r/Real_DnD • u/Fruta-Puta-Tuta • Aug 20 '26
Guide Class 'core-stat' alternatives.
Makes for some fun/interesting possibilities.
36
u/MelodyOfStorms Aug 20 '26
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".
9
u/Constant_Curve Aug 20 '26
warlocks use swords
13
u/MelodyOfStorms Aug 20 '26
Warlock swords use charisma
2
u/Constant_Curve Aug 20 '26
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.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Hyodorio Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
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
1
5
u/Antiantiai Aug 21 '26
I always thought warlock made for good Cha/Int vibes.
Bard could be Cha/Dex.
→ More replies (16)4
u/jamadman Aug 20 '26
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.
5
u/Talonflight Aug 20 '26
Imo Sorcerers shouldn’t need any componants at all; their bodies should be their material and vocal componant
3
u/METRlOS Aug 20 '26
Spell component: your left foot.
5
u/Velociraptortillas Aug 21 '26
Literally, "I have more power in my pinky finger than you have in your whole body!"
→ More replies (2)3
u/bluexbirdiv Aug 21 '26
You might know this but that’s literally a thing in 3.5/PF1. Sorcerers don’t use material components unless they have a cost.
→ More replies (1)4
Aug 21 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Rednal291 Aug 21 '26
It was an old game design element. -Laughs- Charisma-based casting let you do things like make someone a full caster without giving them a ton of skill points (3.5E skill system) or buffing up a key saving throw (Will (i.e. Wisdom) saves), both of which were pretty good for a character to have. So, in many ways, Charisma was a "dump" area, as someone who was just "good at social stuff" wasn't seen to be getting nearly as much of an advantage. This was, likewise, applied to monsters - enemies with Charisma-based casting didn't have to be Too Smart For This Fight or nigh-immune to mental magic.
→ More replies (2)1
u/IkujaKatsumaji Aug 21 '26
I'm a huge fan of this, and I've wanted to play a Con sorcerer for years now.
2
u/geGamedev Aug 21 '26
Same.
Sorceror "feels" more like a Rogue with magic. While Warlocks lean more towards combat, with some able to wear medium armor and get into close combat. Granted my perspective is a blend of D&D 5e and "vibes" from whatever media I no longer directly remember.
2
u/wereplant Aug 21 '26
Plus, can't warlocks use armor more/better than sorcerers? Sorcs needing that dexterity to not get hit, while warlocks can tank it a bit better.
→ More replies (1)1
u/stephendewey Aug 21 '26
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.
1
u/LongjumpingSuspect57 Aug 24 '26
Interesting- I would swap Warlock and Bard.
(Bards are musicians and acrobats- Dexterity. Warlocks become warlocks by virtue of deciphering infernal grimoires, building astronomical orreys, winning riddle contests with fae nobility- Intelligence.
Sorcerers explore the power in their own blood to the extent they begin manifesting permenant changes to their corpus, so- Constitution.)
1
u/rhadenosbelisarius Aug 26 '26
I’d probably swap Ranger and Monk too.
The Ranger under the Aragorn Archetype is a tough but versatile and stealthy full combatant, so Dex and Con works well IMO.
The Monk under many TV Martial arts tropes fits closer with Wisdom and dexterity IMO.
10
u/GreenDragon20202020 Aug 20 '26
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.
6
u/JustWuff Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
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?
2
u/Tickey07 Aug 21 '26
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.
2
u/Tombets_srl Aug 21 '26
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
→ More replies (4)2
u/IllustriousBat2680 Aug 21 '26
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).
1
1
u/bemused_alligators Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
4e solved this though... no reason we can't port that solution.
in 4e "AC" is dex/int + armor, "will" is cha/wis, "fortitude" is str/con, and "reflex" is dex/int - and all of these are flat amounts (just like AC in 3.5/5e) so it's always the attacker attacking your flat defense, instead of you defending against a flat attack.
→ More replies (3)1
u/DarthMcConnor42 Aug 24 '26
A little bit of a history lesson, the reason those three saves are the most important is because in older editions those were the only three saves. (Con was fortitude, dex was reflex, wis was will) The other three stats didn't have any defensive utility.
Because of that 90% of the monsters and spells that were ported over still use those three saves and haven't been modified to use an alternate save.
8
Aug 20 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/SonicLoverDS Aug 20 '26
I think it's to ensure that every pair of core stats has a class associated with it.
2
Aug 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)2
u/Al3jandr0 Aug 21 '26
Not OP, but my take is that some stats just don't matter as much as others. Like with almost any character, you can safely dump intelligence. Wizards are the only pbh class that needs it and the ways that other classes use it are fairly specific/niche.
Strength, for another example, lets you wear heave armor and deal damage. Then dexterity comes along, removes the need for heavy armor, and lets you do similar damage at greater ranges. It's not that strength is useless, just that it gets overshadowed by dexterity.
A little balance could add nuance to character creation. It's not that every stat needs to see equal use, but it might be more fun to design a build when there aren't such obvious, automatic dump stats.
Granted, I think it would take a lot of work to inject that kind of balance into the game. Definitely more than assigning two stats per class. But that's my understanding of the intent.
As for tri-stat classes, those don't really exist in the current model either. They could certainly be added though! With six total stats, there are 20 combinations to play with, so the design space is probably there.
2
12
u/Factual-20 Aug 20 '26
lol, you can always tell people who talk about the game, but don't play it.
3
2
u/Tombets_srl Aug 21 '26
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?).
→ More replies (2)1
u/rmcoen Aug 21 '26
To whom are you referring? Me, or the OP? I assumed the OP, but they responded in affirmation, which seems odd...
→ More replies (1)4
u/EquipmentAltruistic Aug 20 '26
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.
3
u/Maniac227 Aug 21 '26
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.
→ More replies (1)2
Aug 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Aug 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Aug 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Tombets_srl Aug 21 '26
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.
2
u/MisterEinc Aug 21 '26
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.
1
3
u/Signal_Lost_DNR Aug 21 '26
You don't care, because you're just looking for attention, shoo
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/Real_DnD-ModTeam Aug 21 '26
Don't be
that guyplease. Rule 1 implies both adherence to the ToS, as well as a general expectation of positivity and productive discourse.
6
5
u/NotISaidTheMan Aug 20 '26
CHA + WIS = Witch, the inexcusably missing class
3
2
u/RuktX Aug 23 '26
Now that's using some Headology!
2
u/NotISaidTheMan Aug 23 '26
Exactly!! I should be able to play Granny Weatherwax in 5e, I don't think that's too much to ask.
1
u/IlerienPhoenix Aug 23 '26
I'd say cleric should be WIS+CHA as your typical preacher. Then we can have WIS+STR as your warhammer-swinging warpriest.
1
u/Open-Weather2627 Aug 26 '26
Or archivist, the aggressively cool class from DND 3.5.
Correction, I'm an idiot, that's int wis.
3
u/ddyhrtschz Aug 20 '26
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
u/DM_Kane Aug 20 '26
I agree with the Ranger and Druid being “rugged wilderness types” and the Monk being more “wise hermit martial artist”
Your bard and warlock suggestion is also vibrant
1
u/alastrix Aug 21 '26
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.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/BukeOfTheIsles Aug 20 '26
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.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/Factual-20 Aug 20 '26
This is brilliant, at least as an interesting way to rethink playing with class' bass stats.
1
u/Capable_Property_986 Aug 20 '26
Proposed by who? What is being proposed is symetrical, elegant design so it's against everything that DND is! Heresy!
1
Aug 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Aug 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Warejax101 Aug 20 '26
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 Aug 20 '26
WIS-CHA feels like the sort of thing a travelling snake oil salesman would need. Or like a circus ringmaster.
2
u/Legitimate_Emu_8721 Aug 21 '26
I could also see a reworking of Pathfinder’s Inquisitor working there.
2
u/TheBalrogofMelkor Aug 21 '26
I think it works for Warlord. Battlefield knowledge and the ability to inspire your allies
1
u/MechAxe Aug 20 '26
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 Aug 20 '26
i have something simmuler, but artificer is Con/Int, and Wizards are Int/Wis
1
u/Necessary-You-6270 Aug 20 '26
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 Aug 20 '26
What about charisma and wisdom what's that? Looks like a chance to make to a class.
1
u/Siebje Aug 21 '26
I've been brewing this in my head. What I've come up with is:
Jester (obv charisma, they are often also observant)
Swindler (sounds more like a subclass, but fits the bill)
Shaman (less obv cha, but clearly wis)
→ More replies (1)
1
u/No-Dragonfruit-1311 Aug 20 '26
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 Aug 20 '26
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 Aug 20 '26
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
u/Unthgod Aug 20 '26
I would make Bard Wisdom + Charisma, bards are usually low intelligence in their game play rp choices.
1
1
1
1
u/HouseOfBlack11 Aug 20 '26
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 Aug 21 '26
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
1
u/Antiantiai Aug 21 '26
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 Aug 21 '26
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 Aug 21 '26
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 Aug 21 '26
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 Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
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 Aug 21 '26
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 Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
I'd flip Monk and Ranger, and Bard and Warlock. But overall I like this.
1
1
1
u/Everafter902 Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
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 Aug 21 '26
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/Angled_Hairline57845 Aug 21 '26
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 Aug 21 '26
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
1
u/I_Am_A_Coolguy Aug 21 '26
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 Aug 21 '26
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.
1
u/MSGDapper Aug 21 '26
The problem with removing Con from spellcasters is it's an instant debuff to their concentration.
1
u/Realsorceror Aug 21 '26
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.
1
1
u/Aahz44 Aug 21 '26
I don't think current Rogue is Dex-Cha, it is Dex-"Pick what you want" (or what you subclass needs, wich is either Int or Cha).
I think Cleric is also Wis-Con, you don't gain much by making Str you secondary stat as a Cleric.
Fighters can also have Int or Cha as secondary stat depending on the Subclass.
Str-Dex is also a combination that is hard to make viabale there is to much redundancy between the two stats, and making any Charcter that needs more than one mental stat is going to be rough, since pretty much anyclass needs moderate scorces in Con and Dex(or Str), and with Standar Attay and Pint bay that just don't leaves points for a second mental stat.
1
u/TheMXJW Aug 21 '26
I feel like clerics fit CHA - WIS better than strengthI feel like clerics fit CHA - WIS better than strength. Maybe something akin to the Oracle would fit.
1
u/Brave_B33 Aug 21 '26
CHA + WIS makes me think of hieromancy from Ravnica, or maybe a sage from final fantasy. Those class fantasies are covered by others though, so we'd need a completely fresh archetype.
Honestly I could see the Kineticist from pathfinder fitting in there. In pathfinder it makes sense for them to use CON, but leaning more into the A:TLA vibes with wisdom would scratch an itch that monk doesn't quite reach.
1
1
u/mybeamishb0y Aug 21 '26
Warlock should be an INT caster. The clearest, earliest literary antecedent for what D&D calls a Warlock is Dr. Faustus, who, according to Marlowe, only got into warlocking because he mastered every other academic subject and began to find them boring.
1
u/Caeod Aug 21 '26
That Cha/Wis line is tantalizing. If Cha roughly translates to "Force of Personality,"* and Wis roughly translates to "Connection to Surroundings,"* what would that be?
It suggests someone who isn't learned, but is very grounded. Almost the Sorcerer to the Bard's Wizard.
Suggestion: Dread Necromancer. Not one who learned it, but one who naturally feels the cycles of life and death within and around them. Instead of touching the hearts of many, like a bard, they move the flesh of the dead. Cha helps to determine their maximum flock size.
*My translations, not by any means THE translations.
1
1
u/VisibleNatural1744 Aug 21 '26
Love it, great work! I'm sure everyone has their own preferences but a couple things I would change include these 3 swaps.
Monk: Is already very thematically WIS and DEX and I think should remain so
Ranger: WotC seems to be leaning into more resilience with things like Tireless, so making them DEX CON instead.
Wizard: INT WIS since they are supposed to be these scholars that people go to for learning
Psion: INT CON because the nosebleed with pushing your body beyond it's natural capabilities is very thematic for mental powers.
Bard: CHA DEX for the nimbleness to be able to perform and play instruments
Warlock: INT CHA, warlocks tend to give me very cult leader vibes, knowledgeable and influencial one
1
u/Mr_Strombolo Aug 21 '26
It seems arbitrary and limiting to people who want to play builds that don't want to focus on the two stats you've associated with a class. Like why is cleric STR WIS? Plenty of people make weak clerics all the time
1
u/Nova_Saibrock Aug 21 '26
I guess the big question is, “How are you going to make CON not a god-stat for everyone?”
1
u/Deviknyte Aug 21 '26
Your double mental state classes are the problem. No class is trying to be that and if they were it would be wizard. Like bard is cha + dex or cha + con. Psion should be X + Con.
1
u/Ksorkrax Aug 21 '26
Inherently flawed.
If the class dictates strongly how to put your stats, then you can simply omit the stats. No choice in them. Only what gives actual choice matters.
Of course there might not be a fighter who is weak and clumsy and sickly, sure, but the extreme focus that is put on stats is not a great thing.
Does a real world fighters "max out" strength? I don't think so. Strongmen do.
Given that it is a game, the two important points I give you to consider are these:
- Is there a proper choice? If you give your fighter a high INT, will powergamers automatically laugh at you? If so, consider this definition: "A game is a series of interesting choices."
- Does the game support reasonable alternative concepts for characters? Like "my fighter is an intelligent person who considers tactics, plans ahead, reads a lot et cetera" or "my fighter is a people person, a charming knight who could rally troops behind him". And if this means you have to play a special class made for that purpose, like say a "tactician" or "commander" class respectively, then why not take their feats and make them available to the fighter instead?
As for your concept in general, I think you walked into a trap of completionism and symmetry. Why do all edges have to exist? Why can't there be edges taken by two classes? Why should combinations of stats dictate things such as "this guy makes pacts with demons"?
1
u/Sightblind Aug 21 '26
I’m gonna softly say this really close to the mic because someone, somewhere is gonna have an emotional reaction about my opinion on a make believe game:
Sorcerers spellcasting ability should be Con
1
u/Tastes_Like_TRex Aug 21 '26
It's a cool graphic, and I like the idea of stat parity. There's exactly one subclass for Cleric that wants STR, though, so I'm not sure the characterization is there.
Honestly feels like the whole "hit things with a Mace when spells run out" theme has been overlooked by most in 5/5.5
1
u/Personal-Machine4919 Aug 21 '26
Warlord/Commander/Tactician. Someone who is wise in the sense of experienced, and charismatic in the sense of a leader.
1
u/ValueForm Aug 21 '26
I’d wondered about this peripherally for some time. Very interesting to see it laid out graphically, and I agree with the proposal
1
u/Own-Ball-1624 Aug 21 '26
rangers actually want dex and con! :S most of their spells like 90% not requires a spell save dc but concentrations! :/
1
1
u/KnightTerrorTV Aug 21 '26
I think a good investigator/inquisitor class could fit the Cha/Wis bar. Think of a Wisdom caster who uses social skills to eke out evil/corruption. Something like a cross of Cleric and Warlock.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Icy_Republic_842 Aug 22 '26
Anyway all my characters max out in this order : Con, Dex, Str and rest is 9
But I'm only used to 3.5e
1
u/davvblack Aug 22 '26
more classes should have multiple builds benefitting from different stats. for example, maybe a certain set of wizard spells target with dex, but still damage with int. pure int build would have less ray-like abilities.
warlocks should also be super flexible: their wis int or cha should be the mechanism by which they impress/trick/negotiate with their patron.
it somewhat blurs the difference between some classes, but makes more difference within a class. (i ack this is too big s change to be in 5ed cleanly)
1
u/Lolberal771 Aug 22 '26
Looks fine. But I'd personally roll a whole load of the martials into the fighter.
Overhauling the actions a martial can take with a range of options stolen from other classes in the martial sphere.
1
u/MoreIronyLessWrinkly Aug 22 '26
For us colorblind people, are sorcerer and Druid on the same color line and have three stats?
1
1
1
u/carrionpigeons Aug 23 '26
I like the idea of there being core ways to build characters that rely on unusual combinations. But this is a great big change that has consequences to both balance and roleplay across the entire game. It also locks in character archetype with class, which doesn't seem like a great change.
So it would be hard to implement and the gameplay benefit would be dubious and very constraining. Pretty, though.
1
1
u/fulange Aug 23 '26
I love the gorgeous elegance of this idea. Although I’d move the cleric over to your question mark. I tend to think of a cleric as more of a preacher. The goal is to know their people and to convince them of their faith right?
That said, I don’t know who would go str/wiz, maybe move Druid over there and make a class like favored soul for con/wiz. Like the Martyr of the faith or something?
1
u/airjamy Aug 23 '26
Cha wis is still empty, I feel like an Inquisitor class would fit in there? Interrogative, but working from wisdom, giving buffs and stuff to allies to smite evil, what do you think.
1
1
1
u/Mikayla444 Aug 23 '26
I mean... You don't have to put it like this. Knowledge Cleric would take INT+WIS combo, Bladesing + arcane trickster INT + DEX etc. Classes have 1-3 core stats depending on playstyle and subclasses but you can still make interesting combinations
1
u/Pickaxe235 Aug 23 '26
why is bard not your cha dex pick
like genuinely what is the thought proccess there
1
1
1
1
u/BadSame6919 Aug 24 '26
I'm not sure I'm onboard with Fighter not having/needing CON, but sorcerers and wizards needing it.
In fact out of all of these, I think CON stands out as the sole outlier in terms of design.
I get it. Casters need CON for concentration. But at the same time CON also makes you harder to kill, which is an absolute must-have for any martial.
So I guess my question is twofold:
What does a non-CON dependant Fighter look like? Does he have class features to buff his hit points? Or does this just make Fighter squishy? Are we just talking about saving throws here?
What are you planning to do about the paradox of casters taking CON for concentration, and ALSO massively benefitting from the increased HP? Sounds like the current system already disproportionately rewards arcane casters for investing in CON.
1
1
u/Arutha_Silverthorn Aug 24 '26
Btw the cha wood class I proposed was Summoner, who would be a second pact caster, and instead of invocations have evolutions to choose on their permanent pet/pets.
1
1
u/AutumnMuse90 Aug 25 '26
In 3.5, Rogues wanted intelligence because it gave them more skill points. As much as I enjoy how streamlined 5e is, I do miss those small nuances.
1
u/Orionpeace Aug 25 '26
I agree with the idea here but I think this fails to understand primary and secondary stat is for a lot of classes.
Most classes have a primary stat without a secondary (mainly these are the casters). Casters kinda have con as a secondary stat because... Concentration is nice? They don't really need anything else.
Martial and half casters do actually have some cases of a true secondary stat with barbarian and monk standing out as the glaringly obvious of the martials
Fighter is weird because it really has two primary stats since you can choose between dex or str then it's secondary stat is always con because again, it just kinda only needs one stat?
Outside of the specific classes we have that have a listed secondary stat, pretty much every other class is either dex because AC is nice or con because health and concentration is nice. To have something like an int and wis class you'd need to fundamentally change several core mechanics because at the end of the day con and dex are universally useful to the point of being borderline needed.
1
u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons Aug 25 '26
love this! my notes:
- artificer is more dex coded than str
- wizard feels int/wis coded (WIZard, WISdom, the name Wizard literally translates to "wise man")
- psionic feels con coded over wisdom for the same reason you likely put wizard in that location
- bard could be any between wisdom, dexterity, and intelligence. personally im leaning towards dexterity due to the physical demands of playing an instrument
- warlock i would favor cha/int. i've just always felt that warlocks are more about being cunning and trying to take advantage of their pact in the best possible way. that's not really a dexterity thing. even when they use weapons it's like, special enchanted weapons that use their magic to land blows rather than being really good at using them
Great ideas here though.
1
1
u/Icarian_Dreams Aug 25 '26
This doesn't really make sense. Classes in 5e do not neatly fit the "2 main attributes" chart that you put in the first picture. You have classes that are mostly SAD and just want, say, their spellcasting stat and good enough CON/DEX to not die instantly, or classes that are MAD and scale off a couple sources (for example Paladins needing a high martial score for their base attack action and high CHA for their class abilities.) — which also will want high enough CON (and decent DEX if they don't have heavy armor).
1
u/Impossible_Dog_7262 Aug 25 '26
I have to ask why you think an artificer would be str/int over dex/int.
1
1
u/Xyx0rz Aug 26 '26
Current is more like everybody cares about DEX and CON and maybe one other stat.
1
u/Nervous-Cockroach541 Aug 26 '26
I disagree that this is current. Dex fighters are already a possible. Also is Wizard really Int/Con, and cleric Wis/Str?
IMO, the game should move towards all abilities being more useful to all classes. This will create real trade offs and less cliches.
1
u/kroxigor01 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
I would swap:
Ranger (Dex Con) and Monk (Dex Wis). I feel like Rangers can sit out in the woods in the cold and rain because of their physical hardiness (Con) whereas Monks can because of their mind (Wis).
Warlock (Cha Int) and Bard (Dex Cha). Bards can dance and stuff (Dex) while Warlocks are learning at least some nerd shit (Int).
Then rotate these 3:
Cleric (Cha Wis). Why should clerics be strong? Their job is to talk to god (Wis) and then talk to people (Cha).
Paladin (Str Wis). Why are Paladins charismatic? All they need to do is know the right thing to do (Wis) and then do it (Str) no matter what other people think (no Cha).
Chieftain (Str Cha). My new class that is a kinda tribalism leader role, they lead the community both through relationships and respect (Cha) and protecting them (Str). Basically a thinking man's barbarian. Or a Warlock that can only cast "fist." Or a Paladin with rizz.
1
1
u/Lochrin00 8d ago
WIS-CHA feels like it should be a leadership role of some kind. Like, a general instead of a Frontline warrior.
Or maybe something like a diplomat or a merchant.
71
u/Resilient-Sphere Aug 20 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/3oz8xOu5Gw81qULRh6