D&D 4E Ability Caps and 4e: Dumping the Dump Stat

[CM]

I'm going to be starting up a FR Sundering campaign sometime next month and have been thinking about ability scores and some ideas are filtering in from 5e playtesting.

I have never been a fan of 3e and 4e's "dump stat" phenomenon and how the combat systems encourage one-dimensional characters who boost their primary stat at the expense of all others. Thinking back to 1e and 2e NPC stat blocks it was common to see the "legendary hero" type NPCs with multiple high-teen ability scores which just wasn't possible for player characters under point-buy ability score generation, and improbably rare for die-rolling.

Most 4e characters I have seen (and played myself) start out with one score in the 18-20 range, another 16-18, and the rest 8 to 11 with maybe a 14. At the 4th and 8th level stat boosts, the points almost always go into your two best class stats, with little incentive to boost your lower scores. The system itself encourages it, giving you more accurate attacks and more damage by continually pumping those scores ever higher.

What I proposed for my group is using one of the three standard arrays and applying racial bonuses as normal.
A: 16 14 14 11 10 10
B: 18 14 11 10 10 8
C: 16 16 12 11 11 8

Then at 4th and 8th, 14th, 18th, 24th, and 28th levels, increase your four lowest stats by one point. This represents how your character is growing as a person, meeting new people, being exposed to new ideas, challenging their beliefs, and gaining fame.

At 11th and 21st level, assign two points freely, either to the same or different abilities. This represents how the character applies all this gained experience toward improving their primary attributes.

Net result is your level 30 character will have ability scores something like 22/18/18/16/16/15 instead of 26/22/18/12/12/11. Over the 30-level spread they will fall behind 1-2 points in attack and damage bonuses, but will be higher in many skills and the differences between their NADs will be smaller. I don't anticipate any attack bonus issues because in my two previous high-paragon and low-epic games the characters never had a problem hitting. Thematically, I think that former array fits the idea of a legendary hero better than the latter. Characters will have better access to feats and will get more mileage out of class powers that incentivize secondary stats. MAD characters will step out of the shadows.

Any concerns or suggestions?

 

[thewok]

The only concern I have is that the math of the system expects the primary stat to be raised at every opportunity. In this case, you may have to adjust monsters to compensate. Then you have to ask yourself if the benefits you want to see are worth the trouble it would take to adjust everything.

 

[Ferghis]

What if, at every level in which by RAW you get a stat bump, all of your stats went up?

This would also prevent one defense falling behind, as well as initiative, which otherwise falls behind, relative to monsters' initiative.

EDIT: this isn't my idea, it's from C4, but I find it pretty ingenious.

 

[keterys]

Alternatively, don't increase stats at all. Just increase attack and defense by ~4 over the course of the 30 levels.

 

[D'karr]

Alternatively, don't increase stats at all. Just increase attack and defense by ~4 over the course of the 30 levels.

Inherent bonuses account for some of this to make magic bonuses something that is not necessary to level the math. This allows the DM to have a high-magic or low magic campaign suited to taste.

However, too many things are tied to stats (skills, damage, attack, defense). The mathematical framework of the game is designed to show progression. If stats are not allowed to go up then all the background systems also need to be capped in some way.

I like the idea, but the implementation could be very messy.

 

[keterys]

The system actually breaks steadily due to ability score change - you get steadily worse at skills you can't afford to put points into, one or two of your defenses fall behind outside of expected progression, etc.

 

[Ferghis]

What if, at every level in which by RAW you get a stat bump, all of your stats went up?

This would also prevent one defense falling behind, as well as initiative, which otherwise falls behind, relative to monsters' initiative.

EDIT: this isn't my idea, it's from C4, but I find it pretty ingenious.

The system actually breaks steadily due to ability score change - you get steadily worse at skills you can't afford to put points into, one or two of your defenses fall behind outside of expected progression, etc.

This is correct. Unless you have a primary that contributes to initiative, it will steadily lose ground to monsters of appropriate level. Same goes with defenses that aren't pumped. By the time you get to high-epic, it's easy for one defense to lose 4 points relative to an appropriate-level attack. That's why I thought C4's suggestion was so ingenious.

 

[keterys]

Re: initiative

That is generally not my experience. PC initiative usually outstrips monster initiative, because PCs have access to _far_ more bonuses. For example, monsters increase initiative at roughly +3/4 level, while PCs increase at 1/2 level + (tier / 2) + (all other bonuses), so other bonuses need to work out to (level * 9/10) / 4 => or about 6 by 30th level superior initiative alone is +8 which is already greater than that value, without looking at class/path/destiny, item, or power bonuses, or the ability to roll twice for initiative. Some PCs also roll initiative using a skill check, such as elves using perception. I know one PC who rolls perception who has _never lost initiative_ to a monster.

Having stat bumps at every level addresses one problem, though it does have collateral damage. For example, all secondaries increase which can remove some choices in builds or inflate some statistical bonuses from synergies (ex: Warlords with high Str, Int, Cha, and Wis have far more power and feat options)

Situations that are actually worth avoiding already - giving something +Stat to defense, attack, or generally _any_ d20 roll is a bad plan once you start adding more to that stat than you had at 1st level. Stat inflation isn't a good thing for the game, but fixing the underlying math is good. Using the underlying math as justification to keep stat inflation? Meh.

 

[CM]

By the time you get to high-epic, it's easy for one defense to lose 4 points relative to an appropriate-level attack. That's why I thought C4's suggestion was so ingenious.

I think I know of the poster C4, but I'm not sure where to find what you're referencing here.

 

[C4]

I think I know of the poster C4, but I'm not sure where to find what you're referencing here.

Hi, CM!

The suggestion that Ferghis mentioned is written right into my Complete 4th Edition compilation-clone as "RAW," but it can just as easily be applied to 4e games. The rule is just as Ferghis describes -- anytime a PC would get +1 to two abilities, he instead gets +1 to all abilities. Indeed, it began as a house rule in my own 4e group!