Attributes

[Falling Icicle]

One of the things that I'm apprehensive about in 4e is the attribute crossover. For example, dex now seems to add to damage with ranged attacks instead of strength. Yet, in real life, strength is very, very important for archers. I was watching the history channel episode about the english longbowman, and the archaeologists could actually tell them from the other soliders because of the bone density of their arms. They were THAT strong. Archers weren't puny little stick figures. They had to be the strongest of soldiers, since pulling the bow required such tremendous strength. Most people today wouldn't even be able to string a traditional longbow.

Now, I can unerstand why they did this, to a degree. Melee characters have always got strength to hit and to damage. That said, I think it encourages min-maxing. Why would a ranger need strength in this editon? He could just get Con instead and get more HP and healing surges. For that matter, why would any Wizard need Dexterity or any Rogue need Intelligence, now that either attribute can be used for AC and Reflex defense? Why would a Sorcerer ever take Wisdom? Why would a Cleric get charisma? I can go on and on, but I think you get my point by now.

4e clearly seems to encourage min-maxing to a degree never seen before. Mages can function almost exclusively off of Int, using it for attack, damage, AC and reflex. For his other two attributes, he can get con and his choice of wis or cha. The other three attributes he can ignore entirely with virtually no consequence. He'll never miss them, save for an occasional skill check. Likewise, a Rogue has almost no reason to take Intelligence anymore. 4e has, IMHO, made it far to easy to simply ignore half of the attributes. Likeweise, putting the maximum possible points in your primary attribute is now a no-brainer. Any Wizard that doesn't put an 18+ into Intelligence will be rightly mocked by his fellow players. Now, I'm not even going to get into why I think intelligence making you better at dodging attacks and fireballs is asinine. Quite a few people seem to think this makes sense. *shrug* But I will complain about the negative impact I think this will have on character diversity and balance.

I was hoping that 4e would create more character diversity and discourage min-maxing. Or, at least, make it so that picking a suboptimal attribute or race wouldn't make you a fool. Instead, they did the exact opposite, making min-maxing the default method of play and easier and more rewarding than ever before. What if I want to play a wise Sorcerer? By doing so, I'm spending points in an attribute that already overlaps with Cha for will defense, so it loses its greatest benefit. I'd be much better served putting those points in something that would increase my other defenses. So, yet again, putting role-playing ahead of power playing yeilds a weaker character. Yeah, 3e also had this problem, but I think 4e made it even worse.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think min-maxing will be just the same as before...

Anyway, are you sure that Dex applies to ranged damage?

I thought that in 4e Dex applies to all attacks, and Str applies to all damage.

I don't know where I got that idea... but it doesn't sound terrible. Melee attacks have always been a little bit borderline between Str and Dex, and I can see a good point to support either ideas (Str because of the difficulty to handle and control weapons which on the average are a bit heavy, Dex because melee attacks need some aiming as well). So having BOTH Str and Dex count in melee attacks (one to the attack roll, the other to the damage) sounds GOOD. It actually has the benefit of discouraging min-maxing.

Of course, if everything else remains the same, then the problem is that Dex becomes even more "must have stat" for everyone, since it affects so many things already in 3e.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Anyway, are you sure that Dex applies to ranged damage?

I thought that in 4e Dex applies to all attacks, and Str applies to all damage.

The sample ranger gets a +4 to hit and damage with his longbow from his 18 dex. His str is only 14.

 

[Blacksway]

I think its quite hard to work out the exact attribute bonuses for all classes and races, especially as a lot of racial and class abilities are already factored in to the stats of the example characters.

 

[The Little Raven]

An attack's base bonus damage is determined by it's ability score's modifier. Intelligence attack equals bonus damage equal to Intelligence modifier. With a Dexterity attack, it probably doesn't represent hitting with greater force, but rather hitting a more sensitive area because of accuracy.

 

[Falling Icicle]

With a Dexterity attack, it probably doesn't represent hitting with greater force, but rather hitting a more sensitive area because of accuracy.

That's a good point. But shouldn't the same be true of melee attacks? And shouldn't it hurt more to get shot by a strong archer than a weak one?

 

[Li Shenron]

The sample ranger gets a +4 to hit and damage with his longbow from his 18 dex. His str is only 14.

There are also some flat bonuses from class and levels factored in (at least in the attack bonus, don't know in the damage bonus)

 

[The Little Raven]

That's a good point. But shouldn't the same be true of melee attacks? And shouldn't it hurt more to get shot by a strong archer than a weak one?

Yeah, the rogue's abilities are all Dexterity melee attacks, and get Dex bonus to damage. Standardized mechanic so a particular attack only needs to factor a single attribute into it's core effect, while extra fiddly bits can use other ability scores for synergistic benefits from builds (like adding Str to damage for Torturous Strike for Brutal Scoundrels). Even if it's not what you want, it's a good starting point to get there in this edition.

 

[lutecius]

Yet, in real life, strength is very, very important for archers. I was watching the history channel episode about the english longbowman, and the archaeologists could actually tell them from the other soliders because of the bone density of their arms. They were THAT strong. Archers weren't puny little stick figures. They had to be the strongest of soldiers, since pulling the bow required such tremendous strength. Most people today wouldn't even be able to string a traditional longbow.

I think IRL strength would affect reach, not damage.
I wonder if this debate will replace the old "strength or dexterity for melee attacks" (I was in the dex camp)

I agree with your point about optimisation vs roleplaying.

 

[Darkthorne]

In regards to a bow, strength is going to make pulling the bow back easier as opposed to having it cause more damage (the bow's resistance/need to return to it's original shape caps off the limit). However Str rated bows I can see doing more damage however I think it should have been (mostly 3.5 reference) the larger the difference between the min str req and your str if lower the larger the penalty. For 4th ed stat decision for defenses I'm looking at it from a pov that now I can dump points into Str or whatever stat I wish w/o overly screwing over the character.