reason being i am fiddling around with a homebrew Rune based class and am wondering if i should go with a V idea or is it just redundant
(To forestall quaestions from thise who dont know....a V class has two primary stats and usually one secondary, an A class has one primary and usually two secondary)
The V classes in general seem to be the most problematic to play, and the most requiring of having a decent matching race.
Am I the only one wondering what the heck 'A' and 'V' classes are?
A class is a class with one primary attack stat and a choice of two secondary supporting stats; for example the Rogue. All rogues use Dexterity to attack, but some use Charisma as a supporting stat and some have Strength.
A V class is one with 2 primary attack stats and one secondary stat; for example the paladin. Some of a paladins abilities rely on Strength, some on Charisma, but all bonus affects are modified by Wisdom.
A classes only ever have to care about 2 stats, and have full access to the powers of their class. They might forego the occasional bonus but that's it.
V classes either completely write off half the powers written for their class, or they try to keep two attack stats high and forego the bonuses from their secondary stat.
But...
It does seem like V classes demand a player either commit to a tighter balancing act, or accept that half the cool options for the class just aren't practical.
You did try to forestall the dumb questions, but I have to ask, why are they broken down as A or V, and I don't mean what they stand for, you explained that well enough, but I mean why those two letters specifically, why "A" and "V"?
Incidentally, I could see pros and cons for each type, I mean with an A class you would more often need to pick a race with bonuses to the primary stat since it accounts for everything, but only need worry about maxing that one stat. However with V classes you suffer more MAD and have to keep 2 attributes maxed, but can pick from a broader selection of races and still be powerful. Not sure which is a better design though. My 2 cents.
A-class seems like it would turn every character buld into a min-max tree, with only one or two legitimate paths up the tree.
I'm not seeing how. Fighters have one single attack stat and a host of different viable paths (Battlerager, Tempest, polearm momentum, sword and board and two handed pseudo-striker). Wizards have one primary attack stat and four different secondary stats, each useful at different things. A shaped classes aren't any more limited than V shaped classes.
If anything, it's the other way around: My illusionist wizard has the option to take summoner powers or things focused on Wand wizards 9possibly at slightly reduced power), but my Feylock trying to take any Infernal pact powers is just shooting himself in the foot. V shaped classes restrict creativity and versatility of a class.
I
If anything, it's the other way around: My illusionist wizard has the option to take summoner powers or things focused on Wand wizards 9possibly at slightly reduced power), but my Feylock trying to take any Infernal pact powers is just shooting himself in the foot. V shaped classes restrict creativity and versatility of a class.
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.
I'm not seeing how. Fighters have one single attack stat and a host of different viable paths (Battlerager, Tempest, polearm momentum, sword and board and two handed pseudo-striker). Wizards have one primary attack stat and four different secondary stats, each useful at different things. A shaped classes aren't any more limited than V shaped classes.
Well, yes and no. The whole polearm thing has some real issues (not with viability, but rather, doing things they really shouldn't be able to do).
I personally prefer Vs. Vs are good because you get more variety in them, as you can have a cleric who fights in melee only, a cleric who is a ranged character, or a mixed character, and they all play differently.
As are fine for a lot of classes, though - fighters, rogues, wizards, ect. all are fine.
they could have taken the druid and shaman and made them different builds of the same class
No they couldn't. The shaman's a Pet class (and a leader), and the druid is a Shapeshifting class (and a controller). How the hell could they have been squished into one class?
V shaped classes restrict creativity and versatility of a class.
I play a high CHA low STR half-elf paladin. My friend plays a high STR low CHA warforged paladin. We both enjoy that we can make such unique and different character while still sharing a unified theme. For us the V-shape is a feature not a bug.
V-shapes help open classes up to a wider range of optimal race+class parings (any race with a good STR or CHA can make an excellent paladin). Likewise, V-shapes open up more multiclassing/hybrid options.
My own personally bias aside, even the designers themselves have said (during interviews and such regarding Divine Power) that they like how classes like the cleric and paladin turned out. This to me suggests that the good folks at WotC appreciate V-shaped classes and gives me hope that we haven't seen the last of them.
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.
No, no, a thousand times NO.
Like i said earlier, the V classes are designed the way they are for a reason. You aren't meant to be able to use every option the class has with equal effectiveness off of one or two stats; the classes would be too versatile and thus very overpowered. I dont buy the argument that you MUST have a race wih attribute bonuses in your primary stats to be effective either; saying you must have those bonuses to be Min-Maxed for combat would be more truthful. Min-Maxing is not a requirement, so please stop insinuating that if you dont squeeze every drop of mechanical advantage out of your stats then you are somehow going to fail at your job or be useless.
Make every class do one thing solidly, provide options for varying that one thing, and then open up multiclassing and hybridization for creation of characters that take on multiple aspects.
Honestly, my preferred design style would have no primary stats.
Honestly, my preferred design style would have no primary stats.
I like the way you think.
I'm not seeing how.
From a min-max optimization perspective, there is one "correct" path through each build. Neither of these is mechanically better than the other. For the min-max optimizer, the choice for any given path is clear once the initial choice is made.
But for an A-Class, the initial choice is made for you. All reasonably-optimized fighters have strength as their highest stat. All reasonably-optimized wizards have intelligence as their highest stat.
I prefer a V-class approach because it represents more baseline options within the class. If a party of five has three paladins, none of them need look the same, even at level one. If it has three fighters, they are all going to start out looking pretty much the same.
I like diversity. Between classes and within classes.
While 'V' classes inherently limit the options of the characters of those classes, and thus why I think there should be a mix, 'A' style classes inherently limit the choices of the system as a whole.
An example.
I want to play a multiclass character, and pick up, dabble in, and otherwise make my class Secondary ability do some heavy lifting. In otherwise I want to multiclass and have my secondary ability be the "attack" stat.
After the PHB, if my secondary stat was:
Strength, 5 MC options
Dexterity, 2 MC options
Constitution, 1 MC option
Wisdom, 1 MC option
Intelligence, 1 MC option
Charisma, 2 MC options
I had 12 options with all those added together, and at least one in each ability.
Taking just PHBII into account, I have the following:
Strength, 2 MC options
Dexterity, 0 MC options
Constitution, 0 MC options
Wisdom, 4 MC options
Intelligence, 0 MC options
Charisma, 2 MC options
I have a total of 8 choices, 33% less then the PHB, and 50% less distribution of choice. A lot of which can be placed squarely on the shoulders of a lack of 'V' classes.
This lack of choice becomes harder to quantify, and yet far more debilitating when I look for a MC that is based on my Primary or Secondary stat.
For instance:
I play a brawny Rogue in PHB land. I have the following choices for a MC. Ranger, ranger, fighter, warlord, cleric, paladin. Obviously some are better then others, but all allow me to use my primary or secondary as an 'attack' ability for MC.
The following two lists show the number of MC options you have if you choose a MC from the book of the class. The second number shows you the number of additional options the other book gives you.
Strength/Charisma Cleric – 6 – 4
Wisdom/Charisma Cleric – 2 – 6
Strength/Constitution Fighter – 5 – 2
Strength/Wisdom Fighter – 5 – 6
Strength/Wisdom Paladin – 5 – 6
Charisma/Wisdom Paladin – 2 – 6
Strength/Wisdom Ranger – 5 – 6
Dexterity/Wisdom Ranger – 2 – 4
Dexterity/Strength Rogue – 6 – 2
Dexterity/Charisma Rogue – 3 – 2
Charisma/Intelligence Warlock – 2 – 2
Constitution/Intelligence Warlock – 1 – 0
Strength/Intelligence Warlord – 5 – 2
Strength/Charisma Warlord – 6 – 4
Intelligence/Wisdom Wizard – 1 – 4
Intelligence/Constitution Wizard – 1 – 0
57 options. PHBII adds 56 options to this list.
Wisdom/Dexterity Avenger – 3 – 3
Wisdom/Intelligence Avenger – 3 – 2
Strength/Charisma Barbarian – 1 – 7
Strength/Constitution Barbarian – 1 – 6
Charisma/Intelligence Bard – 1 – 3
Charisma/Constitution Bard – 1 – 3
Wisdom/Constitution Druid – 3 – 2
Wisdom/Dexterity Druid – 3 – 3
Wisdom/Intelligence Invoker – 3 – 2
Wisdom/Constitution Invoker – 3 – 2
Wisdom/Intelligence Shaman – 3 – 2
Wisdom/Constitution Shaman – 3 – 2
Charisma/Strength Sorcerer – 3 – 7
Charisma/Dexterity Sorcerer – 1 – 4
Strength/Constitution Warden – 1 – 6
Strength/Wisdom Warden – 5 – 6
38 options. PHB adds 60 options to this list.
At least when the PHBII is added to PHB or vice versa they seem to get closer to a balance. That is until you realize how loaded the PHB was with Wisdom secondary classes, and that Primal played right into that niche, thus driving up the options, and meanwhile you can see how loaded PHB II is with Intelligence and Constitution secondaries that suppress the option fest that PHB really is.
As I guy who loves to ponder, can I make a Rogue/Cleric work, PHB was rife with such questions. PHBII decidedly less so......
There is a significant difference in the number of powers an A class player can reasonably take compared to that of a V class player. Supplements help increase the options for a V class player, but I don't like the fact that you have to purchase supplements in order to not be boxed into certain choices at certain levels.
The only real advantage of V classes is such classes make it easier to multiclass and hybrid. You can find more classes that match one of your primary stats so you can bump up secondary stats more. V classes actually resemble a bit of a built-in multiclass flavour. The powers may be different enough that playing a single classed V class may feel a little like playing a multiclass/hybrid character.
I think V classes need at least one supplementary power book to balance them with A classes. Which means it's something wizards should avoid making, but for homebrew, go for it.
V-classes, don't require a supplement to work. The cleric worked quite well before divine power came out. The paladin needed divine power, not because it's a V-class, but because as presented in the PH1 it was poorly balanced between it's to prime stats (too many CHA powers). The paladin also had far too few powers to choose from over all. An A-class only needs about 3 powers per level to provide base line diversity, but a V-class needs 4 powers per level to achieve a similar base line.
From a min-max optimization perspective, there is one "correct" path through each of the fighter builds. But all of the builds start with the exact same initial stat fighter (high strength). Similar for the wizard builds. Your initial stat (high Int) is the same for all wizards, regardless of build. From there, your optimized path through each build is pretty much set. Essentially, you have only one legitimate starting point for an A-class, regardless of how many legitimate secondary options you have.
The paladin, on the other hand, has three different potential starting points: Max Charisma, Max Strength, or Moderate for both. From those starting points, you then have multiple build approaches. Essentially, because your starting point for a V-class is optional, you have more path options.
This.
As a cleric (V-class), I have 3 optimal stat choices; STR+WIS or STR+CHA or WIS+CHA.
As a druid (A-class), I really only have two optimal stat choices; CON+WIS or DEX+WIS. CON+DEX is not a viable option.
Even for classes like the wizard (with more then 2 secondary stats) my options are limited. Because while I can choose CON or DEX or WIS or CHA, I must always have a high INT if I expect to be effective.
Something not yet mentioned is how the classes combine in terms of Multi or Hybrid options. One example I've struggled with is that I love the Unfettered Class from Arcana Evolved and I wish I could create a char that felt like my old char of this class. He was a roguish fighter that used TWF and Dex was his primary stat. Here I'm frustrated that Rogues don't get TWF (not fully), and Rangers have to use STR for theirs. I was thinking of Hybrid options but it's annoying that a Hybrid Archer / Rogue blends perfectly but a TWF / Rogue requires two primary stats.
As I look below I see a Stuntman's Post that I missed. Interesting he claims V improves multi/hybrid as I claim it makes it harder. I think over all I just want a system that allows us to create what it is we want to play flavor wise. We shouldn't have to go looking for "good combinations" and then be stuck there. We should be able to build an idea and know that the system itself is balanced.
Wow I was distracted and typing slow today. I missed a lot of posts before hitting send
*Hell, I'd even dispute that this is true. A Strength-based Paladin and a Charisma-based Paladin have two common class features (Divine Challenge and Channel Divinity) and one varying one as of DP (Lay on Hands/Ardent Vow/Virtue's Touch). A Fighter has two common class features (Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority) and one varying one (1h/2h Fighter Weapon Talent/Battlerager Vigor/Tempest Technique).
For the same number of powers, a V class has two build options that are more distinct from one another, but half the number of power choices for each. An A class still has two build options; though they might be somewhat more similar*, this is mitigated by the fact that it's feasible to take a power intended for the other.
*Hell, I'd even dispute that this is true. A Strength-based Paladin and a Charisma-based Paladin have two common class features (Divine Challenge and Channel Divinity) and one varying one as of DP (Lay on Hands/Ardent Vow/Virtue's Touch). A Fighter has two common class features (Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority) and one varying one (1h/2h Fighter Weapon Talent/Battlerager Vigor/Tempest Technique).
A two-weapon fighter and a polearm fighter have more in common than a laser cleric and a strength cleric.
And they don't really have "half as many" options because so many options are non-options due to being sucky. For example, see level 7 wizard powers - how many REAL options are there?
I personally find A classes to be the superior design method. V classes may provide starker variety within a class, but I don't really see the value inherent in that -- simply having more classes provides sufficient variety at that level. With V classes, players have fewer real power choices for their builds (except for the usually-weaker builds that use both primaries). I feel even the ranger suffers from having both melee and ranged powers, although they all work from Dex (I find the archer bard equally annoying).
Make every class do one thing solidly, provide options for varying that one thing, and then open up multiclassing and hybridization for creation of characters that take on multiple aspects.
Honestly, my preferred design style would have no primary stats.
Except that a plethora of different classes where each one is only minutely different isn't scalable. It is especially not scalable in 4e where you need around 200 powers to make a good class. And where are you going to get good distinct class mechanics for them all? V shaped classes at least allow you to take a theme and package it as a class.
Exactly how would you build a class under 4e as it is designed without a primary stat? Every attack power has a stat bonus. Spread that out too wide and you just create something WORSE than a V, you'd have a VW (well, OK, a VWW)!!! lol.
No they couldn't. The shaman's a Pet class (and a leader), and the druid is a Shapeshifting class (and a controller). How the hell could they have been squished into one class?
That was not something I was actually suggesting they should have done. They were the first two classes that came to my mind because I like them, and being of the same general power source they seemed good enough for an extemporaneous example.
Except that a plethora of different classes where each one is only minutely different isn't scalable. It is especially not scalable in 4e where you need around 200 powers to make a good class. And where are you going to get good distinct class mechanics for them all? V shaped classes at least allow you to take a theme and package it as a class.
Exactly how would you build a class under 4e as it is designed without a primary stat? Every attack power has a stat bonus. Spread that out too wide and you just create something WORSE than a V, you'd have a VW (well, OK, a VWW)!!! lol.
It wouldn't necessarily be 4e, but just do like what Mutants and Masterminds did, and make attack & damage bonus independent of stats. They've almost done it here, by making it so everybody can have at least 16 and usually an 18 in the main attack stat.
Just set everybody's "Attack Bonus" at +4 and have it go up by 1 every 8 levels, and at 21. Let the stats only modify secondary things: defenses, initiative, and skills.
I agree that there are advantages to both class types, but strangely i seem to prefer the V type, especially with classes that perform different combat roles. It just seems more logical to me that a guy hitting one guy with a mace uses strength, while his buddy from god school uses wisdom to blast spells... (i.e clerics :P)
The druid for example, comes off as a little shoddy because Wisdom is used in both melee and spell casting. I understand why they did it from a design viewpoint, im just not sure if it was the right thing to do.
I was hoping they were going to do more V classes because, frankly, it would sort of suck if there were four classes that did it in PHB and the rest of the classes ever presented were V's.
BTW, i am also looking to use CON as one of the main stats for my homebrew class (see OP), because there is another stat underused
No, no, a thousand times NO.
Like i said earlier, the V classes are designed the way they are for a reason. You aren't meant to be able to use every option the class has with equal effectiveness off of one or two stats; the classes would be too versatile and thus very overpowered. I dont buy the argument that you MUST have a race wih attribute bonuses in your primary stats to be effective either; saying you must have those bonuses to be Min-Maxed for combat would be more truthful. Min-Maxing is not a requirement, so please stop insinuating that if you dont squeeze every drop of mechanical advantage out of your stats then you are somehow going to fail at your job or be useless.
I'm sorry, in what way would actually getting the same number of powers to choose from as an A class overpower a V class? It's not like V classes have inherently stronger powers or features; nor is the verstility of melee vs. ranged attacks better than what can be achieved with focusing one style.
All a V class ends up being is two half classes they don't have to write a new feature block for. Any "variety" you see in a V class is an illusion of having two incomplete classes with the same name. The time that is "wasted" bringing V classes up to par in Power books could instead introduce 3rd or even 4th stat legs like with Wizards: opening even better multiclass combinations. Heck, an A class is more likely to be able to get away with forsaking their official secondary stat (it's no worse than a V class choosing both primaries) to create unorthodox combinations like a Str/Int fighter/wizard pre-swordmage.
Paladin
Primary stats: Cha or Str
Secondary stats: Cha, Wis
Cleric
Primary stats: Str or Wis
Secondary stats: Wis, Cha
Both paladins and clerics suffer from the fact that one of their primary stats is also a secondary stat. All paladins benefit from Cha, as it increases the effectiveness of DC and DS. All clerics benefit from Wis, as it improves their healing. However, it's quite possible to dump Str for Cha paladins or Wis clerics. So a Str cleric or paladin is really a 3 stat character, while a Wis cleric or Cha paladin only needs 2 stats. I'm not sure what Str clerics and paladins get to make up for this inherent weakness.
The original idea for the V and A system came from a very nice party composition article in Dragon 373 by Robert.J.Schwalb d
Anyway where so the terms A and V classes come from?
The answer precedes the question. :D
It wouldn't necessarily be 4e, but just do like what Mutants and Masterminds did, and make attack & damage bonus independent of stats. They've almost done it here, by making it so everybody can have at least 16 and usually an 18 in the main attack stat.
Just set everybody's "Attack Bonus" at +4 and have it go up by 1 every 8 levels, and at 21. Let the stats only modify secondary things: defenses, initiative, and skills.
Yeah, well, I was only talking about the design of 4e, not hypothetical systems. I agree there are all kinds of things a hypothetical system could do. Personally I think eliminating stat modifiers would be a bad idea, but such a discussion is best conducted on the "what I want to see in 5e" thread. To capsule my argument it would be that an essentially classless system obviates these concerns.
Exactly how would you build a class under 4e as it is designed without a primary stat?
You can't, but you can easily enough change the system to make it work.
Take the stat bonus that you would receive if you started with an 18 in your primary stat and pumped it at every level a stat increase is available (mapped across every level). So, that's a +4 at levels 1-7, +5 at levels 8-13, and so forth.
Add this bonus to all attack rolls. Remove the stat mod from all attack rolls.
Optionally, do the same for damage rolls, although I think I'd prefer that the damage mods be divided up across the stats (different powers using different stats for damage mods, within a class). It's easier to swallow a couple points less damage than it is a couple points lower attack roll, and stats still impact most of the powers.
And they don't really have "half as many" options because so many options are non-options due to being sucky. For example, see level 7 wizard powers - how many REAL options are there?
All of them
Now I know to embrace one side and run with it, thanks forums.
You've made me a better play and more willing to embrace classes that before I wouldn't have.
Now I know to embrace one side and run with it
And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!
Honestly, there's really isn't a reason why a cleric's Healing Strike for example, be only a Strength attack. Why can't it be a Strength or Wisdom attack?
True enough, most of Ranger's powers weren't bolted to a stat.
Yes and no. Rangers use STR for melee attacks and DEX for ranged attacks. It's just that many ranger powers can be used for either.
With clerics the divide is STR for weapon attacks and WIS for implement attacks. For Warlocks the divide is pact based (though after arcane power abandoned printing recommended pact on each power that has become harder to see). Paladins are trickier, their implement powers are CHA, but so are many weapon powers (I haven't figured out any pattern yet).
Other classes I would have liked to see use a V design are bard (DEX weapon and CHA implement) and druid (CON wildeshape and WIS "spells").
... and druid (CON wildeshape and WIS "spells").
I hope you don't mind, but I want to call out this specific example as how an A class would grant more variety than a V one. The current PHB2 druid has at least 6 variants, (DEX vs Con) and (Beast/Caster/balanced)- the power spread is fairly even and in my experience any combination works as well as the others. If you made Druid a V class (with DEX as AC and riders) you'd have Wis Casters, Con beasts, and a Hybrid with no defense (unless they retained the CON to AC feature) or riders.
I hope you don't mind, but I want to call out this specific example as how an A classwcould grant more variety than a V one.
Just adjusting the opening statement so that folks don't make the mistake of thinking that you are claiming that A-classes grant more variety than V-classes.
And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!
The battle is an A class, actually.
Just adjusting the opening statement so that folks don't make the mistake of thinking that you are claiming that A-classes grant more variety than V-classes.
But I am, V classes offer the game nothing. The secondary stat riders can encourage power diversity more effectively that dual attack stat tyranny.
You're free to hold and even state whatever opinion you like, but opinions, even offered with conviction, do not serve as their own support.
But I am, V classes offer the game nothing. The secondary stat riders can encourage power diversity more effectively that dual attack stat tyranny.
[INDENT]Sorcerer(A): STR+CHA or DEX+CHA; cant STR+DEX
Warlock(V): CON+INT or CON+CHA or INT+CHA
Invoker(A): CON+WIS or INT+WIS; can't CON+INT
Cleric(V): STR+WIS or STR+CHA or WIS+CHA[/INDENT]
V-classes offer more versatility in stat allocation.
The problem is that most of the V classes are not really V classes. They admitted as much in the hybrid class descriptions:
Paladin
Primary stats: Cha or Str
Secondary stats: Cha, Wis
Cleric
Primary stats: Str or Wis
Secondary stats: Wis, Cha
Both paladins and clerics suffer from the fact that one of their primary stats is also a secondary stat. All paladins benefit from Cha, as it increases the effectiveness of DC and DS. All clerics benefit from Wis, as it improves their healing. However, it's quite possible to dump Str for Cha paladins or Wis clerics. So a Str cleric or paladin is really a 3 stat character, while a Wis cleric or Cha paladin only needs 2 stats. I'm not sure what Str clerics and paladins get to make up for this inherent weakness.
This is true, but it doesn't have to be true, necessarily. Warlocks lack this issue, for example (IIRC, at least), and it wouldn't be difficult to build a class with this in mind.
Incidentally, strength-based clerics and paladins get the advantage of the ability to pick up weapon specialization, in the case of clerics have better odds of being able to upgrade their armor/shield, and have the advantage of not having two stats in Will-defense boosting attributes. A strength/wisdom or strength/charisma cleric, and a strength/wisdom or strength/charisma paladin, have better defenses than a wisdom/charisma cleric or paladin.
They also don't have to invest in a feat to gain OAs which can actually hit, though a wisdom/charisma cleric probably won't anyway.
[INDENT]Sorcerer(A): STR+CHA or DEX+CHA; cant STR+DEX
Warlock(V): CON+INT or CON+CHA or INT+CHA
Invoker(A): CON+WIS or INT+WIS; can't CON+INT
Cleric(V): STR+WIS or STR+CHA or WIS+CHA[/INDENT]
V-classes offer more versatility in stat allocation.
But a Sorcerer COULD be CHA+INT as long as your chose powers with no stat riders, or CHA+CON if they also feated into Heavy armor- those unique path choices bolstered with multiclassing. Those potentials become more viable as Wizards add extra legs to an A class like they've done to Fighters and Wizards (and almost did to swordmages with Wandering Paragon Path), but they are no worse off that a double primary stat build even with no Wizards support. A V class deviating from the 3 combos of it's stats will be FAR worse off since it will have half choice of their powers (instead of full) and will have no secondary rider.
Look beyond the naked stats, like the Druid- It doesn't matter that WIS is the stat determining accuracy, it matters what they are actually using power wise and how they play tactics wise. The STR/CHA paladin (hybriding implement and weapon attacks) is identical in tactics to a hypothetical A class Paladin that used CHA for all attack bonus and happened to pick a balance of weapon and implement powers (except the Hypothetical A class paladin would have much stronger riders). By giving 2 secondaries, you able to better diversify the weapon and caster powers among their similiar peers (This beast power makes me more defensive powered by Con, this one makes me more aggressive powered by Dex)
If you refuse to look beyond the stats, then realize that the only difference in potential stat allocations is the V class "gets" to be BAD at one of it's class stats, which value is dubious, bordering on not making any sense when you consider they way Wizards writes the class descriptions they don't ever recommend dumping your third class stat. The attack stat is chosen based on what attribute should be universally present in members of that class- does a clumsy rogue that can't hide or pick locks make sense, or have we really just made a Str/Wis melee ranger? Charisma Paladins are very likely to have less physical strength than most other classes, yet they wear the heaviest armor and hit with weapons. A hypothetical V class sorcerer choosing STR+DEX would have no personality (Ego) or Will power at all but would be strong and fast?
Before you say that's absurd: The V classes are more likely to dump one of the primaries than an A class would it's other secondary, because Primary stats are only useful when maximized to keep up with defenses, but secondaries can get away with medium values and still be used in riders and utilities.
_____________________________
I hope these explanations will do Seeker.
O Class: Some powers use stat 1 for attack and stat 2 for effects, some use stat 2 for attack and stat 1 for effects. Heh, why not toss in a third stat too? Two or three primaries, all of which are also secondaries.
Dot class: One ability score. Period. It's used for attacks/damage, effects, everything. Pretty restrictive though.
Actually, I don't want to see a dot class. It would cause problems and be boring.
While in theory V classes are perfectly fine, in practice they fail miserably. This is due to support. One thing designers of PHB and later books did not do is compare number of options for each leg of the V. Str paladins got short changed in PHB. Some idiot did not notice that Str clerics has almost no choices for PP's (and still has almost none after DP) without multiclassing. OTH while his healing is better, until DP, Wisdom cleric was really short changed on encounter healing powers outside of healing word and utilities.
I'm so sick of hearing this. Strength Clerics have 2 paragon paths in the PHB: Angelic Avenger and Warpriest.
In Divine Power, Battle Chaplain adds further to that, as does Stone Keeper in a limited way. Of course there were more Wisdom based ones than Strength, but that is because Divine Power introduced a second wisdom build (the shielding cleric), which they provided many, many PPs for in Divine Power.
In summation: Strength Clerics are fine. They were fine with the PHB, and they're still fine now.
You know who had it bad for PPs in the PHB? Warlocks. They had no real multiclassing options (as they only class with main CON or CHA) aside from maybe a wizard, and that was only if you had great INT. And aside from anything with them being a V-class, their PPs were limited by Pact, and there were only 3 instead of every other class's 4. Clerics had fantastic options comparatively.
STR paladins were lacking in the PHB, yes. But it's not a factor of the V-class design, but of oversights in power balancing. Paladins already got the least of any class in number of powers, and then they weren't even always equal in number between Charisma and Strength. Just because something was handled badly one time does not mean the idea is terrible. It just means bad handling will produce bad results with a V-class, just like bad handling produces bad results with an A-class.
The prime example is the bard - an A class. The bard originally shipped with a Cha/Con and a Cha/Int build, but Arcane Power added the Cha/Wis Virtue of Prescience build. One could also conceive of other stat pairings (a Virtue of Grace Cha/Dex build, perhaps?) that further expand the options.
The rogue also showcases a second possible A class growth path. The rogue shipped with a Dex/Str and a Dex/Cha build. Martial Power added the Ruthless Ruffian, which forms the bar in the "A." The Ruthless Ruffian uses both Charisma and Strength as secondary stats, and also allows for a Dex/Str/Con build to exploit Hammer Rhythm.
A V class, on the other hand, can only add new build choices that use the same stat pairings, so even though the classes may start with 3 pairings, the A class will eventually surpass them. The only feasible paths to grow are shown in the warlock - simply adding more builds to the primary stats (like the Vestige or Dark Pacts) or adding an intentionally "balanced" build (like the Star Pact).
The V class shape is a result of poor design. This does not mean that the V classes aren't worth playing, it just limits the amount of noticeable growth they can have and limits the choices that players can make.
I am glad that there will likely not be any more V classes (considering that none have been released after the original PHB).
I'm so sick of hearing this. Strength Clerics have 2 paragon paths in the PHB: Angelic Avenger and Warpriest.
In Divine Power, Battle Chaplain adds further to that, as does Stone Keeper in a limited way. Of course there were more Wisdom based ones than Strength, but that is because Divine Power introduced a second wisdom build (the shielding cleric), which they provided many, many PPs for in Divine Power.
In summation: Strength Clerics are fine. They were fine with the PHB, and they're still fine now.
You know who had it bad for PPs in the PHB? Warlocks. They had no real multiclassing options (as they only class with main CON or CHA) aside from maybe a wizard, and that was only if you had great INT. And aside from anything with them being a V-class, their PPs were limited by Pact, and there were only 3 instead of every other class's 4. Clerics had fantastic options comparatively.
STR paladins were lacking in the PHB, yes. But it's not a factor of the V-class design, but of oversights in power balancing. Paladins already got the least of any class in number of powers, and then they weren't even always equal in number between Charisma and Strength. Just because something was handled badly one time does not mean the idea is terrible. It just means bad handling will produce bad results with a V-class, just like bad handling produces bad results with an A-class.
But how would one "mess up" an A class without making it so weak it didn't survive testing? At least with V classes they get the excuse that they only tested one build
.But how would one "mess up" an A class without making it so weak it didn't survive testing? At least with V classes they get the excuse that they only tested one build
I'm waiting for all the people who hated the PHB-only Wizard to pop up and cite all their examples.
It is worth noting that A classes allow for more growth in terms of the stats you can use than V classes. A V Class will always have the same 3 stats that it uses because adding more would exacerbate the negative - a large portion of the class's powers being untenable for most builds. An A class, though, could easily add a third secondary stat to its builds without creating any problems.
The prime example is the bard - an A class. The bard originally shipped with a Cha/Con and a Cha/Int build, but Arcane Power added the Cha/Wis Virtue of Prescience build. One could also conceive of other stat pairings (a Virtue of Grace Cha/Dex build, perhaps?) that further expand the options.
(snip)
A V class, on the other hand, can only add new build choices that use the same stat pairings, so even though the classes may start with 3 pairings, the A class will eventually surpass them. The only feasible paths to grow are shown in the warlock - simply adding more builds to the primary stats (like the Vestige or Dark Pacts) or adding an intentionally "balanced" build (like the Star Pact).
Quoted For Truth. However, they could add more options to a V class and turn it into an "H Class" (or X Class), if they wanted. For example, the Paladin could gain a couple builds that used CON instead of WIS for their secondary stat. Then you'd have STR+WIS, STR+CON, CHA+WIS, and CHA+CON Paladins.
It is worth noting that A classes allow for more growth in terms of the stats you can use than V classes. A V Class will always have the same 3 stats that it uses because adding more would exacerbate the negative - a large portion of the class's powers being untenable for most builds. An A class, though, could easily add a third secondary stat to its builds without creating any problems.
The prime example is the bard - an A class. The bard originally shipped with a Cha/Con and a Cha/Int build, but Arcane Power added the Cha/Wis Virtue of Prescience build. One could also conceive of other stat pairings (a Virtue of Grace Cha/Dex build, perhaps?) that further expand the options.
The rogue also showcases a second possible A class growth path. The rogue shipped with a Dex/Str and a Dex/Cha build. Martial Power added the Ruthless Ruffian, which forms the bar in the "A." The Ruthless Ruffian uses both Charisma and Strength as secondary stats, and also allows for a Dex/Str/Con build to exploit Hammer Rhythm.
A V class, on the other hand, can only add new build choices that use the same stat pairings, so even though the classes may start with 3 pairings, the A class will eventually surpass them. The only feasible paths to grow are shown in the warlock - simply adding more builds to the primary stats (like the Vestige or Dark Pacts) or adding an intentionally "balanced" build (like the Star Pact).
Quoted For Truth. However, they could add more options to a V class and turn it into an "H Class" (or X Class), if they wanted. For example, the Paladin could gain a couple builds that used CON instead of WIS for their secondary stat. Then you'd have STR+WIS, STR+CON, CHA+WIS, and CHA+CON Paladins.
This is thoroughly true (and he even forgot Cha + Str pallies). Note:
You add one stat to an A Class: 2 Options + 1 Option = 3.
You add one stat to a V Class: 2 Options (3 for the case of the Paladin, Warlock, etc.who can take a balanced build between both main stats + 2 Options = 5 Options.
Your point, Ekko, only further strengthens the argument that V classes retain more versatility than A classes.
Yeah... that's not a source I'd consider credible in a debate of class balance.
But it's true. It's a very common argument that WotC did a bad job on the PHB wizard, especially on the War Wizard build (Hey, that's half the class that was done poorly! It's just like the Paladin), and that the Control Wizard build only offers reasonable good control because of all the save-ends penalties that can be stacked (which is a very limited, but many would argue the only effective way of playing that build).
Before you say that's absurd: The V classes are more likely to dump one of the primaries than an A class would it's other secondary, because Primary stats are only useful when maximized to keep up with defenses, but secondaries can get away with medium values and still be used in riders and utilities.
_____________________________
I hope these explanations will do Seeker.
I believe we are talking about different sides of this coin. I *am* talking solely about unique build option statistics. The number of viable unique build options is exponentially higher for a V-class than for an A-class.
- An A-class has one base stat and two (or three) secondary stats. A1 and B1 and B2
- A V-class has two base stats and one (or two) secondary stats. C1 and C2 and D1
Initial viable A-Class builds:
A1 + B1
A1 + B2
Initial viable V-Class builds:
C1 + D1
C2 + D1
C1 + C2
- A-Class builds must* choose the primary stat.
- V-Class builds have the option of choosing a primary stat and the secondary stat or both primary stats.
The raw number of viable unique character approaches is higher for V-classes than for A-classes. At a table with three players choosing the same class, it is possible to have three unique stat-approaches for a V-class. For an A-class, there's gonna be a duplicate.
The argument that the designers can add additional secondary stat options applies equally to both A-class and V-class, as Tzepish noted.
* It can be done, but choosing a fighter without a high strength or a Wizard without a high intelligence isn't wise. It would be like sacrificing horse power for handling in a quarter-mile drag race.
The argument that the designers can add additional secondary stat options applies equally to both A-class and V-class, as Tzepish noted.
Agreed. And as I noted earlier, With a single secondary stat added, V-classes grow faster in versatility than an A-class does.
The V-Class design uniformly grants more versatility in Ability Score placement, which means more options for a possible character in skills, mechanics, feats, and race choice.
Agreed. And as I noted earlier, With a single secondary stat added, V-classes grow faster in versatility than an A-class does.
The V-Class design uniformly grants more versatility in Ability Score placement, which means more options for a possible character in skills, mechanics, feats, and race choice.
I think you both greatly misread Ekko's post- he was saying you can't add new secondaries to a V as you further narrow the avaiable power selection-those of the new stat combos will be the same to each other from lack of power choice. Those with no secondary stat (the C1+C2 build) does not have pairity, because it lack riders and possibly it's AC source.
Instead he was saying Warlock has grown by adding more powers of the same primary attacks (Vestige and Dark) as before. The Star pact doesn't mix CON and CHA, it's just indecisive and offers no riders to reward picking both stats, but relies on INT riders. From your overly stat centric viewpoint this offeres nothing more than Cosmic and Storm did to sorcerers- same stats, different flavor and feature. For someone like me who sees power choice and tactics as the key differention, these are worthwhile if somewhat less exiciting than a new stat A leg.
In contrast, Rogue and Warlord as A classes have grown by adding a feature and powers that use BOTH secondarys without being weakened, there's a consideration you left out of your math.
Consider that so far, Wizards hasn't tried to add an additional secondary to a V class, even when divine power was the perfect time to do it they spent all their time "repairing" the failings of the original V build (even the token powers that use both STR and CHA on pallies are not enough to be viable) and giving clerics more Wis powers to placate the healbot archetype. The "combinations" of adding a new condary to a V class might appear doubled, but you are still only playing a class with half of otherwise normal power choices.
If they give Paladins a new secondary feature and created 4 powers per level using it, each primary gets 2 (if they are smart) so there is little variety between those that chose the same primary.
Looking at it universally over 10 power gaining levels (to make math easier) it becomes 10C20 + 10C20 =2(184756)= 369512 possible power combinations- compared to 10C40= 847660528. I'm cheating by not factoring your choices are more limited at lower levels, and you are far less likely to pick low level powers but the relationship stays the same: orders of MAGNITUDE more possibilities from an A class for the same developement effort.
This doesn't even begin to consider with 4 powers per level, and 1 stat driven feature, it'd be easy to make a well flushed 3rd leg of an A, or just make a singe additional "feature" off a second stat, flip the rider of half the powers to that second stat, and you have a viable new A class.
In truth, wizards COULD have designed V classes so all powers and features benefited from one of two possible stats, then they'd have full power selection and fuctioning riders. But they haven't, and at this rate it seems like they never will (there's real estate in making the same power keyed off a different stat, like Eyebite vs the Psion level 1 power with the same effect). so read into that what you will.
A-Class builds must* choose the primary stat.
You see this as a limitation; I see it as a key source of keeping the classes themselves distinct from one another (along with whatever stat never become their supported secondary). By defining a stat the class MUST have it secures their identity: Wizards are smart, Sorcerors have Egos, and (if warlocks were an A class based on CON) Warlocks are tough (or they could be DEX primary and be sneaky), despite the fact they are all pointy hatted, dress wearing, spellflickers (to quote a favorite game of mine). I'd throw in Invokers being Wise but being divine has endowed them the right to use chain, go figure.
I think you both greatly misread Ekko's post- he was saying you can't add new secondaries to a V as you further narrow the avaiable power selection-those of the new stat combos will be the same to each other from lack of power choice. Those with no secondary stat (the C1+C2 build) does not have pairity, because it lack riders and possibly it's AC source.
This is true to some extent if a class's only benefits from secondaries comes from power riders. If you are playing a class like paladin which has a strong incentive based on their class features to take a secondary stat, then you do not have this happen; a str paladin takes cha secondary to improve his mark or wis secondary to improve his LoH or equivalent. I will grant you that this is only applicable to str clerics and str paladins, and not to other varieties of divine classes nor to warlocks and rangers. However, this provides an example of the fact that being a V class does not necessarily restrict versatility, only that it has in some implementations.
It's also worth noting that even if you introduce a fourth stat, the A class has exactly as many options as the V class (P1/S,P2/S,P1/P2 vs. P/S1,P/S2,P/S3). There are fewer power selections for a V class, but the disparity isn't as great as it seems: even A classes tend to have a lot of powers which you really have no business taking unless you possess a certain class feature or other choice which improves that power (for example, mordenkrad fighters are not going to get much out of Rain of Blows and high-con low-int bravolords are not going to be taking Lead the Attack).
In addition, out of the 18 classes that have thus far been introduced in full, only 3 have more than three recommended stats, and only one has more than four (and the wizard has a very weak dependence on secondary stats compared to most classes anyway). Even if 4 stat classes favored A builds in terms of versatility (which they don't), they're not common enough for that to be a reason to exclude V builds from all classes.
This is true to some extent if a class's only benefits from secondaries comes from power riders. If you are playing a class like paladin which has a strong incentive based on their class features to take a secondary stat, then you do not have this happen; a str paladin takes cha secondary to improve his mark or wis secondary to improve his LoH or equivalent. I will grant you that this is only applicable to str clerics and str paladins, and not to other varieties of divine classes nor to warlocks and rangers. However, this provides an example of the fact that being a V class does not necessarily restrict versatility, only that it has in some implementations.
It's also worth noting that even if you introduce a fourth stat, the A class has exactly as many options as the V class (P1/S,P2/S,P1/P2 vs. P/S1,P/S2,P/S3). There are fewer power selections for a V class, but the disparity isn't as great as it seems: even A classes tend to have a lot of powers which you really have no business taking unless you possess a certain class feature or other choice which improves that power (for example, mordenkrad fighters are not going to get much out of Rain of Blows and high-con low-int bravolords are not going to be taking Lead the Attack).
In addition, out of the 18 classes that have thus far been introduced in full, only 3 have more than three recommended stats, and only one has more than four (and the wizard has a very weak dependence on secondary stats compared to most classes anyway). Even if 4 stat classes favored A builds in terms of versatility (which they don't), they're not common enough for that to be a reason to exclude V builds from all classes.
I like this post. I want to make it my friend.
I think you both greatly misread Ekko's post- he was saying you can't add new secondaries to a V as you further narrow the available power selection
This is equally true for A-classes. Adding a new secondary to any class requires that the designer doing so add powers to support such a decision -- whether for a V-class or an A-class. Your examples describe how it would operate for both types.
You see this as a limitation; I see it as a key source of keeping the classes themselves distinct from one another. By defining a stat the class MUST have it secures their identity
The combination of party role, power source, and descriptive fluff are what distinguish classes from each other. *Within* a class, what you view as "secure" I view as a straight-jacket.
I don't normally visit the future anything boards, so this will likely be my last participation in this thread.
I don't normally visit the future anything boards, so this will likely be my last participation in this thread.
Awww, your posts are always so intelligent and mature. That makes me sad.
This is equally true for A-classes. Adding a new secondary to any class requires that the designer doing so add powers to support such a decision -- whether for a V-class or an A-class. Your examples describe how it would operate for both types.
The combination of party role, power source, and descriptive fluff are what distinguish classes from each other. *Within* a class, what you view as "secure" I view as a straight-jacket.
I don't normally visit the future anything boards, so this will likely be my last participation in this thread.
Except that in a V class when 4 powers are made for a new secondary only 2 are accessible to you.
Is it really a Straight jacket to say "guy would reads a lot should have high INT". It's one thing to say "I want my wizard to be bold/shy" it's another to say "I want my wizard to be clueless about how magic actually works"- because sorcerors are the clueless casters.
All of my responses have a few assumptions:
- That a player can only choose one power at any given level.
- That a player will choose the most powerful power at any given level.
- That at any given level, the number of "most powerful" powers is measurable.
- Diversity means "possible number of unique presentations"
Except that in a V class when 4 powers are made for a new secondary only 2 are accessible to you.
So? I can only choose one regardless of A- or V-class. I will choose the one power that best fits my build.
The difference is that for an A-class, the "best fits my build" power is going to be the same power for *all* builds if the best power is based on the primary stat. Any wizard power based on Intelligence is likely to be chosen (if the best) or rejected (if not the best) by *all* wizards at that level. Two wizards in the same party? Odds are that they both take the same power at every level at which the best power is Int-based. To create diversity between wizards, the designers have to actively avoiding making any really good Int-based powers.
For a V-class, the problem that A-classes face is still present, but the internal diversity is built in. The "best fits my build" power is based on which primary stat I chose. Any paladin power based on Charisma is likely to be chosen (if the best) or rejected (if not the best) by *all* Charisma Paladins at that level. But any paladin power based on Strength is likely to be chosen (if the best) or rejected (if not the best) by *all* Strength Paladins at that level. Two paladins in the same party? Odds are that one went strength and the other went charisma, giving two very different paladins.
When we throw secondary stats into the mix, A-classes and V-classes are in the same boat. Either the new powers key off the secondary stat or they don't. And the power is either better than the best available primary stat power at that level or it isn't. The designers face the same structural dilemma when creating secondary-stat dependency powers. If it is better than the primary stat powers, it gets selected. If not, it doesn't. Secondary-stat power dependency expands the diversity for both A- and V-classes at the same rate.
Similarly, multiclassing options expand the diversity of A-classes and V-classes equally. It is not relevant to the diversity presented by the primary-stat options (or lack thereof).
A-class diversity:
1 (# primary stat) x S (# of viable secondary stats) x P (best power at each level) = 1SP
V-class diversity:
2 (# primary stats) x S (# of viable secondary stats) x P (best power at each level) = 2SP
W-class diversity:
3 (# primary stats) x S (# of viable secondary stats) x P (best power at each level) = 3SP
Is it really a Straight jacket to say "guy would reads a lot should have high INT".
I believe it is a straight-jacket to say that the guy who bends the arcane laws of the universe to his will must be a smart guy first and foremost. Not a passionate (charisma) guy. Not a wise (wisdom) guy. Not a forceful (constitution) guy. He's gotta be smarter than he is passionate, wise, or forceful. Wanna be a D*D wizard? Better have your Intelligence be highest. Just like all the other wizards. Just like the other player at the table who also prefers wizards.
It is a straight-jacket because at every level for which the best power is Int-based, the smart *player* will generally choose that power, making the two wizards at the table carbon copies at all levels for which the best power is Int-based.
A-classes remove the diversity of build at every level for which the designers mistakenly catered to the primary stat.
It's one thing to say "I want my wizard to be bold/shy" it's another to say "I want my wizard to be clueless about how magic actually works"- because sorcerers are the clueless casters.
When you resort to hyperbole to support a position, it erodes the position.
I would reword your closing remark as follows:
It's one thing to say "I want my wizard to be bold/shy" it's another to say "I want my wizard to to be smart enough about how magic actually works to make it work, so that he can focus on its delivery (passion, force) instead of its academic fundamentals."
I want my magic professor to be the smartest magician in the world. But I want to be the most famous wizard he ever taught, because I'm better at doing magic, not teaching it.
A quarterback needs to know the plays, the physics of football, the defense of the other team, the limitations of his own defense, the skills of his receivers, and the limits of his own arm. But in the end, he makes or breaks his career on how strong and accurate his arm is. I want my wizard to have the option of being the longest or more accurate arm in the game.
And on the matter of diversity, I would like my wizard to be different from the wizard of the guy sitting at the same table with me.
You may not read this, but your latest response had some assumptions I see large holes in.
So? I can only choose one regardless of A- or V-class. I will choose the one power that best fits my build. The difference is that for an A-class, the "best fits my build" power is going to be the same power for *all* builds if the best power is based on the primary stat. Any wizard power based on Intelligence is likely to be chosen (if the best) or rejected (if not the best) by *all* wizards at that level. Two wizards in the same party? Odds are that they both take the same power at every level at which the best power is Int-based. To create diversity between wizards, the designers have to actively avoiding making any really good Int-based powers.
You chose 1 power, but of a larger pool of possible choices. Not every time you play will you pick the "universal best power" because often times there is no clear winner, other times certain tactics or themes will raise one above the other: Two wizards might share a spell, but a cold focused wizard won't share much with a thunder focused one. Or maybe you just want to try a different spell because you used the "best" one last time- the more powers that are eligibe for your stat choice the less "painful" picking a non-optimal power will be. Furthermore, the whole point of the secondary stat, for both V and A classes, is that effects are driven off it (or are static) rather than using the primary stat (which incidentally, is why some argue Righteous Brand is overpowered for having a primary rider). The only powers you won't pick are the ones that overly depend on having a high secondary stat that you didn't choose to raise.
For a V-class, the problem that A-classes face is still present, but the internal diversity is built in. The "best fits my build" power is based on which primary stat I chose. Any paladin power based on Charisma is likely to be chosen (if the best) or rejected (if not the best) by *all* Charisma Paladins at that level. But any paladin power based on Strength is likely to be chosen (if the best) or rejected (if not the best) by *all* Strength Paladins at that level. Two paladins in the same party? Odds are that one went strength and the other went charisma, giving two very different paladins. When we throw secondary stats into the mix, A-classes and V-classes are in the same boat. Either the new powers key off the secondary stat or they don't. And the power is either better than the best available primary stat power at that level or it isn't. The designers face the same structural dilemma when creating secondary-stat dependency powers. If it is better than the primary stat powers, it gets selected. If not, it doesn't.
What good is knowing that Cha paladin picks different attacks from the Str paladins when ALL Cha paladins pick the same attack because they can only pick from 2? The "built in diversity" you just mentioned is nothing more than what A classes accomplish with secondary stat or feature-choice based riders. The V classes (often) lack the middle ground of powers that either path could chose (represented in A clases as powers with static riders- once again I admit things would be different if Wizards made more split stat powers). I'll also repeat a previous point that A classes can more easily split their stat boosts from their secondary stat (to get feats or benefit from his opposed secondary's power) than a V can afford to not raise primaries.
Secondary-stat power dependency expands the diversity for both A- and V-classes at the same rate. Similarly, multiclassing options expand the diversity of A-classes and V-classes equally. It is not relevant to the diversity presented by the primary-stat options (or lack thereof). A-class diversity: 1 (# primary stat) x S (# of viable secondary stats) x P (best power at each level) = 1SP V-class diversity: 2 (# primary stats) x S (# of viable secondary stats) x P (best power at each level) = 2SP W-class diversity: 3 (# primary stats) x S (# of viable secondary stats) x P (best power at each level) = 3SP
This is wrong as my Power combinations math demonstrated earlier, the factorial operation is exponential, not linear.
I believe it is a straight-jacket to say that the guy who bends the arcane laws of the universe to his will must be a smart guy first and foremost. Not a passionate (charisma) guy. Not a wise (wisdom) guy. Not a forceful (constitution) guy. He's gotta be smarter than he is passionate, wise, or forceful. Wanna be a D*D wizard? Better have your Intelligence be highest. Just like all the other wizards. Just like the other player at the table who also prefers wizards. It is a straight-jacket because at every level for which the best power is Int-based, the smart *player* will generally choose that power, making the two wizards at the table carbon copies at all levels for which the best power is Int-based. A-classes remove the diversity of build at every level for which the designers mistakenly catered to the primary stat.
I think it's a far worse straight jacket that all paladins who what to go strongly with the domain of Death or Winter (using the boosted at will) must be Charismatic instead of the better thematic match of the Str/Con/Wis Ardent build. Especially considering you can (and is often optimal) to build characters with equal primary/secondary stat, or even get away with a HIGHER secondary (orb wizards, Int warlords).
It's not that a wizard must be Smart over all else, it's just that he can't be book dumb. And he can't be book dumb because those that use magic successfully without studying books are represented by a different class package (all casters bend the universe to their will).
Your class is not necessary the character's profession/self label- the book dumb character that has the sorcerer class can still be called wizard in universe. Getting to pick your combination of stats and tactics is more a class choice than an expression of variety. The real choice is what powers you can pick from once you've been bolted to a set of stats and a class.
Personally, I prefer A classes only.
If I want a Str-Cleric warrior, Id prefer this option to be a separate class. If I want a Wis-Cha-Cleric mage, I want this to be a separate class. If I want to balance both of these classes together, Id hybrid them.
Hybriding the A classes together seems to obsolete the V classes.
Only because you're focusing on what divides them, rather than what unites them. All Clerics share fundamental class features. These are things that Battle Clerics have as well as Devoted and Shielding Clerics. In fact, you could say, with something like the Paladin - where Avenging Paladins and Protecting Paladins share Lay on Hands, they're more similar to each other in terms of Class Features than to the other builds with the same main ability score.
Just because a class uses two main ability scores doesn't mean it would be better off as a Hybrid of two classes - in fact, Hybrids are NOT meant to play that way; they're meant to be played with the same key ability score, like a Sorcerer and a Bard, or a Barbarian and a Warlord - otherwise you over exert your abilities.
You have to look at class themes, features, and such to show why a class really would be one class rather than just the crunch. We don't want classes that step on each other's toes. A Cha-Warlock and a Con-Warlock are both Warlocks, they both make Pacts with foreign and dangerous entities. They all have Shadow Walk, Warlock's Curse, and Eldritch Blast. It would be silly to have two "Binder" classes that were identicle save for ability scores.
Personally, I enjoy V classes, but don't find myself playing them often. My human paladin, pre DP, didn't fair up very well compared to the party's warden. Instead I was shoved to the untility roll. At different times I was call upon to fill the defender, leader, and striker rolls. Funny thing is...it worked.
"A" classes can diversify their powers as well- it more how you build than how the classes stats are structured.
Just because a class uses two main ability scores doesn't mean it would be better off as a Hybrid of two classes - in fact, Hybrids are NOT meant to play that way; they're meant to be played with the same key ability score, like a Sorcerer and a Bard, or a Barbarian and a Warlord - otherwise you over exert your abilities.
I don't understand why hybrids are not meant to be played with two different ability scores. You can simply increase those two scores over time. You can do the same with V classes if you choose to pick powers with different primary ability scores. If anything, hybrids and multiclassing may be easier with V classes because it is more likely a V class has powers that use the same key ability as your other hybrid class or the class you multiclass into.
Even if you increase both over time, you can't invest a 16 or 18 in both without sacrificing initial values for other ability scores which are often the secondary or tertiary scores. Unless you're Hybridising with classes that bounce off each other (Storm Sorcerer and Aerialist Rogue, for instance) where once class's secondary is the other's primary and vice-versa, you need to put in a decent score into at least one third ability, and that's going to make your entire character weaker. You can't raise three abilities without sacrificing at least two of their raising scores, since you only get two raises for two states besides the tier jump.
For these reasons, using the same key ability score is HIGHLY Suggested.
Marandahir: You can't raise three abilities without sacrificing at least two of their raising scores.
Haldrik: Therefore ... there should only be A classes. *smirk*
When hybriding, more likely than not, the A classes will happen to have a secondary ability that matches the primary abilty of the Hybrid class. And visaversa.
So, its elegant (and optimal) to design A classes with multiple secondary builds.