Averaging Ability Scores for Defenses

[Camelot]

A conundrum that has been encountered in 4e is when optimized characters are paradoxical; they are either strong or tough, either fast or smart, and either wise or charismatic, but not both or neither. This is because the corresponding defenses pick the higher of the two modifiers, meaning the player is free to make the other score as low as they want without affecting their defenses.

What if the defenses averaged the two modifiers instead? Then there would be an incentive for every score to be high, eliminating the "dump stat."

Now, don't stop reading there, I know that this causes the defenses to turn out lower than they are supposed to be. However, I can't think of a solution that solves this problem that doesn't also make the house rule null and void. It seems that characters lose around 4-6 points from defenses, and heavy armor changes this somehow. Any thoughts?

 

[Pyrex]

Standard point-buy is low enough that your hero who is both Strong and Fast (or your Monk who is both Strong and Wise) just doesn't have enough points to also be Smart (Charismatic). Etc.

In order to combat this I'd:
*Give a blanket +1 to all defenses (sure, Heavy Armor wearers come out a bit ahead, but, meh)
*Add +1 to any Class or Racial bonus to defenses
*Give Paragon Defenses as a bonus feat @ L11

 

[fba827]

while i haven't completely thought it out, maybe something like:

*use defenses as is BUT ...
*add one-half the ability modifier of the other skill

Using a standard point buy, you can't get less than -1 on your dump stat, so with one-half, that is 0. Thus, in essense it doesn't penalize someone for having a dump stat with point-buy. BUT it rewards someone who is willing to put a +2 or more in a partner ability score.

People often feel that defenses are too low at higher levels (I can't say I agree or disagree with that statement, since i think circumstances of the encoutner and party mix play a factor there) but this would give a boost in that regard as well (i.e. no potential lower defenses but a chance to get higher defenses through spreading).

 

[eamon]

For non-AC defenses (which are typically too low anyhow), how about using the sum rather than the average? That nicely deals with the fact that non-AC defenses start off about a point or two too low and then decay further.

You'd want to ban the epic defense booster feats, of course.

Obviously this could not apply to AC, which would mean that the current situation persists for Dex/Int.

Personally, I prefer the solution whereby all stats are raised at levels 4/8 rather than just two: that mitigates the NAD problem somewhat, and ensures that skill and ability modifier differences don't escalate quite as much (to avoid situations where half the party always succeeds and the other half always fails: an easy enough trap to fall in if you're using plain skill checks or skill challenges.) For your case, it means that although there are differences, these differences aren't exaggerated by level - and it makes builds with aligned primary/secondary scores more playable, so that means that it's more likely people may actually be both wise and charismatic, etc.

 

[Pyrex]

For non-AC defenses (which are typically too low anyhow), how about using the sum rather than the average? That nicely deals with the fact that non-AC defenses start off about a point or two too low and then decay further.

That's actually more reasonable than averaging as it both prevents the "loss" of defense value you'd typically end up with when you have a character who has high scores in both abilities for one defense (STR/CON for example) without overly promoting bizarre stat distributions.

Once you ban both Paragon Defenses and Robust Defenses. You should be pretty close to back on-track.

 

[Stalker0]

That's actually more reasonable than averaging as it both prevents the "loss" of defense value you'd typically end up with when you have a character who has high scores in both abilities for one defense (STR/CON for example) without overly promoting bizarre stat distributions.

Once you ban both Paragon Defenses and Robust Defenses. You should be pretty close to back on-track.

I had considering doing the add system myself. I realized for most pointbuy it doesn't change the overall bonuses too much. A +1 here, a -1 there, etc.

The only weirdness you get is a dex/int character whose Reflex defense is higher than his AC.

 

[ZephyrTR]

Do these imbalanced Fort/Ref/Will defenses at high levels include feats they might take and amulets they might have? I don't have much experience at epic level play. If feats balance it out, it seems like the system that's in place sounds okay, but I do like the idea of celebrating characters' strength and intelligence and charisma in defense. It makes the abilities more balanced.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Do these imbalanced Fort/Ref/Will defenses at high levels include feats they might take and amulets they might have? I don't have much experience at epic level play. If feats balance it out, it seems like the system that's in place sounds okay, but I do like the idea of celebrating characters' strength and intelligence and charisma in defense. It makes the abilities more balanced.

The problem with feats balancing it out is that feats are supposed to be customization, not mandatory requirements. If the game doesn't work unless everyone takes feat X, then the point of them is being diminished.

 

[ZephyrTR]

I totally get this. I don't know how I feel about knocking out the feat altogether, though. Will it really make them broken if you play like this? And shouldn't you leave the availability to the player to decide "I want to be untouchable so I'm gonna push my REF as far as it can go?".

That being said I'm REALLY REALLY intrigued by this 'sum of the mods' idea. At the very baseline, it makes players give pause before they start taking negatives, and I think the 'min/max' should be as elusive as possible. It helps players start making decisions based on identity as opposed on mathematics. The game's about imagination, after all.

 

[Stalker0]

That being said I'm REALLY REALLY intrigued by this 'sum of the mods' idea. At the very baseline, it makes players give pause before they start taking negatives, and I think the 'min/max' should be as elusive as possible.

It definitely reduces the urge to min/max. A player with 14 str/14 con will have the same fort defense as a 18 str, 10 con...and for far less points.

Certain builds (like the barbarian str/con build) will have much more imbalanced defenses then they do now. However, I think this is okay in 4e, mainly because defenses as a whole are more balanced.

In 3e, reflex was the weakest defense. Fort was generally the most important against the nastiest effects, followed very closely by will, and then reflex. Now the various defenses guard against similar effects...just used in different ways. So if a barb is virtually untouchable against the poison mist (fort), but painful vulnerable to the poison spray (reflex), I'm okay with that.