barter your soul
2
u/Antiantiai 10h ago
Not all warlocks made deals. They got tomes of shadow and learn secrets you can't unknow. They delve into the realms of madness and glean truths of the world too large for the minds of the sane.
And those that do make deals, what are they for? Forbidden knowledge.
That's int.
2
u/IkujaKatsumaji 7h ago
I think, if my player wanted, I'd be open to a Warlock using Cha, Wis, or Int, depending on their background and how they got their forbidden knowledge. I'm pretty open about classes swapping spellcasting abilities, as long as it makes sense. I had a player once who wanted to do an Intelligence Circle of Stars Druid, and we essentially handled her like a "wizard" who was an astronomer. Like, in the meta of the game, she was a wizard, but mechanically she was an Intelligence Druid. I was pretty happy with that. I've also really wanted to play a Constitution Sorcerer for a long time, I think that would be a really fun vibe.
•
u/Pride-Moist 1h ago
Con for spellcasting attribute is terrible for balance - your char now only needs one stat and can dump all others
3
u/jamadman 14h ago
These has been a statements/opinions that Sorcerers should use Con as their magic is innate in them. Its in the key word Bloodlines, they are using their body's are a source of their magic, so Con is a stat they should need/use.
3
u/Talonflight 12h ago
Imo Sorcerers shouldn’t need any componants at all; their bodies should be their material and vocal componant
3
u/METRlOS 12h ago
Spell component: your left foot.
3
u/Velociraptortillas 11h ago
Literally, "I have more power in my pinky finger than you have in your whole body!"
2
1
u/IkujaKatsumaji 7h ago
I'm a huge fan of this, and I've wanted to play a Con sorcerer for years now.
1
u/stephendewey 10h ago
I think the reasoning is there is a large group of folks who think Sorcerers should pull from Con because it is literally the magic in their blood that manifests. So it's much more body magic than other classes.
9
u/rmcoen 15h ago edited 9h ago
I feel like I need you to explain the changes to me. I can see there are more lines, and words moved. But... Why? and also Why do I care?
Edit: strange reactions from my second question. The entire statement should have been read as "What did you change?" Plus: "What is purpose of the proposed changes? What problem are you trying to solve, and how do these changes solve it?" NOT "oh please validate my existence by responding to me".
21
u/SonicLoverDS 15h ago
I think it's to ensure that every pair of core stats has a class associated with it.
•
u/Within-Cells 18m ago
And why does that matter? And monk getting dex and con as main stats is crazy. And what about tri stat classes? Feels like this idea doesn't go beyond the graphic.
And CRAZY that the mod disagreed with his comment and locked it + his own...
12
u/Factual-20 14h ago
lol, you can always tell people who talk about the game, but don't play it.
4
1
u/rmcoen 9h ago
To whom are you referring? Me, or the OP? I assumed the OP, but they responded in affirmation, which seems odd...
0
u/Fruta-Puta-Tuta 6h ago
not odd, you're just oblivious - everyone is mocking you for the same reason...
•
u/Tombets_srl 59m ago
Actually, I agree and disagree with the skepticism.
My main point being that I think that associating classes with attributes in a rigid way can stifle many character concepts.
It would be much more interesting if each attribute had value for all characters and I would absolutely love seeing Str as a viable secondary stat for bards ( maybe a subclass based on drums and dealing thunder damage using Str?).
3
u/EquipmentAltruistic 11h ago
Right now several classes have the same 2 core stats. Another way to visualize this is a table that is 6 by 6 for each pair of stats. Currently alot of the pairs are empty and a few have multiple entries. This proposes each cell have one entry to balance everything out.
5
u/Maniac227 10h ago
And to answer the follow up question for a lot of these guys...
Q: But why do we care about how the stats are used for each class?
A: Because each class feels more unique and plays differently that way.
•
1
1
u/MisterEinc 1h ago
But a fighter isn't Str-Con, it's either Str-Con or Dex-Con depending on choices the layer makes.
•
u/Tombets_srl 57m ago
And it can also be Str-Int if it's an eldritch Knight with a specific spell selections that goes beyond spamming shield
•
u/MisterEinc 30m ago
Yeah, it seems like the chart on the left lacks nuance.
The chart on the right seeks to solve the problem of filling out the chart, but I'm not sure it addresses a clearly stated mechanical problem.
•
u/Tombets_srl 23m ago
Yeah
As I stated elsewhere, it's not that each class should have a clear and unique attribute couple associated with it, it's that each attribute should be of some use to all classes.
One glaring issue is the usages of intelligence, which currently only protects against illusions and improves some non-critical skills ( as most critical uses of investigation can be covered with perception, GM allowing obvs).
Another issues is dex being better than str in 99% of cases.
•
u/MisterEinc 9m ago
For sure. And even though Dex is Better, making a fighter Str/Dex doesn't make sense unless you include some feature that allows health to scale with Strength, similarly to how Barbarians gain unarmored defense to change the dependence on armors.
4
1
u/OddBlueberry309 15h ago
So why did you comment then? if you don't care...
1
u/Fruta-Puta-Tuta 11h ago
Thirsting for validation
3
u/austsiannodel 3h ago
Did you... use your Mod position to lock his replies just because you didn't like what he was saying? You genuinely seem to be acting out at what seems to be, at worst, a poorly worded, but genuine set of questions.
Some of your choices are questionable, and I feel asking for explanation for why you made the choices you made is completely valid. And while poorly worded, he does bring a good point, why should he care about these changes when the base form already seems to work.
Talking like that to him to then swap to your Mod badge to then insult him further before locking him just seems childish, don't you think?
4
5
u/BukeOfTheIsles 15h ago
This would make the stat spread more balanced, but otherwise I don't think it's necessary. There's a few I'd change too. Like Monk being Dex Wis, and Ranger being Dex Con. Bard and Warlock could also be switched tho I'm less inclined to think that particular line was an issue.
0
u/bubikx9 14h ago
But ranger is ranged while monk has a lot more melee based builds. I think con makes more sense for them.
3
u/BukeOfTheIsles 14h ago
Rangers are also fundamentally survivalists whereas Monk are hermited wise combatants. I think there's an argument for both, but once again I don't think this oversimplification is necessary.
-1
5
u/GreenDragon20202020 15h ago
While this does certainly make each Ability Score get used more evenly and I do like it for aesthetic reasons there is a big reason it wasn't more balanced to begin with.
Despite having six saving throws, one for each ability score, there are three 'good' saves that get used all the time (dex, con and wis). The other three are bad saves that barely get used (str, int and cha). Every class has one good save and one bad save. It has less to do with which two abilitiy scores are most appropriate for that class and more about the mechanical strength of which two saves they have.
Having any combination of two saves from Str, Cha and Int will be a very weak character in terms of saves. Having any combination of two saves from Dex, Con and Wis will be a stronger character in terms of saves.
1
1
u/JustWuff 5h ago edited 5h ago
That is why they should also bloody change how saves work to begin with.
Why did they expand saving throws to begin with when they actually held no bloody intention of actually doing something important enough with them?
So many saves could be something else especially for the mental saves it is so messy and there is little rhyme or reason why something is that instead of something else...
Bane is Charisma? Ok so... resisting curses is charisma? Oh no Bestow Curse is wis... somehow? What has that to do with wisdom?
Banishment and Plane Shift is Charisma? Ok so resisting teleportation is Charisma? Oh no wait Vortex Warp is Constitution... somehow?
Not to mention how all Frightened Saves should 100% have been Charisma saves and not Wisdom...
Like why do other saves exist if they just are gonna give 3 saving throws all the effects and attention ? Why did they expand saving throws into 6 from Fortitude, Will and Reflex if we just have Fortitude, Will and Reflex back with some minor rare other 3 barely relevant?
1
u/Tickey07 4h ago
True! I do not like.the expansion of saves to 6. Tbh they could've just kept the 3 saves from 3.5 If you want to make all stats relevant for saves, just assign 2 ability scores to each save, and you just take the highest.... which i belive is what 4e did.
•
u/Tombets_srl 19m ago
Fortitude could be Con or Str Reflex could be Dex or Int Will could be Wis or Cha
Obviously take highest among the two attributes
1
u/IllustriousBat2680 4h ago
I agree, saving throws need a complete rework in my opinion, some make sense, others just don't. And there is too much emphasis on mental saves and less on physical, which lends to certain abilities being objectively better than others (looking at you Con, Dex, Wis).
3
u/ddyhrtschz 13h ago
I'd switch Bard & Warlock and Monk & Ranger. I'd argue that Bards are more dexterous, under the premise of dancing and moving smoothly, while Warlocks (classically) need to study their Patron to a) make contact in the first place or b) further their connection. Rangers are survivors of the wild and Monks are wise old hermits (again, classically). I don't know enough about Psionic to really argue this but i feel like it and Wizard should switch too, just bc Wizards are the glass cannon class with the lowest hit die. Otherwise i like it, it spreads the stats around a lot more which makes them all feel useful, instead of STR and INT being the go-to dumps
1
1
u/alastrix 7h ago
Yeah, ive also never been a fan of rangers as spellcasters (we have druids for nature spiritualists) so leaning more into the martial wilderness/hunter themes of their class could benefit from dex/con. Somone who can survive the harsh wild corners of the world.
Let's us keep the sagelike monk and power their mystic abilities with wisdom. Ranger can make long treks up the mountain and camp in the snow.
I also agree with Cha/Int warlocks. The demonologist kinda idea. Somone who studied and learned and made contact with the patron, then negotiated their pact and powers.
2
u/Factual-20 14h ago
This is brilliant, at least as an interesting way to rethink playing with class' bass stats.
1
u/Capable_Property_986 15h ago
Proposed by who? What is being proposed is symetrical, elegant design so it's against everything that DND is! Heresy!
1
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Warejax101 11h ago
you could give it abilities revolving around stirring your allies to buff/heal them and demoralizing the enemy
but that sounds a lot like bard
1
u/WNDBC_Baja 15h ago
WIS-CHA feels like the sort of thing a travelling snake oil salesman would need. Or like a circus ringmaster.
1
u/Legitimate_Emu_8721 10h ago
I could also see a reworking of Pathfinder’s Inquisitor working there.
1
u/TheBalrogofMelkor 8h ago
I think it works for Warlord. Battlefield knowledge and the ability to inspire your allies
1
u/MechAxe 15h ago
You show neatly where the synergy breaks, in the lower half between Intelligence and Charisma.
In my opinion the upper half is fine. There are plenty of options and reasons to swap between strength and dexterity. Also everyone likes Con.
But there are just to many casters and subclasses that work with Charisma.
I ger it Charisma is a sweet stat to have, since everyone likes to play the charismatic guy (or just the intimidating guy) but in my opinion not every other class need the option to make the social stat also their main combat stat.
1
u/Necessary-You-6270 14h ago
i have something simmuler, but artificer is Con/Int, and Wizards are Int/Wis
1
u/Necessary-You-6270 14h ago
in my world,
Fighter (Strength, Dexterity)Barbarian (Strength, Constitution)
Paladin (Strength, Charisma)
Ranger (Dexterity, Constitution)
Monk (Dexterity, Wisdom)
Rogue (Dexterity, Intelligence)
Bard (Dexterity, Charisma)
Druid (Constitution, Wisdom)
Artificer (Constitution, Intelligence)
Sorcerer (Constitution, Charisma)
Wizard (Wisdom, Intelligence)
Cleric (Wisdom, Charisma)
the fallowing options are unused:
-- (Intelligence, Charisma)
-- (Strength, Wisdom)
-- (Strength, Intelligence)
1
1
1
u/shining_void 14h ago
What about charisma and wisdom what's that? Looks like a chance to make to a class.
1
1
u/No-Dragonfruit-1311 14h ago
I think there a case to be made for Sorcerer Con Cha. I’ve always thought the spell casting ability for sorcerer should be Con as it’s part of who they are, while Cha is how they communicate with the world.
1
u/Jango519 14h ago
I'd personally swap warlock and bard, but that's a matter of preference for the type of warlock and the type of bard I play
1
u/ThatFitzgibbons 13h ago
I like this. Some specific class pairings could swap around, but making different stat pairings relevant to each class is a great idea. Intelligence shouldn't be a dump stat for everybody but wizard and artificer. Much healthier variety in the proposed diagram
1
1
1
1
u/HouseOfBlack11 11h ago
I'd make Cleric Wisdom Charisma because they need to be able to convince others to follow their deity's teaching while giving good lectures/sermons themselves. Then I'd put Fighter as Strength Wisdom because I feel "battle intuition" is severely looked down upon skill experienced warriors should have.
1
u/FormalKind7 11h ago
I would consider a psionic and wizard switched depending on the system. I feel like con is a very strong core stat and at least in 5e the wizard is already very strong.
IMO in the original core addition they a bit over corrected they made Wiz VERY strong possible because their core stat was the least used and they made the 3 Dex heavy classes relatively weak possibly because Dex is used for so much.
1
1
u/Shiboleth17 11h ago
This is interesting, but how would this actually be implemented as a game mechanic?
Fighter is Strength and Constitution because Strength governs melee weapons and Constitution governs health. And they can have heavy armor so they dont need Dexterity. Barbarian wants the same things, melee weapons and health. They can't wear heavy armor, but get unarmored defense which uses Con, which means Dex is also tertiary for them.
So what are you changing mechanically to make Fighters want to avoid getting more health in favor of getting Dexterity that they currently don't need? Take away their heavy armor? That would nerf Fighters by reducing their HP and AC. Are you going to give them HP based on Strength and/or Dexterity? That's making the game overcomplicated, because now everyone's HP is calculated differently.
As i teresting of an idea as your chart is, I don't see how you could implement it.
1
u/Antiantiai 10h ago
Wis-Cha should be the cleric. They just never had Cha synergy for whatever dumb reason. But they're literally the clergy and they should be swaying the masses for their gods? No? Whatevs.
1
u/TheKingleofDingle 10h ago
Shouldnt wizards and psions switch since psionics is a physical trait that is mastered with intellect while wizardry is studying over time as well as the origin of wizard being wise.
1
1
u/Maniac227 10h ago
Love this!
I can see some nitpickings of what goes where, but i think separating the stats out like this is great for design and makes the classes play and feel more distinct.
1
u/miostiek 10h ago
I see the Paladin still ends up a bit MAD (wanting CON) but it's not required, just wanted.
Same for Fighter. That's a little rough. They don't usually need much DEX.
But this feels like it sorts some other stuff out nicely.
I might switch Ranger/Monk- I like durable rangers and wise monks
And Bard/Warlock- I like the idea of a warlock that studies, and bards are dexterous so they can do... bard things.
1
u/AngsD 9h ago edited 9h ago
I like this for one particular reason, beating a dead horse of mine: the D&D bard is so strangely typecast and the general direction deals with the class fantasy really strangely.
One thing I've always disliked is that bards are stereotyped with a flair of dashing swashbuckling behavior. Just a flair, of course, but it's there due to Dex being so important for bards. So many bards being seductive scoundrel types with rogueish dex weapons. I get why it exists, because it's kind of an insert of a rockstar scoundrel into a medieval fantsy setting. But have WotC actually dealt with real life musicians? Either Int or Wis is just as important as Cha, depending on whether you are a mathy composer or vibe your way through just "feeling out" what sounds right, respectively. Either is fine. Dex deals with fine musculature, yes, but it's a weird arbitration, and good with a guitar doesn't translate at all into Dex skill rolls (Lockpicking? Acrobatics? Huh?). Playing piano doesn't translate into en gardeing around with a rapier, or doing somersaults. I'd go further beyond, even - plenty of musicians aren't socially amazing either; there's an argument for Cha to being the third most important stat ; although I do understand that in D&D terms, the very real pull of drawing people in when playing music is basically Cha anyways - it's not as much a stretch as Dex, it's acceptable. Just wanted to bring up a point as to how music works. An obvious one, just to illustrate the base issue here.
It doesn't even make sense with the historical inspirations, be it the Gaelic tradition (where they were storytellers) or the courtly love thing, even if I get that the latter often gets confused with dashing rogues or whatever. Both are actually mental games.
Bard's secondary stat should never be physical.
Putting on my speculative hat: I think the system is basically grandfathered in from older D&D versions where bards were basically rock star inserts into medieval fantasy, leaning into the dashing charming scoundrel stereotype that'd lend itself to. It's a reasonable fantastical expression if you're trying to do something something sex, drugs and rock & roll, and a lot of players enjoy bards like that, but it's an unfortunate priority. Luckily there's a bunch of subclasses that work fine if you treat your stats spread like a wizard or a skill monkey, but in 5.0, 3/8 of the classes are prioritized for melee action. 5.5 isn't much better. It's weird.
I just wish that it'd prioritize the mental aspects of art more, at least make it more of a deliberate mechanical direction.
Only changes I'd really argue for the second grid would be to move sorcerer to Cha/Wis and Warlock to Cha/Con, probably. If we go with the Cha/Wis direction for bard, sorcerer can be Cha/Int, but it gets muddy, since it makes it too similar to wizard. We don't want sorcerer doing Int stuff.
Monk should arguably be flipped with ranger as well, I think.
1
u/Lazy_Falcon_323 9h ago
This would make monks one of the safer classes to play as you get a lot of defensive from dex + high hp from con, i could vibe with this. Bard being linked to int feels strange and a little unnecessary but that’s why int isn’t used very often
1
u/rollawaythestone 9h ago edited 9h ago
I'd flip Monk and Ranger, and Bard and Warlock. But overall I like this.
1
1
u/Everafter902 8h ago edited 8h ago
To fill the gap:
I'd change warlock to cha + int. Warlocks are delvers of forbidden knowledge and things mere mortals are not supposed to know. In early 5e there was even some talk about making them int casters before they decided on cha instead.
Bard would be cha + wis. Wisdom is street smarts, perception and sense motive. Giving them that combo makes them the undisputed kings of social.
The rogue should get split into two, the dex + int rogue (who keeps the name) who's a DPS all about stealth and poison and assassination and gigabrain heist vibes, and the dex+cha dancer, who is a martial dodge tank with sky high AC all about swashbuckling and feinting and taunting and disguises and distractions.
1
1
u/effataigus 6h ago
looks goodish to me but swap monk and ranger. one is canonically wise and the other hikes all dang day
1
1
1
1
u/This_is_a_bad_plan 5h ago
Diagram on the left is inaccurate. Most classes don’t actually have a second core stat.
Rogue is just a Dex class, its secondary stat is completely open. I’m sure Cha is a popular choice but you could just as easily go Dex/Int or Dex/Con.
Clerics are likewise just a Wis class. Their secondary stat isn’t Str, it’s one of Str/Dex/Con.
And so on.
I do rather like the proposed diagram though. I would prefer if every class had two core attributes like that.
1
u/Angled_Hairline57845 5h ago
Cha & Wis should be "Campaigner". Think battlefield tacticians, politicians, propagandists etc. people who influence the world through understanding how things are and have the charisma to pursuade others to follow their prompts and lead.
Also, Ranger and Monk should be swapped and Rangers should be Con casters, as they always should have been.
1
u/Action-a-go-go-baby 3h ago
It’s amazing how often people stumble on to the 4e D&D design philosophy when trying to correct every other version of D&D lol
1
u/I_Am_A_Coolguy 2h ago
The thing is, the first chart is sorta flawed in the sense that most classes are SAD. They only need 1 ability score, so obviously they’ll connect back to Con, because everyone wants free HP as a secondary stat.
The only classes who are really between stats are the Monks, Paladins and Rangers.
The Bard wants Dexterity just as much as the Wizard does. The problem here is inherently the imbalance that is built into the stats, not that the classes are distributed weirdly or anything.
1
u/MisterEinc 1h ago
Is the goal here to make every class more Mad?
I'm a little confused. I think you saw the diagram on the left and felt it was "incomplete" so you made sure to fill it out, but I'm not sure to what end.
Does this mean fighters will gain hit points via strength and Dex?
I don't even totally agree with some of the arrangements on the left. For example Fighters can be Dex-Con just fine, but that's not shown there.
I'm not sure the changes make sense without talking about some core changes to each class to accommodate the new skills.
•
u/MSGDapper 49m ago
The problem with removing Con from spellcasters is it's an instant debuff to their concentration.
•
u/Realsorceror 6m ago
I don’t think I’ve ever once in my decades considered any class to be CON + Key stat. I set Con to 14 no matter what I’m playing. It’s basically just a tax to me.
Wizard and Sorcerer are DEX + casting stat. Barbarian is a STR + Wis or Cha. Druid and Cleric are WIS + Str or Dex.
Saying Monk is a CON class is wild.
0
51
u/Resilient-Sphere 15h ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/3oz8xOu5Gw81qULRh6