D&D 4E How would you handle the basic stat conception in 4E?

[Edena_of_Neith]

How would you handle the conceptualization of the basic stats for characters in 4E?

Here is what I would have done:

A stat of 10 represents the average human norm, and human norm is the basis for all else.
An 11 or 9 is also normal, albeit on the high or low side of normal.
A 12 or 8 is exceptional, and fewer stats are in this range. 1 in 10. A person with stats like these is quite bright or dumb, quite strong or weak, quite quick or slow, and so on.
A 13 or 7 represents the 1% and 100%, respectively, as far as humans go (1 in 100.) This is equivalent to an IQ of 140 (genius) or 70 (crippled.) A person with 14 strength would be the strongest person in the local community, or perhaps the weakest.
A 14 or 6 represents the someone in the lowest 1/10th or highest 1/10th of 1% (1 in 1,000.) It corresponds to an IQ of 150 or 60, strength and quickness worthy of a great champion, or being virtually helpless.
A 15 or 5 is 1 in 10,000. Now we are talking prodigy, olympic level stats, or incredible aptitude and insight beyond the measure of other people. People with a stat this high are off in their own world, separated from everyone else by the divide of their great intelligence, or strength, or whatever stat they have that is so high.
A 16 or 4 is 1 in 100,000. This is as per 15 or 5, but more extreme, more profound. A person with a stat this high is a good candidate for olympic medals or nobel prizes, or perhaps is utterly crippled by a low stat.
A 17 or 3 is 1 in 1,000,000. Maybe one person in the entirety of a fair sized nation possesses such a stat, be it high or low. They are capable of superhuman feats, in that stat, it is so high (or completely crippled, if it is that low.)

An 18 represents the theoretical maximum for humankind, and only a couple of people in the entire world possess a stat this high or low at any one time. Such people are truly superhuman (or crippled) in the stat, capable of feats that stagger the minds of everyone around them. 1 in 10,000,000 people possess such a stat.
A 2 is the unfortunate opposite of an 18. A person with a 2 is, obviously, completely incapacitated by this stat. A 2 is the lowest stat anyone can be born with naturally, and 1 in 100,000,000 people are so unfortunate as to suffer this fate.

A 19 is superhuman, and someone with a 19 can perform feats far beyond the olympic records, or dwell upon matters beyond normal human comprehension.
1 in 100,000,000 people naturally have a stat in the 19 range. That would be a single human upon the entire world of Toril. Such a stat puts you into the supernatural range, as far as other humans would feel.
A 19 is the highest non-magical stat attainable by human beings.



-

Bonuses/Penalties for Stats / Extra Spells

10: none / none

11: + 1 / spell capacity +25% (round up)
12: + 2 / spell capacity +50% (round up)
13: + 3 / spell capacity +75% (round up)
14: + 4 / spell capacity doubled
15: + 5 / spell capacity +125% (round up)
16: + 6 / spell capacity +150% (round up)
17: + 7 / spell capacity +175% (round up)
18: + 8 / spell capacity tripled
19: + 10 / spell capacity +250% (round up)

9: - 1 / spell capacity -25% (round down)
8: - 2 / spell capacity -50% (round down)
7: - 3 / spell capacity -75% (round down)
6: - 4 / spell capacity -90% (round down)
5: - 5 / spell capacity none
4: - 6 / spell capacity none
3: - 7 / spell capacity none
2: - 8 / spell capacity none
1: - 16 / spell capacity none

I would see PCs with stats between 8 and 12, with exceptional stats in the 13 or 14 range.
A PC with a stat above 14 should feel pretty lucky indeed, while one with a stat of 7 or below is going to suffer a handicap.

Roll 3d6, 7 times, and adjust to suit! Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, Comeliness, and Perception are the choices available.
Have 3 or more stats below 7? Reroll the character, if you wish (but lose that one 18 you managed to roll also, as well.)
Or count all rolled 1s as 2s. In this case, no rerolls allowed.

Or something along these lines.

With a situation like this, ask that fighter over there just how important those Bracers of Strength +2 are, now ... (note that minor magical items - including anything a PC under 12th level could make - cannot increase a stat beyond 19. Only major magical items found in adventuring can do that.)

 

[Jack99]

With a situation like this, ask that fighter over there just how important those Bracers of Strength +2 are, now ... (note that minor magical items - including anything a PC under 12th level could make - cannot increase a stat beyond 19. Only major magical items found in adventuring can do that.)

Stat modifiers for magical items are out, afaik.

Also, I really think you are part of a very small minority regarding the level of stats that you want your players to have.

Cheers

 

[StarFyre]

uhm

I think stats like 13 or 14 would be more olympic level, where 17+ is well beyond anything a human in the real world could do.

(except for like, the World's Strongest Man competitors).

Sanjay

 

[Anthtriel]

Interesting, I think I am at the complete opposite side of the spectrum. When I imagine a perfect RPG system (or make something far from perfect myself), I place very low emphasis on stats, and often drop them completely.
While they are certainly a nice starting point for characterization, and thus help beginners and hack&slashers in roleplaying, I dislike how they settle you into one role that you cannot ever leave. I generally prefer games with long down time, and strong changes in characters over time, which generally doesn't work well with stats, because raising stats you weren't good with originally is usually mechanically discouraged.

I also strongly dislike random stats, especially if they are emphasized. In your system for example, it is entirely feasible (probability over 12%) to get a character with no stat over 12 , while another character (also with a probability over 12%) might get at least one stat over 16, and thus be capable of "super-human feats" in at least one area. And lets not even speak of the rarer superhuman, or complete cripple, which might be in the same group if you are particularily unlucky. Nevermind balancing that mess, because groups and group strengths will be all over the place.

If you define something like 15 (or worse yet, 14) already as olympic, then you will have lots of characters that are both among the best out there in one area, and one of the worst in another. For example, you would have a lot of fighters that are stronger than any weight-lifter, but too stupid to speak coherently, or who are completely blind and deaf. Or Wizards who have insight far beyond normal people (which is fine), but are also weaker than a toddler (which is not so fine).
The cliches will be so much over the top that you are steering into comedy territory. Ridiculosly strong stats are usually okay (though there are quite a few people who would rather have more realistic characters), but ridiculosly weak stats are very problematic. There is a reason why you couldn't go below 8 with point buy in 3.5 (unless you had a racial adjustment), and even then playing with Intelligence 8 was rather problematic and unpopular.

For games that need stats, such as D&D with it's strongly defined party roles (especially in 4E, apparently), I actually still like something like the 3.5 system with point buy best, at least if the ability modifiers are not used on their own, but along with some other scaling value, such as level in 4E apparently. That should make stats less, but still somewhat important.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Rolling for stats would be completely at odds with the rest of 4e. What's the point in balancing classes carefully if you then completely unbalance PCs with dice rolls?

That idea should stay in the 1970s where it belongs.

 

[arscott]

I like following the distribution that you get if you rolled 3d6 for the whole population
A quarter of the population has a 10 or 11 in each stat.
about 1 in 10 have a 15 or higher, and another 1 in 10 have a 6 or lower.
About 1% of the population is going to have a 17 or 18 in a specific stat, and 1% will have a 3 or 5.

 

[Dausuul]

I like following the distribution that you get if you rolled 3d6 for the whole population
A quarter of the population has a 10 or 11 in each stat.
about 1 in 10 have a 15 or higher, and another 1 in 10 have a 6 or lower.
About 1% of the population is going to have a 17 or 18 in a specific stat, and 1% will have a 3 or 5.

The exact distribution (which I also like) is:

3: 0.46%
4: 1.39%
5: 2.78%
6: 4.63%
7: 6.94%
8: 9.72%
9: 11.57%
10: 12.50%
11: 12.50%
12: 11.57%
13: 9.72%
14: 6.94%
15: 4.63%
16: 2.78%
17: 1.39%
18: 0.46%

 

[rkanodia]

I generally prefer games with long down time, and strong changes in characters over time, which generally doesn't work well with stats, because raising stats you weren't good with originally is usually mechanically discouraged.

QFT. I think it's silly that they carefully created a point-buy system, and then gave you opportunities to just 'add one stat' regardless of point-buy value. At the very least, improving your stats through level raises should follow the same point-buy system that your initial stats did, so characters aren't so strongly incentivized to dump everything into their primary stat.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

I think your conceptualization is fine, though I'd get rid of the scores and just use the modifiers. Everything starts at +0, then apply race and background adjustments, then add 3 +1s as you see fit, then -1 as you see fit.

 

[Dragonblade]

My paradigm is totally different:

I consider the average commoner to have stats between 9 and 12.
Stats in the 13 - 16 range would be uncommon but not rare in a large city. Even a village blacksmith could have a 16 STR, but it certainly wouldn't be common.
Stats of 17-18 would Olympic/world class.
Stats beyond 18 would be rare but not unknown. Gladiatorial champions, veteran blademasters, and such would have these stats.