D&D 4E Obligatory dump stats in 4e: the irrelevance of Intelligence

[DrSpunj]

DracoSuave, I agree with everything you posted. Well said.

OTOH, Nail has the right of it, mostly. As I said in post #223, because I have players who want to roleplay a PC with below 8 stats (in my last campaign a Con of 6 IIRC, in the current one Nail's got a Human Fighter with an Int of 6 & a Cha of 7) and since I try not to limit my player's creativity when I can accommodate them, I allow ability scores of the full dice range: 3-18.

What I don't like is that with my "choose your scores but the Mods must total +9" method, or the PHB Point Buy method or some other version of Point Buy, dropping a score or two down that low allows a player to get higher scores elsewhere.

As it stands, using Nifft's defined terms from post #175, Dexterity mirrors most everything Intelligence does, plus helps Initiative & ranged attacks along with a couple Each Alone & Everyone skills, while the few Knowledge skills Int has left are all Someone skills. Since every party is supposed to have a Controller and that currently means a Wizard, he's the only one likely to take those skills which leaves the rest of the party free to totally ignore Int if they want to.

Ignoring both Wis & Cha leaves one with a relatively weak Will save but all 8 PHB classes list one or both as Primary or Secondary abilities and they both have skills that regularly see more use at my table; specifically Perception & Insight for Wis, and all the social stuff for Cha.

Thanks for all the replies so far!

 

[Milambus]

What I don't like is that with my "choose your scores but the Mods must total +9" method, or the PHB Point Buy method or some other version of Point Buy, dropping a score or two down that low allows a player to get higher scores elsewhere.

Wait... what? I'm sorry but my head just exploded. You have your players use a non standard character creation system.. and then complain when it breaks things?

I won't even get into the brokenness that +9 from mods is, even before allowing characters to go below 8 in some stats.

But you don't like that sacrificing your ability (or stat) in one area to specialize in another? Thats kinda the whole basis for a class based game system in the first place. (And human society since like the hunter-gatherer stage.)

 

[WalterKovacs]

One note on the below average mental stat:

I'm playing a Warlock multi'd into Rogue for super stealth tricks [popping around corners and eyebiting to get the superior cover/concealment so that later my concealment can keep me hidden]. My 8 went into wisdom ... and he's ultimately played as a bit reckless, and perhaps a bit cocky, not considering that maybe his stealth might fail, in which case he'd be standing alone in the middle of a room full of enemies. That happened by the way, lol.

While having just one person to be a Ritual Caster may be fine for some ... there may be reasons that person may need help performing a ritual. And, during skill challenges it might be necessary.

Still, with a class not prioritizing either choice ... Dex is better than Int, since you get the bonus to Initiative ... but also stealth or acrobatics may be more important to have for each member of a group than the int based skills. On the other hand you don't reduce Int based skils because of armor check penalties.

 

[Jhaelen]

DrSpunj's house rule is that stats can be as low as 4.

And that's where the sole problem lies - next!

 

[DrSpunj]

I don't want to derail discussion here but:

Wait... what? I'm sorry but my head just exploded. You have your players use a non standard character creation system.. and then complain when it breaks things?

Not at all. My complaints about Intelligence and to a lesser extent Wisdom & Charisma vs the physical abilities have little direct correlation on my "non standard character creation system" but consider the following:

• PHB pg 18, Method 3: Rolling Scores allows for the possibility, and even warns against the likelihood, that a valid PC could have a score (or several) below 8. As such I have no reason to believe the game will break if any of players choose scores below 8 as long as their total Mod bonus is at least +4.
• As a roleplaying game I have one or two players with a clear character concept (Nail currently being one of them) who want to play a character with score(s) below 8. Since this is impossible using methods 1 or 2 and allowing it won't break the game, we came up with this method which allows for customization similar to point buy but also keeps all PCs on a specific parity level, a definite concern with rolling scores.
• Using methods 1 or 2 usually give a total Mod bonus of +7. Increasing to +9 is very similar to running point buy with 26 points instead of 22. While I understand that's not something everyone is comfortable with I am not the first to describe doing so in 4e here at EN World and, again, have little reason to believe this will break the game. This is very similar to increasing 3e's DMG point buy of 25 to 28 or 32 points which was described in that section as appropriate for Tougher or High-Powered campaigns, respectively and something we greatly enjoyed doing in our previous 4 year campaign. Doing so meant the players generally succeeded a bit more often with their rolls which they enjoyed, and I was able to challenge them with opponents who were either stronger or more numerous or both which was fun for us all.

If anyone would like to discuss this further I'd ask you to Fork the thread and I'll be happy to join you, but I don't see how any of that really constitutes Bad Wrong Fun (tm) or has direct bearing on this thread.

Back on topic:

But you don't like that sacrificing your ability (or stat) in one area to specialize in another? Thats kinda the whole basis for a class based game system in the first place. (And human society since like the hunter-gatherer stage.)

Right, but let's look at the word you used there: sacrifice, which to me means giving up something you value to obtain something you value more.

As I and many others have said throughout this thread, most classes lose nothing by dumping Intelligence, therefore it has no value! Both a Wizard & Warlord lose a higher initiative by dumping Dexterity, something meaningful to both of them since the Wizard's Controller powers frequently benefit from being used before any/most of the mobs do and many Warlord powers give a bonus to one or more party members after being used. While the absolute value is low, given the math in 4e it is relatively always meaningful, from levels 1 through 30. That, IMO, is a sacrifice one has to decide upon when generating an Int-based character. Sure, you can make up for the deficiency by taking a feat, but that's just making another choice about what to sacrifice, ability score points or a feat.

Thanks

 

[Milambus]

If anyone would like to discuss this further I'd ask you to Fork the thread and I'll be happy to join you, but I don't see how any of that really constitutes Bad Wrong Fun (tm) or has direct bearing on this thread.

I'm too lazy to click the Fork button, but I did want to say that I didn't mean to imply that you were having Bad Wrong Fun. It's your game, play it however you like =)

As I and many others have said throughout this thread, most classes lose nothing by dumping Intelligence, therefore it has no value!

Six classes out of twelve list Intelligence as one of their Key Abilities. Wizards, Swordmages, Artificers (and it looks like the other Bard build) use Int as their primary attack stat. But it has no value? Over-exaggerate much?

There are really only two abilities that every class benefits from, Dex and Con.

For Dex, two classes use it as their primary attack stat, and only two other classes even list it as a key ability.

Con, only one class uses it as a primary attack stat (Warlock), while 5 others list it as a key ability. The HP benefit from Con also decreases greatly as you gain level (Does anyone think +6 hp from con at level 30 is going to effect than that greatly?) However, the surges you gain will remain valuable through a characters life.

With six classes using Strength as their primary attack stat, it is the only one that has more than Intelligence. (Another two list Str for secondary effects.)

So if anything I would say that Str is used too much, while Int is more in line with the other stats.

Both a Wizard & Warlord lose a higher initiative by dumping Dexterity, something meaningful to both of them since the Wizard's Controller powers frequently benefit from being used before any/most of the mobs do and many Warlord powers give a bonus to one or more party members after being used.

I agree that Wizards want high initiative, and therefore lower Dex does hurt them.

However, I play a Tactical Warlord... and truthfully I don't really care where he comes in the initiative order. A Warlord needs his allies to be around him to gain any benefit from most of his powers. A Warlord acting first, and running off away from his Fighter is crippling himself. Rather to wait until the defends goes out and engages the enemy, then you can come in and Commander's Strike or Wolfpack Tactics (to move the defender into flanking), or whatever.

Dex for Heavy Blade Opportunity is another question though.

 

[DrSpunj]

I'm too lazy to click the Fork button, but I did want to say that I didn't mean to imply that you were having Bad Wrong Fun. It's your game, play it however you like =)

Cool.

Six classes out of twelve list Intelligence as one of their Key Abilities. Wizards, Swordmages, Artificers (and it looks like the other Bard build) use Int as their primary attack stat. But it has no value? Over-exaggerate much?

Nope, but I will clarify that currently my group is only using the PHB and I have the Adventurer's Vault. I don't have FRPG (not likely to buy it soon for just the Swordmage class) and won't allow any classes from Dragon until they're truly in print (and therefore hopefully way past drafts & beta versions; I'm not getting paid to be a tester and no, I don't subscribe ). So, concentrating on the PHB I've got the Wizard & Warlord as primary, Warlock as secondary. But again, my concerns aren't with how many classes are tied with each ability, but the number of non-class related benefits each ability is associated with.

There are really only two abilities that every class benefits from, Dex and Con.

For Dex I assume you mean for Initiative?

For Dex, two classes use it as their primary attack stat, and only two other classes even list it as a key ability.

Which is similar to Intelligence in the PHB with two primary classes and as a secondary for Warlocks. What rubs me a bit is that Wizard has Dex listed as a secondary ability which is kind of like kicking the class while it's down. However, aside from the Wand of Accuracy implement mastery I don't see Dex coming up much for a Wizard. What am I missing here?

Con, only one class uses it as a primary attack stat (Warlock), while 5 others list it as a key ability. The HP benefit from Con also decreases greatly as you gain level (Does anyone think +6 hp from con at level 30 is going to effect than that greatly?) However, the surges you gain will remain valuable through a characters life.

Agreed on all counts.

With six classes using Strength as their primary attack stat, it is the only one that has more than Intelligence. (Another two list Str for secondary effects.)

So if anything I would say that Str is used too much, while Int is more in line with the other stats.

As far as which classes are tied to which abilities and what each class can typically afford to dump, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. However as I said above I'm trying to focus on the remaining benefits relevant for every class/character, as outlined in the early pages of this thread. While I think all of those posts were made before the Core books were actually released, I don't remember any widespread misconceptions or big mistakes in the discussion.

I agree that Wizards want high initiative, and therefore lower Dex does hurt them.

However, I play a Tactical Warlord... and truthfully I don't really care where he comes in the initiative order. A Warlord needs his allies to be around him to gain any benefit from most of his powers. A Warlord acting first, and running off away from his Fighter is crippling himself. Rather to wait until the defends goes out and engages the enemy, then you can come in and Commander's Strike or Wolfpack Tactics (to move the defender into flanking), or whatever.

Fair enough, unless someone else can chime in with direct experience counter to yours I'll concede this point. We have a Warlord in the group I DM and in the group I play in but with only a couple sessions of each under my belt I haven't seen a lot of the class yet. What I have seen is the Warlord in both games be a bit frustrated with their at-wills because of poor party cooperation at the tactical level to get a lot of mileage out of them. On those occasions when the Warlord went before the other melee classes the others were more likely to follow his lead and take advantage of the benefits he could offer the other players over the course of that combat.

Dex for Heavy Blade Opportunity is another question though.

It'll be awhile before I see this in actual play unless I get involved in a Paragon or Epic tier game, but it's another reminder that having a reasonably strong character concept is a good idea before assigning ability scores even at 1st level if you hope to have the character for the long haul; the prereqs for some Paragon & Epic feats like HBO really require some long term planning. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but I have players in both groups who just don't think of building a character that way.

Thanks

 

[Nail]

We have a Warlord in the group I DM and in the group I play in but with only a couple sessions of each under my belt I haven't seen a lot of the class yet. What I have seen is the Warlord in both games be a bit frustrated with their at-wills because of poor party cooperation at the tactical level to get a lot of mileage out of them. On those occasions when the Warlord went before the other melee classes the others were more likely to follow his lead and take advantage of the benefits he could offer the other players over the course of that combat.

I play a Warlord in my other game. (But we - too- have only a few sessions completed.)

Generally, it seems that Warlords don't want to go first. What's best, of course, is for the fighter and rogue to go first, then have the warlord follow-up. Dexterity is a Warlord dump stat (after Wisdom).

In our group (DrSpunj's group), most players are unfamilar with the tactical play of 4e. Our rogue, for example, hasn't grasped that he shouldn't be a "Lone Ranger", off by himself fighting bad guys. He should be tightly paired with either the Fighter (me!) or the Warlord, setting up th' flank.

We'll teach 'im. Don't worry.

-Fred

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, just because you prefer to act later (depending on what the other PCs roll) doesn't mean a high initiative modifier is a bad thing.
You can always delay.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Well, just because you prefer to act later (depending on what the other PCs roll) doesn't mean a high initiative modifier is a bad thing.
You can always delay.

At the same time, outside of a few situations ... acting first isn't incredibly important, as the group will likely delay itself into a solid intiative order after about 1 trip around the initiative track. Going last isn't much different from not going during the first round and going first every other round afterwards. Unless you are a rogue [or invest in the feats to get the bonuses] it's a matter of whether you charge them or they charge you.

So, the dex bonus to init is about as "relevant" as the extra HP from better con. It's nice, but it's not something where a class that doesn't want the dex for other reasons is going to care that much about it.