Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Snooze Jan 26, 2009 13:58:23	With the Sorceror preview, I'm a little disappointed that it is similar to the other new classes we've seen, in that it's pretty obviously based on only two stats. It's clear that you should max out your Cha, and either Str or Dex. This is very easy to balance, but it makes for fewer interesting builds. I suspect the designers are (rightfully) gun-shy after making a bit of a mess out of the Paladin and Star-pact Warlock builds. Both of those are difficult to build properly because they depend too heavily on three stats. I think these two classes need some design tweaks to make them work a bit better, and it would suck if future classes had these kinds of problems. However, the Fighter is an example of a multi-stat class that works extremely well. Clearly Str is your primary stat, but you can make a very good Fighter with Con, Dex, or Wis secondary, or even take a mix of all three because you don't always have to max them to gain the secondary benefits. It's no coincidence that there are more unique Fighter builds than any other class. Anyway, I would like to see more classes that have a lot of build options like the Fighter. It would be very tricky to balance properly, but it would be worth it to make the classes more interesting.
#2 Marcus_Majarra Jan 26, 2009 14:14:47	Those are good points. Martial Power has done some progress in this field, taking Beastmaster rangers as an example. Relying on the animal companion makes Wisdom that much more important for them.
#3 aethelas Jan 26, 2009 14:27:35	I agree (I think). It's one of the few things that seems slightly off about 4E (which is the only version of D&D itself I've played)--building characters seems to be very formulaic (max primary stat, put enough in non-secondary stats to get the feats you want later, and bump the rest into your secondary stat; and then everyone's skills work basically the same), rather than having some builds really only need 1 attribute (but therefore be a liability at lots of things), some need 2, some need 3; and have differences in how the classes work (more like the old way of rogues needing to hide, and wizards having the more limited spells per day, etc). ...and I am aware that I could just play an older version, this is NOT intended as a bash of 4E--as someone who had never played D&D before, I LIKED the fact that it was really easy to understand all of the classes, and that I could viably play any of them RIGHT AWAY. I'm just observing an interesting tradeoff from that simplicity. ...I hope this made sense. Maybe I shouldn't post while taking minutes.
#4 Seeker95 Jan 26, 2009 14:48:50	I wonder, though... is it possible that the final product that is released in PHB2 is different than what we see in the preview? Not just covering all of the levels, but also covering more depth at the early levels? I am interested in seeing the difference between the preview and the final offering.
#5 jlaurhughes_dup Jan 26, 2009 15:00:23	I think you should have at least 3 high ability scores regardless of class and uses of the ability scores with attacks/class features.
#6 undrave Jan 26, 2009 15:41:03	I think you should have at least 3 high ability scores regardless of class and uses of the ability scores with attacks/class features. If for no other reason than to give yourself better defenses. Hmm... with DEX as an important Sorcerer stat I'm sure we'll see plenty of Socerer/Rogue builds.
#7 batshido Jan 26, 2009 16:36:42	Hmm... with DEX as an important Sorcerer stat I'm sure we'll see plenty of Socerer/Rogue builds. I was thinking this same thing. Cha/Dex/Con Rogue/Sorc or Sorc/Rogue looks like a lot of fun.
#8 undrave Jan 26, 2009 17:02:52	I was thinking this same thing. Cha/Dex/Con Rogue/Sorc or Sorc/Rogue looks like a lot of fun. Halflings are gonna have a heck of a good time :P
#9 jimthegray Jan 26, 2009 17:04:14	I wonder, though... is it possible that the final product that is released in PHB2 is different than what we see in the preview? Not just covering all of the levels, but also covering more depth at the early levels? I am interested in seeing the difference between the preview and the final offering. PHB2 Comes out in like 7 weeks so I am fairly sure this is accurate
#10 Xeviat-DM Jan 29, 2009 7:29:15	I'm under the distinct impression that the designers realized a small mistake when making classes like the Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock. By having multiple attack stats, the characters are potentially limited in their options. They are nice in that they have broader multiclassing capability, but other than that my players have found them difficult to work with. For instance, Melee clerics want high strength for their attack powers. They want high-ish wisdom because it adds to their heals. They also want high-ish charisma because it adds to many utilities and attacks. But only two stats scale to a reasonable amount. Melee clerics can easily be built with 16 Str, 14 Wis, 14 Cha and then pump Str and Wis, though. Rangers have a potential problem. Melee rangers want high Strength for their attack powers. They want high Dex for their AC (and possibly to buy blade feats). They also want high Wisdom for extras on attacks and utilities (especially if they're a beastmaster). In the early levels, 16 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Wis can suffice, but as soon as level 8 rolls around your AC is beginning to slip behind what it could have been if you increased your Dex; these Rangers are very much encouraged to pick up Chain proficiency, which may be out of the character's style. I find the Warlock's to be worse. Warlocks need to constantly increase their Int every chance they get to keep their AC competitive. Starlocks, though, have an interest in having high Con and Cha for their powers. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Starlock powers were added last, and they wanted to keep Cha for the controller-light powers and Con for the damage dealing and close range powers (for the warlock build suggestions), but again such characters would be forced to pick up Chain proficiency to keep a good AC. I've noticed that every PHB2 class we've seen so far has a single attack stat. They aren't giving us the opportunity to build a Str 8 Paladin who can somehow still wear plate (even though one needs a 15 to qualify for the proficiency), or the capacity to build an unwise Cleric. I like this. In my own home games, we're distilling the Wis powers out of the Cleric and the ranged powers out of the Ranger to create two new classes: Priest and Archer. Melee Cleric powers are being donated to the Paladin where appropriate and Melee Ranger powers are being donated to the Fighter and Rogue where appropriate. Paladin Cha based powers are being switched to Strength, and we're analyzing the Paladin powers to have Wisdom be the secondary score for the defender/healer type powers and Charisma be the score for the heavy hitting smite the wicked powers. We're also in heavy deliberations over the Warlock; my current thought is to have Cha be the primary attack for all Warlocks but have the secondary stat differ for each specialty, but this could only go so far (and unintelligent Warlocks might not make sense, what with the nature of making pacts and all that).
#11 batshido Jan 29, 2009 8:27:59	How many Charisma-based classes do we expect from the PHBII? Sorc, obviously, and Barbarian has a Cha secondary. Is Invoker Cha primary or secondary? I'd have a hard time imagining an "Avenger" class that didn't have at least a few fiery sword effects based on Charisma. That's already a pretty high percentage of the new classes. Cha is really getting some love this edition.
#12 lady_ishtar Jan 29, 2009 8:32:19	... In my own home games, we're distilling the Wis powers out of the Cleric and the ranged powers out of the Ranger to create two new classes: Priest and Archer. Melee Cleric powers are being donated to the Paladin where appropriate and Melee Ranger powers are being donated to the Fighter and Rogue where appropriate. Paladin Cha based powers are being switched to Strength, and we're analyzing the Paladin powers to have Wisdom be the secondary score for the defender/healer type powers and Charisma be the score for the heavy hitting smite the wicked powers. We're also in heavy deliberations over the Warlock; my current thought is to have Cha be the primary attack for all Warlocks but have the secondary stat differ for each specialty, but this could only go so far (and unintelligent Warlocks might not make sense, what with the nature of making pacts and all that). here is what i do with warlocks, and it applies to Star pact only. Any Star pact power is either Con or Cha based when you choose it, and it remain that way. There is enough Con and Cha powers for other pacts that this is not much of an issue.
#13 Tharag_Bocc Jan 29, 2009 10:20:33	here is what i do with warlocks, and it applies to Star pact only. Any Star pact power is either Con or Cha based when you choose it, and it remain that way. There is enough Con and Cha powers for other pacts that this is not much of an issue. Not bad. I have my own CRAZY variant for Warlocks. Fey pact powers remain CHA-primary and INT-secondary; infernal pact powers stay CON-primary, but change to CHA secondary; while star pact powers change significantly, becoming INT-primary and CON-secondary. The whole thing might be a terrible idea but I like the idea of it enough that I want to see if I can make it work. I'll probably bring over to the house rules forum some time for a little external review to catch things that I may be over looking. Back on topic, I rather appreciate the build method WotC is taking with PHB2 classes. One primary with two secondaries is nice and straight forward, and as others have said investing in a third stat is still a good choice for NADs. I do however hope the WotC hasn't abandoned the idea of classes like the ranger, paladin, and cleric; two primary stats with one secondary stat. Especially since those classes are always able to make all three stats usefully, unlike the split-secondaries that usually only allow the use of one ore the other based on build choice.
#14 Janx_14 Jan 29, 2009 10:44:21	How many Charisma-based classes do we expect from the PHBII? Sorc, obviously, and Barbarian has a Cha secondary. Is Invoker Cha primary or secondary? Invoker's dont use Char period. They Wisdom with seconday int or con.
#15 batshido Jan 29, 2009 10:53:46	Invoker's dont use Char period. They Wisdom with seconday int or con. Ok. So that's one confirmed Primary (Sorc), one likely primary (Bard), one confirmed build secondary (Barb) and at least one more likely secondary (Avenger). Of the ones that are left, Shaman stands a decent chance of using Cha, but I wouldn't put any money on it at this point.
#16 lady_ishtar Jan 29, 2009 13:50:12	I don't mind the idea of having 2 different builds using 2 different primary stats, like a cleric being Str or Wis based. But then you get a paladin, who simply CAN NOT be purely Str based, since Divine Challenge is Cha only, and their Str powers are... not as much lacking as are just not there. What i do not like is having a build that has 2 required primary stats for a single build (looking a you Star lock)
#17 Snooze Jan 29, 2009 14:36:26	I don't mind the idea of having 2 different builds using 2 different primary stats, like a cleric being Str or Wis based. But then you get a paladin, who simply CAN NOT be purely Str based, since Divine Challenge is Cha only, and their Str powers are... not as much lacking as are just not there. What i do not like is having a build that has 2 required primary stats for a single build (looking a you Star lock) I agree with this. I like that there are different build options with different primary stats. I just don't like how that idea was executed with the Paladin. The Cleric is a better example of this concept. I'm just afraid that with all the new classes only requiring a single primary and one of two secondary stats, that we're not really going to see a lot of interesting builds. Really, how many different Barbarian builds are out there? I've tried building a Heavy Blade Barbarian with some Dex, but the class is so strongly based on Str/Con that it's near impossible to make it work. I think this road leads to "Here are the two optimal builds for the Sorceror. Pick one and go."
#18 Duskweaver Jan 29, 2009 14:59:32	one likely primary (Bard) That one's confirmed as well. The preview has Cha primary and Int/Con as the build-specific secondaries for the bard.
#19 Tharag_Bocc Jan 29, 2009 19:28:34	That one's confirmed as well. The preview has Cha primary and Int/Con as the build-specific secondaries for the bard. Unfortunately yes, but my disappointment is because I wish they had been CHA-primary for "spells" and DEX-primary for weapons. Just one more element to put on my list of house rules to try and develop.
#20 darkwing_bmf Jan 29, 2009 22:19:42	Attributes are a design flaw anyway. They could have removed them completely from the game, designed each character with 2 or 3 "flavors" that give bonuses to certain powers and be done with it. It's almost like that anyway, but we have the complexity of exactly how many points to put into each attribute to deal with.
#21 tehsquirrely Jan 30, 2009 15:18:44	When we get all the respective power books we might see another class feature(s) for these phb2 classes that uses a different stat line-up. But yeah, cha is getting some serious love in this edition. Just think in terms of the races in phb. There are 8 races, 4 of which have a bonus to cha; dragonborn, half-elf, halfling and tiefling. I guess they wanted to make it a more useful in combat stat because in 3.5 cha was your dump stat, unless you were playing a sorc or a bard you didn't need cha at all, and they wanted to get away from that. However int has become the new dump stat from what I've seen. I don't mind the route their taking, but I also wouldn't mind if they later add more potential variety to alot of these classes.
#22 fiendish_dire_weasel Jan 30, 2009 16:20:50	One primary stat and two secondary stats is the "proper" way to design classes so you avoid having horrible trainwrecks like the Paladin and partial messes like the Cleric and Warlock. Rangers actually come out Ok, because several of their powers can use either Str or Dex. This is why every post-release class has been built with the "One Primary-Two Secondary" stat set ups.
#23 tyrandor Jan 30, 2009 17:28:30	But yeah, cha is getting some serious love in this edition. Just think in terms of the races in phb. There are 8 races, 4 of which have a bonus to cha; dragonborn, half-elf, halfling and tiefling. I guess they wanted to make it a more useful in combat stat because in 3.5 cha was your dump stat, unless you were playing a sorc or a bard you didn't need cha at all, and they wanted to get away from that. However int has become the new dump stat from what I've seen. Based off what? Wizard use int, so will Invoker. Tact Lord and Warlock have it as a secondary. There's a lot of Skill that work of intelligence as well. A case could be made that the only class that actually need STR are fighter and warlord, every other class can do with 8 str (Ranger, Cleric and Paladin just have to take their other build) with no real issue and STR provides the less benefit outside of combat (0 skill linked to it) as well as no other benefit than plus hit/dmg and Fort defense... Int at least, can be used to increase your AC (As Tact lord and locks are bound to do). Heck, going by your logic, there's 1 class with +str atm, and 2 with +int :P. One primary stat and two secondary stats is the "proper" way to design classes so you avoid having horrible trainwrecks like the Paladin and partial messes like the Cleric and Warlock. I think calling it a mess is a bit harsh... it's really two different class rolled into one. There's no real issue with the Cleric and Ranger imo, just decide if you want to be melee or ranged, and stick to it. There's no real issue with the Feylock or Hellock... well, none that come from their stats reliance. The main issue with the Paladin is that the STR version doesn't have enough power to pick, making it feels half-assed compared to others. Divine Power may very well fix this tho. The one real case of 'mad' is the Starlock.
#24 tehsquirrely Jan 30, 2009 17:33:05	Based off what? Wizard use int, so will Invoker. Tact Lord and Warlock have it as a secondary. There's a lot of Skill that work of intelligence as well. A case could be made that the only class that actually need STR are fighter and warlord, every other class can do with 8 str (Ranger, Cleric and Paladin just have to take their other build) with no real issue and STR provides the less benefit outside of combat (0 skill linked to it) as well as no other benefit than plus hit/dmg and Fort defense... Int at least, can be used to increase your AC (As Tact lord and locks are bound to do). Heck, going by your logic, there's 1 class with +str atm, and 2 with +int :P. Well it does depend on the class. Str and Int are the two big dump stats, whereas cha in 3.5 was THE dump stat, almost no one needed cha. Not even for the cha based skills, because in 3.5 it was easy to get insane skill checks even if your related stat was awful. I'm just pointing out that two of the most useful stats in 3.5 (str and int) are now the two biggest dumps and the most useless stat in 3.5 (cha) is now one of the most important.
#25 Xeviat-DM Jan 30, 2009 19:19:32	Athletics and Carrying Capacity are linked to Strength. The mentals are the safest dump stats, except that they have a lot of skills (dumping Wisdom gives you terrible perception and insight, which can matter a lot more than having low Cha skills).
#26 fiendish_dire_weasel Jan 30, 2009 20:47:37	I think calling it a mess is a bit harsh... it's really two different class rolled into one. There's no real issue with the Cleric and Ranger imo, just decide if you want to be melee or ranged, and stick to it. There's no real issue with the Feylock or Hellock... well, none that come from their stats reliance. The main issue with the Paladin is that the STR version doesn't have enough power to pick, making it feels half-assed compared to others. Divine Power may very well fix this tho. The one real case of 'mad' is the Starlock. Paladin: Out of the book, one of the two presented class options shouldn't be this anemic. It is worse due to it being a Defender, and of the the 3 stats the class needs to work, none boost Reflex and none are Con (made worse by having to use your own Surges for Lay on Hands). Also it's main healing being stat-dependant (as opposed to just stat-enhanced) is a bit poor as well. This is just poor design from top to bottom. Cleric: Is much better off than the Paladin, but still worse than other classes. They easilly could have made Wisdom the primary stat and had both melee and ranged attacks based off of it, with two other stats as secondary. Again though, it runs into the problem of two of it's main stats both being keyed on one defense. Warlock: Correct, the only problem here is Starlocks. At least since the stats they need are at least spread between the three defenses it isn't all bad. Having two primary stats and one secondary is still silly.
#27 Snooze Jan 30, 2009 21:54:11	I totally agree that the Paladin and Star-Pact Warlocks are a mess. They were badly done and need to be fixed. The Cleric isn't bad though - you can go heavy Str and secondary Wis and be a good character. Regardless, I think the wrong conclusion is that all classes should be based on one primary and one secondary stat. The right conclusion is to make sure that future multi-stat classes are done right, as the Fighter is. I really like the way that class is designed - you can easily make half a dozen different Fighter builds that are effective, interesting, and different.
#28 tyrandor Jan 30, 2009 22:30:40	Hadn't though about lay on hand being wis... that does complicate thing for the poor paladin. Still... add in some GOOD strenght based paladin power, and the class has a whole will look a lot better. I'll agree with Snooze - Cleric isn't that bad at all. I think you're over selling the importance of Charisma... they are more priest power that are not affect by charisma than they are that are... so you can safely roll a priest with a low charisma and still be a very effective character. Starlock is just a mess.
#29 malisteen Jan 31, 2009 10:46:15	I pretty strongly disagree with the OP. Powers are essential to classes in 4e - they're where the majority of a character's mechanical identity during gameplay is derived, and Attack stats are essential to attack powers - even a slight loss of attack bonus can be extremely painful. All this together, classes with attack powers that use different stats to attack end up feeling less like rhobust classes with a range of options and more like a set of separate 'mini classes', each with very few options, that just happen to share a couple minor class features. Now, ranger mostly gets around this by having a lot of 'either or' powers, but cleric, paladin, and warlock all suffer from this mini-class straight-jacket problem. Paladin even more so for having a lot of other stat requirements. As such, I greatly prefer the 'one attack stat for all powers, with a range of secondary stats augmenting individual powers' format. The fighter is great, as you have a range of viable secondary stats, but remember that all of the fighter powers still use strength to hit, so even powers that use your unfavored stats can still be viable choices. As an example, I played a Taclord in a party with a paladin as a secondary healer. The paladin eventually left the party, and I needed to upgrade my healing ability to compensate, so I re-trained my 7th level power to Lion's Roar, a chaladin healing power. I could do this even though I didn't get any extra benefit out of cha. However, if the power had used cha instead of strength to hit, it would have been nearly unusable for my taclord. Basically a non-option. And that's what all the feylock powers are to inferlocks, and vice versa. Non-options. It basically cuts the potential choices for 'locks in half. Ditto Cleric and Paladin. Now, I'm not married to the 'one of two secondary stats' bit. And I'm not too thrilled with powers for which the secondary stats are potentially more significant then the primary stats (I'm looking at you, Lead the Attack). I think ideally each class would have one primary stat that they use to hit, and then have powers that use each of the five other stats for some minor extra benefit. I was hoping Martial Power would bring us, say, warlord builds and powers with wis or dex or con secondary. But that's not what happened. Still, 4e is young, and they seem to be adapting things as they go, so maybe we'll see that kind of experimentation in Arcane or Divine Power. Still, regardless, I vastly prefer each class to only have a single attack stat. Maybe it makes standard characters a little formulaic, but it also makes them a lot more playable.
#30 Moribund Jan 31, 2009 14:27:56	Wow, such hate for the Starlock design. The way I see it is that Starlock really constitutes two builds, with either Cha or Con as a primary. Out-of-pact powers fill out the power selection. The only real problem is that Dire Radiance is only Con-based when it should be either Con or Cha.
#31 LordArchaon Jan 31, 2009 20:57:39	SORRY WRONG THREAD
#32 rpgraccoon Feb 01, 2009 20:59:37	Wow, such hate for the Starlock design. The way I see it is that Starlock really constitutes two builds, with either Cha or Con as a primary. Out-of-pact powers fill out the power selection. The only real problem is that Dire Radiance is only Con-based when it should be either Con or Cha. I agree. That or another at will being Charisma based. However, they also need more Con Based Powers and a Con based Pargon Path for the Starlocks.
#33 kletian999 Feb 02, 2009 1:35:11	With the Sorceror preview, I'm a little disappointed that it is similar to the other new classes we've seen, in that it's pretty obviously based on only two stats. It's clear that you should max out your Cha, and either Str or Dex. This is very easy to balance, but it makes for fewer interesting builds. I suspect the designers are (rightfully) gun-shy after making a bit of a mess out of the Paladin and Star-pact Warlock builds. Both of those are difficult to build properly because they depend too heavily on three stats. I think these two classes need some design tweaks to make them work a bit better, and it would suck if future classes had these kinds of problems. However, the Fighter is an example of a multi-stat class that works extremely well. Clearly Str is your primary stat, but you can make a very good Fighter with Con, Dex, or Wis secondary, or even take a mix of all three because you don't always have to max them to gain the secondary benefits. It's no coincidence that there are more unique Fighter builds than any other class. Anyway, I would like to see more classes that have a lot of build options like the Fighter. It would be very tricky to balance properly, but it would be worth it to make the classes more interesting. I don't understand you OP: the Fighter is a "one stat primary, one stat secondary" class too. The only difference between it and the PHB2's is they bothered to make a suite of powers that touch all stats (or only use STR) (note that a DEX based fighter likely wasn't viable without Dragon Articles and Martial Power to help it). Paladin has less powers than most, then being throughly stat divided underscores the derth. Cleric and Warlock get by because they have so many more powers to choose from in comparison.
#34 MindWandererB Feb 02, 2009 3:48:09	Because of the level-based stat raises, 2 stats is mechanically necessary. I play with optimizers, so I've seen a lot of 10-Wis clerics and 10-Str paladins; I've heard of but not actually seen 12-Cha Starlocks. Where starlocks have a problem, compared to other PHB1 classes, is not that they need both Con and Cha. The hybrid cleric and ranger can get away with having a low secondary stat (Cha and Wis, respectively), but Int is vital to making a starlock different from a "generilock." This is also why hybrid paladins are rare breeds; a pally with low Wis is a sad thing (though still better than a low-Int starlock). Compared to PHB2 classes, there's a bigger problem. A laser cleric, for example, only really has access to half its class powers. When I choose powers for my laser cleric, I see "Str vs. AC" and don't even read the rest of it. I have a 50/50 chance at every level of choosing the same power as any other random laser cleric--and that's when the two options are equally attractive, which is rare. Now, what I don't get is making all the classes single-primary in PHB2, but adding in things like the Ruthles Ruffian rogue and the Resourceful Warlord, which are inherently MAD.