I was reminded of some of my issues with the first PHB. There were two of them: Cleric/Paladin similarity, and V classes (quick reminder, V classes are classes which use two primary ability scores, instead of both builds sharing the same attack stat).
My group didn't like the V classes from the start. We find them to all be problematic and shoe-horning (except for the ranger; since half of the powers or so are "melee or ranged", they have the same number of options as everyone else). My group would like to see all Clerics be Wise, all Paladins be Strong, and all Warlocks be Charismatic.
To facilitate my group's desires, I was going to start working on alternates. If there's interest, I'll be posting the results. I'd love input as well. Here's the direction we're heading for them all:
Cleric
- Wisdom Primary; Int or Cha secondary
- Cloth armor. Will get some AC bonus for staying in cloth armor to keep their AC in the appropriate leader range; it can be lower because they aren't melee focused. Cha build gets to add Charisma to AC (divine grace) instead of Dex or Int to keep AC scaling properly. We'd still like to see the Wis/Cha build get some bonus to their Fort or Ref to make up for the stacking of Will abilities, but that's another topic entirely.
- Intelligence build focuses on healing and defenses (they know their prayers more, they're your cloistered studious types) and Charisma build focuses on smiting (they're the evangelical preacher priests that go out and about more). I'm not entirely certain on this one, we're still going back and forth.
- Entirely implement based.
Paladin
- Strength Primary; Wis or Cha secondary (my group looked at me strange the first time I made a high Cha/Wis paladin with a 10 str and a 14 con; he could barely carry his shield and armor and weapons).
- Wisdom build focuses on the more defensive aspects, Charisma build focuses on the more smite-tastic aspects.
- We'd prefer to not have implement powers on the paladin, as Str to hit for a ranged implement power might be a little strange. Perhaps we could treat Holy Symbols like they are treating Ki Focuses and let their enhancements be applied to weapons? That would be nifty ... as I still would like to see a reason for Paladins to have holy symbols.
Warlock (this one's simple)
- Charisma Primary; Con, Int, or Wis secondary.
- Hellocks use Con, Feylocks use Int, and Starlocks use Wis. Con and Wis are used for AC for those builds, again to maintain AC scaling.
Our justification for warlocks is that the fey respect cunning, understanding the stars requires keen perception (and enough will to not be driven insane), and the infernal locks really need that Con for their play style (needing to be hardy to hold in the hellish power still works for me).
Heck, I have a few players who want me to put all the melee ranger powers together and make a twfing build for the Rogue, and then add more ranged powers and turn the ranger into an archer, but that's another issue.
Would anyone be interested in seeing the results of this? Anyone care to give input on power balance for the new powers I'll have to make for the Cleric? I can probably move a bunch of the weapon cleric powers to the paladin and the implement powers from the paladin to the cleric.
I wonder if I'm the only one wishing all classes were "V-shaped"...
Nope. I like classes with two different primary ability scores. It makes choosing how to play that class an actual choice that has it's own benefits and drawbacks. I'm tired of all the players that feel they're entitled to be able to choose any power and have it be useful just because it's one of their class powers.
The most optimal build might still be STR-based, but if someone was crazy enough to make a Halfling Barbarian he could base it on DEX. But all Barbarians would still be built around physical stats.
V-shaped classes don't bother me...V-shaped builds for a class are a little tough. Star-lock, kinda hard to stat right. Doesn't mean that an Infernal Warlock should be Cha based because the Starlock is schizophrenic.
Oh...and half the fun of being a starlock is being insane....
I wonder if I'm the only one wishing all classes were "V-shaped"...
I really like V classes, and I dispise much of the handwaving they've done to try to justify new classes using a single stat for every attack.
With bards, okay, their singy-magic helps their arrows and swords hit, whatever, a wizard did it. With avengers, okay, same thing, the virgin mary guides their fullblades... got it. The new archer warlord thing pissed me off though: why can a warlord with 8 dex pull out a longbow and hit something just fine, but then the ranger with 14 dex has trouble? Why even have stats if everything a character will want to do is going to be based off their primary stat anyway?
The ranger was made perfectly in my opinion, with powers that offer two different ways to use them with each of the two primary stats. Str/Dex Ranger work well, Str/Wis Rangers work well, and lo and behold Dex/Wis rangers do well too. Fancy that! A V class that is versitile and effective, with no one build more supported over the others, and the ability to mix and match build elements freely.
Every class should be like the ranger. That is all.
Heck, I think that the Invoker, the Druid, the Seeker should have been V classes. With Wisdom and Charisma, and Dexterity and Wisdom, and Strength and Dexterity respectively. That and what Damon ^ said, the archer warlord should use Dexterity.
I wonder if I'm the only one wishing all classes were "V-shaped"...
Every class should be like the ranger. That is all.
IMO the ranger should have been two classes to begin with in the first place. a two-weapon strength based class, and a dex based ranger class. Because, lets face it, V classes have access less powers then other classes.
I mean, pre-errata, pre-MP ... an archer ranger had zero choice on his at will powers: twin strike and that attack that allows him to shift 1 square before or after the attack.
I wonder if I'm the only one wishing all classes were "V-shaped"...
Every class should be like the ranger. That is all.
IMO the ranger should have been two classes to begin with in the first place. a two-weapon strength based class, and a dex based ranger class. Because, lets face it, V classes have access less powers then other classes.
I mean, pre-errata, pre-MP ... an archer ranger had zero choice on his at will powers: twin strike and that attack that allows him to shift 1 square before or after the attack.
My view (and I think it's much the same for several others) is that if all classes where V-shaped to a fairly large degree then none of them would be stronger - the problem of some classes being weaker because they have to get two high stats would go away if all classes needed it!
1. all V classes would be fine
2. But then classes would have keep the same stats as they were originally printed with, no more
3. Changing powers for riders is easier than changing powers for main stats.
EDIT: Oh, and I knew I would think of something else. A huge problem with making all classes V classes is the diversity. One prime example of this would be wizards. An orb wizard would have a hard time picking out a summoning spell if he used wis and the spell was con based. Sure, you could optimize to have a high con, but a normal player would probably think (I am a stunner, so I don't need con), and then that person is stuck. That is the biggest problem. I like the idea, but I think it restricts game play.
Would anyone be interested in seeing the results of this? Anyone care to give input on power balance for the new powers I'll have to make for the Cleric? I can probably move a bunch of the weapon cleric powers to the paladin and the implement powers from the paladin to the cleric.
I couldn't care less whether classes are V, Y or YMCA shaped. As long as the build guides are clear and true, I'm happy. So, if you were my DM I'd give your rules a shot, but I'm not interested in them myself.
I wonder if I'm the only one wishing all classes were "V-shaped"...
The new archer warlord thing pissed me off though: why can a warlord with 8 dex pull out a longbow and hit something just fine, but then the ranger with 14 dex has trouble? Why even have stats if everything a character will want to do is going to be based off their primary stat anyway?
Martial characters are magic too, even if it's not explicitly stated. So "a warlord did it" works just as well as "a wizard did it." At least, that's how I explain all the crazy **** that even martial characters can do.
If I may, I think you're trying to make too many changes at once - which is fine if that's what you want! I'd suggest the following tweaks, though, to turn the Cleric, the Paladin and the Warlock into true A-shaped classes, since they're less extensive than the changes you've proposed:
Cleric: All powers will now use Wisdom as the attribute for attack and damage rolls. All powers that currently use Strength as their primary attribute will use it to determine any bonus effects instead. Likewise, all powers that currently use Charisma as their primary attribute will use it to determine any bonus effects instead. Change Channel Divinity: Divine Fortune so that its bonus is equal to half the Cleric's Strength modifier (minimum 1) instead.
Paladin: All powers will now use Charisma as the attribute for attack and damage rolls. All powers that currently use Strength as their primary attribute will use it to determine any bonus effects instead. Likewise, all powers that currently use Charisma as their primary attribute will use Wisdom to determine any bonus effects instead. Change Channel Divinity: Divine Mettle so that its bonus is based on Wisdom instead of Charisma. Change Lay on Hands so that the number of times per day it can be used is equal to half the Paladin's Charisma modifier (minimum 1), instead of his Wisdom modifier.
Warlock: All powers will now use Charisma as the attribute for attack and damage rolls. All powers that currently use Constitution as their primary attribute will use it to determine any bonus effects instead. Likewise, all powers that currently use Charisma as their primary attribute will use Intelligence to determine any bonus effects instead. Give the Warlock proficiency with chainmail.
This is clearly seen in the following. Of the existing V classes (Paladin, Ranger, Warlock) only the Ranger was fully functional for all builds. Look at the upside though. Wizards figured out the mistakes they made in the initial design for warlock and paladin, and between Power books and Dragon, these classes have managed to become functional.
Unfortunately, the difficulty in the initial designs clearly convinced wizards to abandon V design, leaving us doomed to face off against A classes for the rest of the edition, most likely.
Simple fact is that because of their nature, V's require more options to start functional then other classes. Further, class features must be usable by both sides (cleric suffers this badly). My personal opinion would be to balance the V benefits out.
Cleric
Healer's Lore keys off of Charisma. That gives you Str/Cha melee clerics, Wis/Cha spell clerics, and Str/Wis balanced who sacrifice maximized rider and healing potential for versatility.
Paladin
Divine Challenge and Sanction key off of wisdom. For powers, Str powers should lean strike, cha powers lean leader. Mighty Challenge feat lets one add Strength or Charisma to both challenge and sanction. That leaves use Str/Wis paladins, who lean striker. Cha/Wis paladins who lean leader. And Str/Cha paladins who sacrifice mark power to gain versatility, then take the feat tax to regain their punishing power.
Warlock
Give Warlock Chainmail proficiency and make Dire Radiance Con or Cha. Problem solved. Any warlock can sacrifice rider potency for simple power selection, any pact can be hybrided together via twofold pact and retain AC scaling.