Are Ability scores still dominant?

Styracosaurus

Explorer

• Sep 19, 2007

• #1

Will my wizard need to have an Intelligence 25 to cast 25th level spells?

I think not. Or maybe so,....

Maybe the Intelligence bonus would add advantages as a Warmage gains. Also, high Int might make certain feats available.


John

 

log in or register to remove this ad

F4NBOY

First Post

• Sep 19, 2007

• #2

Probably not, because a 25th level spell in 4E will probably be as powerful as a 7th or 8th level spell is in 3E.
I don't think that kind of Int requirement will be in 4E though. It's not fun.

 

T

Thundershield

First Post

• Sep 19, 2007

• #3

It's been mentioned (don't remember if it was Andy's or Dave's blog) that since they're toning down on the Christmas Tree Effect, they'll also cut back on ability score enhancing magic items.

The Headband of Intellect +6 won't be something you see on every Wizard anymore, if any at all. In turn, they'd increase base ability scores more over the levels, possibly by having ability scores increase more often than every 4th level, or by more than 1 point at a time.

It was mentioned early in the 4E news that race might affect where ability score increases go, so a Dwarf might get 2 ability points at level 4, of which one should go to Constitution. The same with an Elf and Dexterity.

That's just bits I've gleaned from my memory, so don't hang me up on them or ask me for sources. Feel free to look it up, though.

 

D

Dragonblade

Adventurer

• Sep 19, 2007

• #4

F4NBOY said:

Probably not, because a 25th level spell in 4E will probably be as powerful as a 7th or 8th level spell is in 3E.
I don't think that kind of Int requirement will be in 4E though. It's not fun.

Click to expand...

You know, I think that a lot of people jumped to the wrong conclusion about that cryptic WotC comment about 25th level spells. I personally don't think there will be 25, or even 30 spell levels.

Rather I think there will be spells but that the definition of spell level will change to become synonymous with caster level. So while there will be spells, I don't think they will be categorized into levels like they are now. A spell will just be a spell.

Rather a spell's effect will be determined by the level of the caster and that will become the 4e equivalent of a "spell level".

 

H

HeinorNY

First Post

• Sep 19, 2007

• #5

Dragonblade said:

You know, I think that a lot of people jumped to the wrong conclusion about that cryptic WotC comment about 25th level spells.

Click to expand...

I've seen many of the "Oh my GoD, 25th level spells!!!1! It was 9, now its 25, almost 3 times more levels of spells, the power level went sky high, are they mad or something???" kind of reaction.
Rodney is probalby still regreting for that comment. It was too early for something like that IMO.

 

F

Fobok

First Post

• Sep 19, 2007

• #6

F4NBOY said:

Probably not, because a 25th level spell in 4E will probably be as powerful as a 7th or 8th level spell is in 3E.

Click to expand...

I've seen you say things like this in a few different threads. Since they've said that 4e level 20s will be slightly more powerful than 3e level 20s, I don't get this. They aren't stretching the old 20 levels into 30, they're adding epic levels into core.

*Edit to clarify what part of the post I was replying to.

 

Last edited: Sep 20, 2007

B

Brother MacLaren

Explorer

• Sep 20, 2007

• #7

The game could certainly stand to have ability scores be less important. There's no point at which you don't "need" additional bonus in 3E. Even if you started with 32-pt buy and got 1 ability point every 2 levels, that Belt of Giant Strength is still going to make you a better fighter. Or that Headband of Intellect is going to make your spell DCs go from "great" to "outstanding." So giving more inherent bonuses isn't going to remove the desire for stat-boosting items.

As I see it, the only solutions are:
1) Increase the cost of stat-boosting items (not just GP cost, but opportunity cost)
2) Reduce the number of things that depend on ability scores, such as spell DCs
3) Change stat-boosting items to give a fixed score, as in B/X, 1E, or 2E.
4) Place a fixed cap on ability scores as in earlier editions

 

Last edited: Sep 20, 2007

C

Cadfan

First Post

• Sep 20, 2007

• #8

Less ability score boosting items doesn't make ability scores less important. If anything, it makes base, innate ability scores more important.

 

B

Brother MacLaren

Explorer

• Sep 20, 2007

• #9

Cadfan said:

Less ability score boosting items doesn't make ability scores less important. If anything, it makes base, innate ability scores more important.

Click to expand...

"Fewer or more expensive stat-boosting items" and "less impact of ability scores on game mechanics" are both ways to reduce ability score inflation. Along with the other ideas I mentioned.
If having an 20 Int doesn't give you that much of a benefit over having a 16 Int, then you won't see as many PCs scrambling to get that Headband of Intellect.
If the Headband of Intellect is prohibitively expensive, then you won't see as many PCs scrambling to get that Headband.

 

Irda Ranger

First Post

• Sep 20, 2007

• #10

For two reasons, I don't want stats to be unimportant. One, I want the Point Buy at character creation to be a meaningful balance of choices. Two, I want the stat boosts that may come with leveling to be meaningful rewards.

But that said, I would not mind if stat boosting items were removed from the game entirely. Or items that give you a +X, but only up to 17, so you can sure up weaknesses if you want but can't over-specialize. Nature talent and the choices you've made should matter more than your equipment.

Frankly, I also want some stats (particularly Str) to just be limited. It bothers me when PC's are stronger than Fire Giants. I liked how in earlier additions that, short of finding a rare girdle, anything above 18/00 was just "reserved" for giants and dragons. I think that was a good thing, as we are as defined by our limits as our abilities.