I mostly think the same (on this topic) as Stabbey. Just some few additions/thoughts:
Strength: Could also be used for how far you can throw weapons; daggers, different kind of (exploding) flasks. Boosts natural armor, boosts defense/lowers AP lost against knockdowns/stuns?
Perception: Detecting invisible units and how far a character can see
Intelligence: Amount of spells one can know at the same time.
Ugh, this is difficult to balance out. You want every skill to be kinda important, (ofcourse a typical warrior would want to have different skills than a Mage). But still want to consider other stats than his primary.
So a warrior is on the frontline, and thus wants lots of strength and constitution. But would you want a warrior to have dexterity/intelligence or are they mostly useless for him.
If you, for example, split of the critical hit rating into dexterity. A warrior would have a reason to take points into dex from time to time. But then you have the danger of rangers being ranged critical hit masters.
So what Stabbey suggests, solves that a warrior needs to split between strength and dex. But could make strength a too powerful stats for a warrior, intelligence too important for a mage,...
But ofcourse, you have perception here too so that you can split of
And always a possibility to have the more better stats (life, damage, hit/crit rating, ...) derive from more then one stat. Life is mostly the constitution stat, but also strength can buff it a small bit. This making the warrior approach having more survivability as they require.
And constitution can also increase the number of AP slightly where speed increases this more.
I dont know how you are planning to do the talking with NPC's. If there open up choices depending on stats or not. From Larians history I guess it wont affect it as much as Arcanum for example. But if you do, it could be the same problem with mages having high intelligence, and thus them always having the extra conversation options. While the warrior/ranger can get forced to play the dumber brute. So I would suggest having intimidate being more prominent on the same level as intelligence opens up persuasive options, and perception opening up bluffs/lies as well as spotting them. Thus having the different types of characters each their own approach to conversations.
Sorry for the poor wording/construction of this post. But that happens when you are thinking,writing and still forming an opinion of this topic at the same time.
