Overall, I like the concept. Dividing martial characters per fighting style seems solid; I just don’t know about the exact division by ability scores. I have some comments about it:
Dual-wielding rogues was something new to Wrecan, I guess, but not to me right now. I remember this motif with Final Fantasy XIV, Dragon Age: Inquisition and some fan-made table-top systems of the former. I had this concept in mind since the 4e PHB, by a rogue’s paragon path: daggermaster, I guess. It makes sense. And, of course, Ninjas surely use the style.
1) I liked the idea of an Int-heavy warrior. As a certain coacher says “I know you‘re the smartest guys in this school, and this counts more than anything else” (of course, he got crushed, but that’s because you need actual training for that smartness to be effective). Anyway, it’s a good idea.
2) Wisdom for Rangers make sense too; at least, on how wisdom is defined in D&D.
3) I don’t know about making those attributes the main ones. As secondary attributes is easy to grasp, but as main ones… I’ll need some time to think about it.
4) There’s a style that often gets unmentioned in those divisions: the single-handed style. Wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand, and nothing in the other. It may sound silly that the warrior is not using all hands, but it’s cool, and reminds me of swashbuckler, gunblade, rapiers, Squall, Lightning, Pathfinder’s Magus with one sword in hand and the other to cast spells, and so on. It’s just cool. I think the Weapon Master expands on this style, but I felt essential to say it anyway.
The “flaw” is the feeling that every class can fill every role. It’s a feature, not a flaw, but which classes fulfill which roles is part of the class game for me.
Dual-wielding rogues was something new to Wrecan, I guess, but not to me right now. I remember this motif with Final Fantasy XIV, Dragon Age: Inquisition and some fan-made table-top systems of the former. I had this concept in mind since the 4e PHB, by a rogue’s paragon path: daggermaster, I guess. It makes sense. And, of course, Ninjas surely use the style.
1) I liked the idea of an Int-heavy warrior. As a certain coacher says “I know you‘re the smartest guys in this school, and this counts more than anything else” (of course, he got crushed, but that’s because you need actual training for that smartness to be effective). Anyway, it’s a good idea.
2) Wisdom for Rangers make sense too; at least, on how wisdom is defined in D&D.
3) I don’t know about making those attributes the main ones. As secondary attributes is easy to grasp, but as main ones… I’ll need some time to think about it.
4) There’s a style that often gets unmentioned in those divisions: the single-handed style. Wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand, and nothing in the other. It may sound silly that the warrior is not using all hands, but it’s cool, and reminds me of swashbuckler, gunblade, rapiers, Squall, Lightning, Pathfinder’s Magus with one sword in hand and the other to cast spells, and so on. It’s just cool. I think the Weapon Master expands on this style, but I felt essential to say it anyway.
The “flaw” is the feeling that every class can fill every role. It’s a feature, not a flaw, but which classes fulfill which roles is part of the class game for me.