# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 4e >  A, V, Y, and H

## Mark Hall

So, I was talking about 4e on another message board; I was defending a lot of its concepts, but was asked if it was my favorite edition, and came back with the problems I had with it. But, in doing so, I couldn't remember what constituted "A" classes v. "V" or "Y" classes. And I kind of think V and Y are the wrong letters for it.

So, "A" makes sense... you have a single attribute, and two sub-attributes. Warlords are Strength, but they can use Intelligence and/or Charisma as secondary stats.

But, to me, "Y" and "V" (I've seen it both ways) don't work as analogies, because they imply that both choices lead to the same results. To me, they imply that you might play a Strength Paladin or a Charisma Paladin, but you wind up in the same place... but, instead, you wind up with either a Strength Paladin, who takes Strength-based powers, or a Charisma Paladin, who takes Charisma based powers. To my mind, Strength v. Charisma would mean that the powers would be Strength or Charisma v. [defense]. 

It seems to me that a better letter for those classes would be H-shaped classes... you start at either Strength or Charisma, have some unification at the middle (class features, which might rely on some third stat... Paladins want Strength or Charisma... plus wisdom), but, otherwise, go down your separate paths.

I don't expect this to change the existing vocabulary, mind; just a thought.

----------


## Keledrath

It's actually just a matter of primary/secondary stats.

A classes have one primary stat and 2 secondary stats (these tended to get expanded on later). For example, Rogue has Dex at the top with Str and Cha at the bottom. Sorcerer is Cha at the top with Str/Dex at the bottom.

V/Y classes invert that: 2 choices for primary, with a common secondary. Ranger is Str/Dex (melee/ranged), with Wis as a common secondary. Paladin is Str/Cha, with Wis as the common secondary (Lay on Hands usage, and both sides have Wis riders). Warlock is Con/Cha, with Int secondary.

----------


## Marcloure

In all my years, this is the first time I encounter this vocabulary lol

----------


## Arkhios

> In all my years, this is the first time I encounter this vocabulary lol


Same. I have absolutely no idea what those A, V, Y, and H are supposed to mean in this context. Really hard to catch up or even respond.

----------


## Jaeda

It basically means exactly what Keledrath said.  A-frame classes, like Wizard, have all of their powers have the same primary ability (Int), but the riders tie to two different abilities (Wis or Dex).  V-frame (sometimes called Y) classes, such as Warlock, have different powers use different primary abilities (Con for infernal-pact powers and Cha for fey-pact powers), but the riders all use the same ability (Int).  An H-frame class would be a hypothetical class that had different abilities use two different primary abilities and also two different rider abilities.

Y-frame classes can be a little frustrating since either you have to cut losses to keep two primary abilities up or half of your ability options are decidedly sub-par (since you have reduced hit and damage).  Later books were mostly A-frame classes, but the PHB1 was half-and-half (Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock are all V-frame).

----------


## Mark Hall

> Same. I have absolutely no idea what those A, V, Y, and H are supposed to mean in this context. Really hard to catch up or even respond.


My post explaining it from another message board where someone was confused:

"A, V, Y, and H are ways of describing the design of certain classes. A, V, and Y are usually part of the discussion; H is something I proposed.

An "A" style class is one that has a single primary attribute, and two secondary attributes that provide somewhat incidental bonuses. In the examples above, a Warlord is an A-style class... almost all of a Warlord's class powers rely on Strength. However, Warlords get bonuses from Intelligence and Charisma... there are two subgroups of Warlords, the Inspiring Warlord and the Tactical Warlord, which get benefits from Charisma and Intelligence, respectively. Certain powers will benefit from being one of these two; in 1st level powers, the AC bonus is higher for Inspiring Warlords from Guarding Attack, while Warlord's Favor grants a bigger attack bonus to Tactical Warlords and their allies.

Because the class is A-shaped (one point at the top, going to two points below), it's got access to all of its abilities, and is easier to build around.

V shaped or Y shaped classes (the two are used interchangeably) have two primary abilities and a single secondary ability; an example here is the Paladin. Paladin Powers have either Strength or Charisma as their stat, meaning that, if you have a paladin who focused on Strength, Charisma powers won't be as useful to you (unless your Charisma is the same as your Strength). Paladins have a single secondary attribute, Wisdom; that determines how many times you can Lay on Hands, and gives bonuses to a number of powers. This makes it a Y-Shaped class. (Note that Y shaped classes may be "y" shaped... while they have two primary attributes, they get a disproportionate bonus from picking one... a Charisma Paladin does more damage with its marking power, and even if you're a Strength cleric, you get bonus healing from your Wisdom)

Now, because you get +1 to two attributes every 4 levels, A-Shaped classes have a real design advantage... my Inspiring Warlord can keep boosting Strength and Charisma, ignoring my other stats. I get to choose from any of the powers at every level, because all rely on Strength, though I may be biased towards powers that give Inspiring Warlords a special boost. A Y-shaped class has a harder time doing this... they either have to abandon access to about half of their powers (being exclusively a Strength or Charisma Paladin), or neglect Wisdom, which remains useful throughout. It is a distinct design disadvantage to the class."

----------


## Lord Haart

What about Ѧ  shaped classes? The Warlord class that you cite as an A-shaped class, actually has a third official secondary (Wisdom for insightful/ranged warlords). Monk has whopping four designated, viable secondaries.

Then in essentials and post-essentials, you have classes with exactly one primary, and exactly one secondary; classes split between two primaries, but in place of a separate secondary, whichever primary you didn't pick becomes your secondary, avoiding the problem; classes with a primary and no secondaries at all; classes that have a designated primary and secondary, but benefit more from using a feat to make their attacks run off their secondary, and ignoring the primary (and also able to easily designate absolutely any stat as a primary); classes with no secondaries, mono-stat from the start. Then there are cases llike the Barbarian, with a primary, three designated "secondaries" that govern the riders (Con, Cha, and Dex for the whirling build), and two real secondaries by CharOP consensus (Dex and Int; Int barbarians are viable, and that's a hill I'm willing to keep dying on) that impact its performance more than the designated ones.

At this point, I don't really think letters help more than just picking a short phrase to describe each class separately.

----------


## Marcloure

This doesn't seem like a huge problem to me. Some classes may have their power options cut in half, but I don't think it's a problem if you still have enough options in the other side as well.

----------


## animorte

This definitely seems like a concept that could be utilized in far more areas for describing our defining classes.

----------

