Balance vs. Diversity

[Alnag]

However, in the same line of thinking, this makes you more diverse. If a wizard no longer needs dex to (a) hit with spells, (b) increase his AC, and (c) increase his reflex, then not every wizard is going to try to take a high dex. With naught but a high int, he had coverred some of these things, which leaves him more options.

That would be viable argument if the abilities would play a significant role. The problem is, they don't. Their effect is dwindling, because they are pretty much interchangeable. I can indeed create dexterous wizard or intelligent one or strong one for that matter... the problem is, the outcome would be (or it seems to me) just pretty much the same. The average attack, hit points, damage, defenses etc. would be in the pretty the same area (because of the balance) which means the concept doesn't project well into the outcome.

The fact is, this is just my impression, which I can not confirm right now. So take it with appropriate amount of doubt as I do.

Wizard 1 might decide he can not both with dex and play a strong wizard (and hopefully there will be some feats to allow him to flesh out this idea more) while wizard 2 decides he'd rather play a dash spellcaster and ups his cha instead and focuses on cha skills and feats.

This one is true and important part! The most significant difference I see as possible are in the area of skills and special non-combat possibilities. Which we do not know much about yet. The fact, that some skills are mandatory is bit well decreasing diversity again, although this has easy solution of house ruling, which is the first thing I will do (even if some powers are tied to those skills). Sorry designers, this I feel is too much restrictive. But back to the topic...

In 3e, diversity was lost because it was easy to list attributes in order of power for a class. A wizard need int for spells and DC, dex for a few reasons, con for hp and fort, and after that...whatever you have left on the other three. Now, a wizard needs Int...there might be a secondary stat that would be of benefit to some of his powers, but it does not seem as necessary, which in turn makes the wizard more diverse.

Here, I agree partially. True is, that anyone optimizing character was following this approach at least with the primary ability for each class. (Although there were less incentive to do that than now if you have a chance to play in non-optimizing group). Now I feel pretty much like these are you three abilities - max them, these three you don't need at all, leave them alone. And on the other hand it doesn't matter that much which one you max or not, because their overall effect is not so high.

A bit off-topic, I must admit, I haven't played D&D in the most common manner. As a DM I've used very few combat encouters because they seemed stereotypical for me. Now 4e does a good job because the combat sounds like the interesting option again. On the other hand playing lot of non-combat encounters make the players come with pretty weird concepts which might not be optimal for combat effectiveness but were pretty tempting for other interaction, which is why I feel the impact of the 4e paradigm somewhat limiting in some ways. But still, I think it is quite interesting. And of course I am prepared to reconsinder my opinion once I have a chance to see the whole picture.

 

[Jhaelen]

Race 1: +2 Str, +2 Con
Race 2: +2 Dex, +2 Con
(everything else is equal, to make this the simplest comparison possible)

Which is the better race for playing the Str-based class?

Well, what is the 'Str-based class'? Form what I've seen so far there won't be a 'Str-based class'. There'll be (hopefully) varied powers so you'll be able to focus on the attributes you prefer.
Remember some of the paladin smits? Some were based on Cha, some on Wis, etc. The choice is entirely yours.

I found the Halfling paladin sample character quite encouraging

 

[SaffroN]

That would be viable argument if the abilities would play a significant role. The problem is, they don't. Their effect is dwindling, because they are pretty much interchangeable. I can indeed create dexterous wizard or intelligent one or strong one for that matter... the problem is, the outcome would be (or it seems to me) just pretty much the same. The average attack, hit points, damage, defenses etc. would be in the pretty the same area (because of the balance) which means the concept doesn't project well into the outcome.

I don't know enough about how the ability scores effect things in game. Even if ability scores have less influence in 4e, I think the characters are more diverse and balanced overall in 4e compared to 3e. Power choice, and Tactic choice make characters a lot more varied from one to the other

Does it really matter if abilities play a smaller role, yet more diversity is gained regardless?

 

[Alnag]

Does it really matter if abilities play a smaller role, yet more diversity is gained regardless?

I think, that this brings us to two questions.

1) If the abilities play smaller role (as it seems they do), do we need them, anymore? Or are they just sacred cow which was not slaugtered this time?

2) Is player's decision reflected in the outcome? Especially if he decides to create sub-optimal character. So far it seems (to me) that whatever you do, you will end with optimal and capable character. Which is fine for most games, but not for all. I know that many of my players liked time to time to create intentionally incompetent characters. If I choose my fighter will be weak, clumsy and with bad health will I see the expected outcome (poor fighter) or is the role of abilities so small that the effect of my character design will be overruled by system?

I am worried that the diversity you see is just a color it is on the surface, not going deep enough.

 

[SaffroN]

1 & 2) abilities that are vital for that class still have a big role to play. Having a Wizard with low intelligence and high wisdom would be much worse at hitting with his spells, avoiding getting hit (lower reflex), and Damaging with spells Than a Wizard with high intelligence and low wisdom.

I'm just not sure if having high / low abilities that are not important to that class make much difference.

 

[Andur]

Pretty it much looks like each class has its own "Primary Attribute", which will dictate the majority of the effectiveness in combat for that class. However, all the other abilities are able to be put in any order the player wishes. Thus the charming fighter is now a viable option. Likewise, since it appears that either feats or weapons themselves allow for Dex mods instead of Str mods, one can build a "quick" fighter over a "bash" fighter with equal effectiveness. (Though I do remember that Fighters were assumed to be in Heavy Armour, and that it would require a house rule to "equal" them in AC if they wore light or none).

As far as powers/abilities whatever, I think we will see that the distinctions will mean more as our knowledge increases. A 1d10 hit from a Mace is not necessarily the same as a 1d10 hit from an arrow, fire, radiant, etc. By offering more situational options which are still balanced with each other if not "standard" options, you create even more options. Want a fighter who is from the frigid north and is awesome "on ice", it would appear you can have it. The "ice fighter" would still have a similiar selection of "standard" abilities as everyone else, but in "ice" situations he gets more options than other characters. (OK, maybe I should have used ranger as an example instead)

One has to remember that in an exception based rule system, the number of potential options is near limitless. Even getting to the point of "creating" an exception based condition is pretty high on the option scale. Just as a brief example:

You get one standard action per round.
Exceptions:
Use an action point.
Triggered ability when adjacent foe is struck by an ally.
Adjacent foe is bloodied.
You crit a foe.
Foe is stunned/blinded/etc.
Foe moves away from you.
etc.

There are 6 exceptions to that one rule, of which there are at least 6 different ways that any of the exceptions can be triggered, and who knows what exceptions will be triggered upon the completion of the excepted action...

 

[hong]

That would be viable argument if the abilities would play a significant role. The problem is, they don't. Their effect is dwindling, because they are pretty much interchangeable. I can indeed create dexterous wizard or intelligent one or strong one for that matter... the problem is, the outcome would be (or it seems to me) just pretty much the same. The average attack, hit points, damage, defenses etc. would be in the pretty the same area (because of the balance) which means the concept doesn't project well into the outcome.

Diversity of power is not the same as diversity of character concept.

 

[Alnag]

Diversity of power is not the same as diversity of character concept.

Yes. But shouldn't it be?

 

[hong]

Yes. But shouldn't it be?

No. Absolutely not.

 

[Alnag]

No. Absolutely not.

Ok. Now, it would suit me better if there would be some ties between those two, you know. But I guess our preference is different, so that's ok.