Classes based on the six ability scores

[Mercule]

Not many people want to play a character that doesn't have good synergies with its class abilities. How many rogue players would play a rogue with a Dexterity of 14 in 4e? And if they did, even I would call them silly for doing so. But maybe the rogue has everything the player wants, but he wants to base his character around Wisdom and not Strength or Dexterity or Charisma because that's not how he envisages the character.

It's fine, even logical, for it to be rare. But it needs to be viable.

In 3e, I played an acrobatic rogue (dilettante son of a wealthy merchant who did a lot of base jumping type of stuff). He had a 14 dex and 16 str. He was a blast, pretty heroic, and fit the rogue class perfectly. I would object, quite strongly, to any system in which he was a "silly" character.

Probably also worth noting: other than a brief stint with a barbarian, that rogue was the strongest character in the group. (Ironically, the main fighter was a dex-based duelist which made for a wicked team-up.) One of the things that turned me off most in 4e was the ability score escalation. 16 should be a pretty respectable stat.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How many rogue players would play a rogue with a Dexterity of 14 in 4e?

It's fine, even logical, for it to be rare. But it needs to be viable.

I'd do it if it fit my PC concept, viability be damned.

 

[Kzach]

I'd do it if it fit my PC concept, viability be damned.

I wouldn't play in a group with such a character. I place equal importance on roleplaying and combat effectiveness. If you're not pulling your weight, then a) you're not a heroic character, and b) why should I be burdened with the responsibility of pulling YOUR weight?

Playing ineffective characters is, as far as I'm concerned, selfish and rude.

 

[Mercule]

I'd do it if it fit my PC concept, viability be damned.

There's a difference between being sub-optimal and being nonviable, though. I was responding to a post that pretty much said it would be laughable to play a strength-based rogue in 4e.

But, I'd even argue that the strength-based rogue wasn't even sub-optimal. He was one of the most disturbingly effective exploration and secondary combatant characters I've ever seen in a game. Say what you want about 3e, but a character who knew their purpose and focused on it could be frightening, even if they didn't sound like they should be.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you're not pulling your weight, then a) you're not a heroic character,

Heroism is in the eye of the beholder*. Some are heroes because they can do things nobody else can do. Some are heroes because they do more than you'd ever expect them to be able to do.








* No, not that kind.