Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 4704425" data-attributes="member: 58197">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.</blockquote>

Verification