Balance vs. Diversity

[Shroomy]

I have to wonder if the ritual system is tied into the Intelligence score?

 

[outsider]

Dexterity vs Intelligence, the big factor in this one right now is it doesn't seem like there's any good reason to pick int unless your an int based class.

Dexterity adds to reflex defense,

So does intelligence(and like Dex, it also adds to AC).

initiative,

That's an advantage for Dex over Int, yes.

ranged attack and damage

This is irrelevant for alot of characters. How many characters are going to be making basic ranged attacks instead of using at will ranged powers? Of the D&D experience characters, the only characters that don't have an at will ranged power are the fighter and paladin. I find it likely that even melee classes will get a couple of ranged power options at some point, thus negating the need for the ranged attack bonuses from Dex, just like powers seem to have overall negated the need for melee attack bonuses from strength.

and a number of dex based skills. Int adds to some knowledges....

Yeah, the skills are basically a wash.

As far as I'm concerned, the only real advantage Dex has over Int at this point is Initiative bonus. As long as Int actually gets some decent mechanical bonus to replace the skill point bonus it lost(and I'm sure it will), Dex and Int should be fairly interchangeable. The only exception would be characters that for whatever reason, don't have any ranged powers, and I think that'll be a pretty rare thing.

 

[fuindordm]

The only (potential) problem I see with the new stats is the possibility that Int is a dump stat for many classes. But even that isn't too big of a problem. For one thing, relating general intelligence to the number of skills one could know was of most questionable realism. For another thing, I believe Intelligence *should* be a dump stat for most medieval professions.

In previous editions, it always bugged me that the 2nd and 3rd stats for wizards were Dex and Con, nine times out of ten. It pleases me that this is no longer the case--Dex and Con are useful but not essential choices. The character's second-best score might end up almost anywhere, depending on their concept.

In 4th edition, it is my hope that most classes will have one (or at most two) essential stats, and that all stats will provide some benefit to all characters (even if minor).

 

[Valdrax]

While I am very pro-4E, the argument presented that there is no 'wrong' race to play for a certain class is incorrect when considered from a crunch perspective.
[...]
Now, is 4E more level than 3.X in this? Almost certainly. I find the claim that there is no penalty in race selection (another word choice would opportunity cost) to be more marketing-driven than anything else.

The difference lies in the balance. Where do we set the minimums to be able to be competent at something?

Many limits in 3e are set around an assumption that your stats aren't penalized: minimum stat needed to cast spells of a certain level, expected save DCs vs. monsters of the appropriate level, minimum stats needed to get certain feats like Power Attack, etc.

In 4e, if those limits stay at the exact same place, then the difference between a race that's unpenalized and a race that gets a bonus has far less impact -- just a matter of a 5% difference in chance to hit or evade damage. No longer will whole class abilities be denied due to hard to reach minimums (like a half-orc trip fighter or a 3e dragonborn two-weapon fighter).

Also, we no longer have *terrible* race choices -- like a halfling barbarian vs. a half-orc barbarian -- where the difference in race choice makes a 10% difference in effectiveness because of a full 4 pt. difference in stats due to race. We also no longer have to deal with the irritating idea that a bonus to a physical stat is worth penalties to two mental stats.

Sure, there will still be optimal and suboptimal racial choices for certain classes, but 4e can still do away with truly *boneheaded* racial choices for certain classes by eliminating penalties and keeping the balance around the assumption of no racial adjustment.

 

[Primal]

On top of that, think of race/class combinations.
Half-orc wizard? Halfling paladin? Dwarven bard? Not exactly the most potent of choices, right? You'd probably be better off with a human in each of those cases.

From what we can tell 4E still has optimal choices, but nothing to punish you for picking the "wrong" character you want to play. The elf is best suited for rogues or rangers, but why not try a fighter? The bonus to Dex helps there too, the attack re-roll is fantastic, and superior speed helps in reaching allies that need your help immediately.

Actually, I'm playing a pretty mean 4th level halfling paladin (of Arvoreen) in 3E. His size modifier pretty much compensates for his racial STR penalty and the +2 DEX bonus combined to some shield-related Feats (Divine Shield, for example) makes him a pretty decent "Defender" in combat. I'm going to multiclass into Divine Templar and Cleric to make him even more versatile. And his weakest save is REF, which is "only" +8. I can't see -- from a mechanical POV -- how he would be more "effective" as a human, for example. If I *had* chosen to play a human paladin, I'd have chosen different Feats and a different emphasis on his combat style.

However, if these "Class Attack Powers" for paladin use mainly CHA and WIS modifier in 4E, I see no point whatsoever in playing a halfling or an elf dragonborn. It's *MUCH* more effective (mechanically) to choose a race which gets +2 to CHA or WIS (or preferably both).

 

[Stalker0]

This is irrelevant for alot of characters. How many characters are going to be making basic ranged attacks instead of using at will ranged powers? Of the D&D experience characters, the only characters that don't have an at will ranged power are the fighter and paladin.

Then it looks like the fighter and paladin will need those ranged weapons. While flying enemies will be less, they will be there. Further, obstacles like rivers with archers on the other side will show uses for bows. Fighters and paladins will still need to pull out the bow every so often, and considering how dex adds to BOTH attack AND damage now with a bow, I would never bump my int over my dex for a fighter class.

But again, this is all based on the the assumption that what we have seen is it regarding int. Currently, this is only a fear based on limited information. With the full rules, int may have plenty of uses, and it will be a legitimate choice between dex and int, even for a fighter. We will wait and see.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

However, if these "Class Attack Powers" for paladin use mainly CHA and WIS modifier in 4E, I see no point whatsoever in playing a halfling or an elf dragonborn. It's *MUCH* more effective (mechanically) to choose a race which gets +2 to CHA or WIS (or preferably both).

Meh, if by "MUCH" you mean +1 to hit and damage, then I'll agree. It is an advantage, I'll admit, but not THAT big of one.

 

[Stalker0]

However, if these "Class Attack Powers" for paladin use mainly CHA and WIS modifier in 4E, I see no point whatsoever in playing a halfling or an elf dragonborn. It's *MUCH* more effective (mechanically) to choose a race which gets +2 to CHA or WIS (or preferably both).

Keep in mind that races are more than a few numbers now, their racial abilities greatly effect the kind of character you want to play.

Let's compare a dwarf fighter to an elf fighter.

The dwarf fighter can take a beating. He's got con, always a good stat. And he can second wind as a minor action 1/encounter, the fighter can heal and not stop.

But the elf looks pretty good too. More perception, handy against an ambush. And he's attack re roll ability can be very powerful. Your using your big daily power...and MISS!! As an elf fighter, you can re roll that and get another chance for the big pain.

Or even throw in an eladrin fighter. You can teleport right into combat and start controlling the field, even with obstacles (or even other fighters) in your way. You don't sleep, so your ready to go in a night fight.

Each fighter is unique in its own way, and each utilizes a different strength of the fighter class, even though each doesn't give a bonus to the "fighter" stats.

 

[IceFractal]

I'm of mixed feelings on this. I'd agree that if you want to make a weak character, just make them lower level. Or, since 4E seems to specialize equipment by role, have them use weapons/armor that don't work for their class (like a Rogue using a greatclub and heavy armor).

Also, there's an important distinction between a character who is actually weaker (accomplishes less, more likely to die), and a character who seems weak, but manages to accomplish a lot and escape death frequently through amazing luck. If you're "lucky" enough to slay Ogres, your stats should have a high enough attack and damage bonus to actually accomplish that. If you're "lucky" enough to survive an ancient dragon's firey breath, then your Reflex save and HP should be high enough to do so. You can still play the character as untrained, incompetent, and so forth - just make the stats reflect your actual performance. For instance:
Char 1: Attack bonus +15 - 70% skill, 30% great strength
Char 2: Attack bonus +15 - 10% skill, 90% luck


However, I do somewhat miss the diversity of gameplay in 3E. Playing different classes was actually a different gameplay experience. An experience that could have been balanced better, but that didn't deserve to be thrown out wholesale.

And it's by no means impossible to balance mechanically different systems. One game (that's in progress now, I believe) uses the same set of components to build spells and martial attacks, but then differentiates them by how they're used. Spells are twice as strong for their level, but take two rounds to cast. Right away, this adds a different strategy, and brings to mind situations where spells would work better or where martial skills would work better.

There do seem to be a few touches of this (Fighters seem to get less encounter/daily exploits, but they aren't wasted if they miss), but personally, I'd prefer more variance.

 

[Stalker0]

However, I do somewhat miss the diversity of gameplay in 3E. Playing different classes was actually a different gameplay experience. An experience that could have been balanced better, but that didn't deserve to be thrown out wholesale.

I really don't see where this is coming from though.

From just the pregens we've seen, classes seem to have a pretty significant difference. Fighters are a lot different from wizards in how their powers work for example. Fighters push push enemies around and whole people to their squares. Wizards can put an entire group of people to sleep, and can use telekinesis at WILL!!

And let us not forget we haven't really scratched the surface of the skill system yet. While a rogue's hide check may not be incredibly higher than the fighter, if the whole party at least has a chance to hide the the party will likely use it more often. That means the rogue gets to use his hide skill more often. Further, since magic doesn't replace skills as readily, a rangers survival skill will be important, athletics and acrobatics will be more common, etc. Classes that have training in these skills will be differentiated from those who have other skills.