Am I missing something? Spellcasters and armor?

[corwyn77]

Certainly though nobody in their right mind is likely to take less then a 16 base in their primary stat for any class they are playing. And most people will tend to bend over backwards to ensure they get a +2 racial stat bump in that primary stat. Actually taking an 18 base though has an extremely high cost which may or may not always be worth it. Even just dropping it to a 17 frees up a ton of stat points.

Yeah, all you have to do is take a look at feat requirements to see that a fighter with s16 d13 i13 may be more viable than 18 10 10; He's at least more interesting with more options. The -1 to hit and damage is more than made up for by feat options.

 

[silentounce]

Why don't we just wait and see how it actually plays? I have a feeling multiclassing is going to be HOT with people who choose non-standard builds. I mean, if you're going to play a dex fighter, why not grab some ranger or rogue Dex attacks?

Again, that's sort of a punishment for playing a non-stereotype character, because you have to spend feats on that. And multi-class is a whole nother can of worms, I'm not sure if it's worth spending several feats to replace powers with some from another class.

Otherwise, I guess you'll just have to wait for splat books to come out with a class built on what you want to play. And I don't think that will always happen for game balance reasons. I just don't think the system is set up for doing non-traditional builds without breaking the game. Because if a book comes out that has a bunch of dex or int based exploits for a fighter, won't that throw of game balance? Heh, it's too late, I'm starting to confuse myself, so I'll shut up.

 

[FadedC]

But STATS are the character! Really, they're the key defining attributes. Why do you think their one of the first things you create? Yeah, I know personality is not completely stat dependent, but come on.... At first I was hesitant about 4e, but then the more I read the more I liked it. Now, it's starting to go the other way. A person shouldn't be punished with an unplayable character, or have to wait for a splat book to play an effective fighter with a high int and dex instead of strength. And don't say that you can play a strength build rogue, or a ranger, they're not the same things. Well, my first character is going to be a gnome warlord with 16, 10, 13, 13, 8, 18. I guess I'll find out first hand what the effects of such a build will be. Granted, that's still within the guidelines of one of the builds, but I only have a 16 in the key ability.

As to the rest of your post, this is still an RPG right, with a tactical miniature skirmishing element, right? Not the other way around. Your statement that tactical choices are where the variety lies, not how you build your character doesn't allay my fears. That shouldn't be the focus of an RPg in my opinion. Well, at least, it shouldn't outweigh other aspects. Your build, IS your character.

Some classes can get away with different stat layouts more then others. The tiefling warlord pregen in KoTS had a 16 strength and an 18 int, and you could argue that's a viable route for a tactical warlord.

As for tactical choices vs. stats, I'm not sure I see the difference. How is what fighting style you use less a part of RP then if you are strong or fast? Either way preferred stat builds for different classes has been around since 1e and if anything 4e gives more options.

 

[VannATLC]

a fighter who focuses on Dex and Int is either a Rogue or a Warlord.

If you need stickiness, Multiclass to something that can mark.

Its a *Defender* What role in defense does Dex and Int have? How do they, as personality and physical attributes, better allow you to defend somebody?

If you *don't* want to play a defender, then don't be a fighter.

I've posted this before, but this is an unfortunate side-effect of keeping class names that now mean different things.

 

[silentounce]

Its a *Defender* What role in defense does Dex and Int have? How do they, as personality and physical attributes, better allow you to defend somebody?

Are you kidding?

I'd rather have a cunning, quick-thinking, agile, and fast bodyguard than a big dumb brute. Maybe if you substitute the word "tank" for defender, then okay. But, historically, some of the greatest fighters weren't always the strongest guys, or even the toughest. 4e allows Enkidu, but not Gilgamesh, apparently. That might not be the best example, but it's the first I can think of.

But seriously, in real life, (yes, I know this is a fantasy game) dex and int play a big role in the "defender" concept.

 

[Diirk]

? "In Mesopotamian mythology, Gilgamesh is credited with having been a demigod of superhuman strength who built a great city wall to defend his people from external threats."

Gilgamesh was fantastically strong...

 

[VannATLC]

Er.. Defenders are tanks. That's their job. They take all the blows so others don't have to.

 

[AntiPaladin]

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."

 

[silentounce]

? "In Mesopotamian mythology, Gilgamesh is credited with having been a demigod of superhuman strength who built a great city wall to defend his people from external threats."

Gilgamesh was fantastically strong...

Yeah, I know that, that's why I said it wasn't the best example. And it's a bit more complicated than that. Whether or not he was a god. When he became a god, etc. Actually, he'd be a good example of the Demigod Epic Destiny according to some historians. Anyway, he wasn't just a strong man, he was also wise, intelligent, charismatic. He's quite a bit different than a Hercules type. Although, Hercules may be a derivative of his.

Anyway, my poor example does not discount what I was saying. Hmmm... let me see if I can come up with a better one. HA!! How about the Karate Kid? Or is that too monky? Roy Greenhilt? High int, but I guess he's got a high str, too.

I guess in 4e being a fighter means that your tough and dumb. If you want to be tough and smart be a warlord. If you want to be tough and quick be a rogue or ranger. I suppose that's what you are getting at. And I suppose it's true, since a lot of the flavor of the ranger is gone. No animal companion, hardly any woodsman stuff, etc. So, just take that class but have the PC refer to himself as a fighter, warrior, etc. Gah....

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."

Best episode ever.

 

[VannATLC]

Why are you 'Gah'ing?

It allows for much better flexibility of character, what your character describes himself as can be completed (should be completely, within the characters own frame of reference) totally divorced from his class, which is solely a metagame construct.

You can be a smart fighter. But a genius fighter is unlikely to also be really strong. If you want to be both, and still be a 'defender' request a higher amount of attribute points. Otherwise, the intelligent 'fighter' is going to be the one stearing the battle.

Gilgamesh was a LEADER. Not a defender. Anyway.