4e Development Trends

[Sadrik]

Forked from: Removing MAD

Tying all capabilities of a class to one attribute kind of makes the class in to a caricature.

Are they not already this way in 4e? I mean the importance of your prime stat is paramount. You cannot have a 14 WIS cleric and be competant like in previous editions. You need maximum power all the time or at least as near so as possible.

This happens because the way the system ties all powers to a single stat. Where as before if you were a wizard you needed a little DEX to make sure your touch attacks succeeded, the cleric needed a little STR to make sure he could swing a weapon properly. Instead we now have a game that is geared towards the bloated uni-stat.

I guess, my thought is if you are going to have that in place by the RAW. Why not use that to your advantage in the design of future products? It is how the game is. So, develop around that trend and enhance it.

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that it is best to simply give each class a single prime stat and have no secondaries or tertiaries or second primaries. What do they accomplish other than forcing players to assign their stats in a certain way. They wind up looking like requirements and characters look cookie cut. I like options not limitations.

Unless the primary stat is somehow weakened, I see no way that this paradigm can shift. Players will always want a 18 or 20 in their primary. It just does not make any sense to do otherwise. Every power is based off of it so why do anything else? Non-gamist types may try to play a wizard with a 14 INT or something and will quickly become frustrated with the system.

So as the game moves forward, the designers should do one of two things. Either embrace what they have, a system that keys nearly everything off of the uni-bloated stat or make a change to the core rules such as moving the attack bonus away from the uni-bloated stat or something similar to weaken the power of the primary stat to encourage more even stat placement.

I think change would be difficult, and besides they are very clearly embracing the enhancement of the uni-bloated stat. As evidenced by the new PHB2 feat that makes all basic attacks based on your uni-bloated stat.

So from a design perspective, a feat that allows the Ranger to use his STR powers with his DEX. And so on down the line. These feats would shore up characters so that they would be free to place their stat points outside of their primary stat anywhere they want. Giving them many options to play a smart Ranger a tough Ranger etc. In addition, a feat that allowed players to assign their defenses as shown here.

The 4e design fiat is any stat = any use. Embraced completely this can really improve the core functionality of the game and open options for players (outside of the core assumption of a uni-bloated primary stat). Why cookie cut characters when not necessary.

So how do the trends feel and look to you where do you think 4e development is going or should go?

 

[Halivar]

So how do the trends feel and look to you where do you think 4e development is going or should go?

This is consistent with what I have noticed, and I welcome the change. I frequently make "outside the box" characters that don't fix their respective classes' archetypal stat spread. In previous editions this would have meant suboptimal characters without serious system mastery.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't think this is the way that things will go, but there could be a good argument for just saying 'use your highest stat for powers', thus allowing for smart fighters or charismatic fighters just as much as strong fighters.

Then accentuate secondary effects based on single ability scores as at present but perhaps a little more thoroughly (giving power niches to particular archetypes)

 

[Sadrik]

I don't think this is the way that things will go, but there could be a good argument for just saying 'use your highest stat for powers', thus allowing for smart fighters or charismatic fighters just as much as strong fighters.

Then accentuate secondary effects based on single ability scores as at present but perhaps a little more thoroughly (giving power niches to particular archetypes)

That is an interesting notion, use any stat with any class. I think I still like that each class is tied to a single stat call me a traditionalist. I do think that easily (like one heroic feat) getting rid of secondary, tertiary and second primary is an interesting notion that enhances the players experience by opening up all class powers equally.

I suppose the other design avenue would be to grant every class secondary effects based upon every stat. Then if you wanted quick and tough ranger he was not outclassed completely by the quick and wise or strong and wise ranger. Creating enough powers for each class to fill each secondary stat is tough to balance let alone the real estate it would require. Instead of that, opening up all of the powers to their own primary with say a feat would allow characters to mostly be played with the secondaries as is but would allow for a lot more customization.

Snappy Feat Name [heroic]
Whenever a power from your class calls for an ability that is not you primary ability use your primary ability instead.

Something like that would go a long way to making characters very customizable as far as stats go.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think this is the way that things will go, but there could be a good argument for just saying 'use your highest stat for powers', thus allowing for smart fighters or charismatic fighters just as much as strong fighters.

Then accentuate secondary effects based on single ability scores as at present but perhaps a little more thoroughly (giving power niches to particular archetypes)

The easiest approach might be to just remove the "primary" stat thing from the attack/check equation and only apply it to effect (damage or secondary effects). You always have an attack bonus of 1/2 level +equipment related bonus +feat bonus.
(The next step might be removing the "to-hit" part entirely. We can already see _very_ vague traces of this with powers like "Come and Get It" - in previous editions, you would have needed a Will Save or attack vs Will Defense or something like that to trigger the pull effect, in 4E, that part is gone and the attack is only to determine whether you hit.)

 

[Dausuul]

The easiest approach might be to just remove the "primary" stat thing from the attack/check equation and only apply it to effect (damage or secondary effects). You always have an attack bonus of 1/2 level +equipment related bonus +feat bonus.

I've been in favor of this approach for a while now. I haven't quite got to the point of proposing it to my group as a house rule, but I'm considering it.

That said, I disagree with the claim that 4E characters are more SAD (single attribute dependent) than characters in previous editions. There is no class in 4E which does not have at least one secondary stat offering some value. For example, a 4E wizard is a fool not to invest in the "implement stat" (Dex, Con, or Wis). Clerics get a boost from Cha. And so on. The prime stat is always heavily favored, but the secondaries should not be discounted. The question "Do I pump my prime stat absolutely as high as possible, or spread the wealth a bit?" is not a no-brainer.

In 3E, by contrast, there was a broad range. Non-casters tended to be heavily MAD (multiple attribute dependent), much more so than in 4E. On the other hand, most caster classes were far more SAD than in 4E. A wizard needed Int and that was it. You might put some leftover stat points (or your second highest stat if you rolled for them) in Dex if you cared about touch attacks, but you'd never invest in Dex at the cost of Int - doing anything other than pumping your Intelligence as high as you could possibly get it was suboptimal at best. Same for sorcerors and druids, using Cha and Wis respectively. Clerics, with their Charisma-driven special abilities and their tendency to melee, were the exception.

 

[Sadrik]

The easiest approach might be to just remove the "primary" stat thing from the attack/check equation and only apply it to effect (damage or secondary effects). You always have an attack bonus of 1/2 level +equipment related bonus +feat bonus.
(The next step might be removing the "to-hit" part entirely. We can already see _very_ vague traces of this with powers like "Come and Get It" - in previous editions, you would have needed a Will Save or attack vs Will Defense or something like that to trigger the pull effect, in 4E, that part is gone and the attack is only to determine whether you hit.)

Where as I think this a great house rule, I think that by RAW it becomes more difficult to create. All of the powers are written explicitly with STR vs. AC and whatnot. Rewriting the game to say ATTACK vs. AC where ATTACK = 1/2 level + weapon/implement + feats +5 (and the with further level bonuses).

I suppose you could create a feat that says your prime stat counts as +5 for you powers or something. That could make this idea RAW still.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think M&M actually did it fantastically by seperating your physical stats from your actual in-combat stats. Strength gave you strength, but it didn't make you hit stronger in melee.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I suppose you could create a feat that says your prime stat counts as +5 for you powers or something. That could make this idea RAW still.

Or don't make PCs waste a feat on it and make it a Class Feature. E.g., ...

Man-at-Arms (Fighter Class Feature)
Your extensive weapons training means you make Str-based attacks at 5+1/5 level or your actual strength modifier, whichever is better.

--------

I think 4E design will move towards more interesting choices. The Fighter already has the most interesting choices because of the weapon feats; there are noticeable differences between Str/Con fighters and Str/Dex or Str/Wis fighters. I hope that other classes will gain this sort of depth, rather than more towards a SAD design.

That said, I think making Basic Attacks based on your Primary stat is smart. That just means they're useful to non-Str characters.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Or don't make PCs waste a feat on it and make it a Class Feature. E.g., ...

Man-at-Arms (Fighter Class Feature)
Your extensive weapons training means you make Str-based attacks at 5+1/5 level or your actual strength modifier, whichever is better.

Eh, I don't know that a solution for anything -- you'd just end up with Fighters who have ridiculously awesome Strength (as now) and Fighters who have absolutely miserable Strength -- the middle ground is still no-man's land. It's kind of the same situation that 3E Fighters had with Intelligence -- if it wasn't unusually high, it might as well be 3, because it really just stops mattering.

Regarding rolling everything into a single stat... I don't know that's a solution either. I was looking through the 3.5 PHB and Tome of Battle last weekend looking for inspiration for 4E abilities to steal/adapt, and noticed a ton of repeats. One that stands out in my mind is that in Tome of Battle, at the same level, there are powers that allow you to temporarily set your AC equal to a.) an attack roll, b.) a Sense Motive check, or c.) a Concentration check. And, having run into all of them in-game, it was a good reminder how, even if all of them amount to "AC=d20+8," they feel very different to use. Same deal for a Rogue using Sneak Attack with a short sword for 2d6+3 damage versus a Fighter using a Greatsword for 2d6+3 damage. It's the same effect, but arriving via a different (if nearly identical) path makes it feel unique.

That said, I'm at something of a loss as to how to reduce the reliance on a single stat without tearing the system to pieces. I'd probably start by attacking the modifier progression itself. Hard caps on stats (ie Halflings can possess no more than 20 Strength, ever, Dragonborn can have no more than 22, etc.) would be one way, by making classes simply max their primary and then focus on branching out. Changing the way scaling (14 = +2, 17 = +3, 20 = +4, 24 = +5, etc.) would be another, since ultimately the cost will end up outweighing the gain. I expect that this would result in characters pretty similar to using hard-caps while annoying a completely different subset of gamers. At any rate, either would require some heavy maths as you extrapolate them up towards level 30. You'd probably still need to do quite a bit of tinkering with class powers anyway.