D&D 4E D&D 4E and psychology: Hit chance too low?

[knasser]

The great thing about decoupling attributes from to hit chance for me, is that it lets us put a bit more role-playing into the game again. If everyone is compelled to have an 18 in their primary, then you get nothing but a run of hyper-strong fighters, super-agile rogues and genius wizards. We had a fighter who was a tough mercenary woman. We didn't want her to be a towering wall of muscle, just tough and a skilled and experienced soldier. I think we compromised with a Strength of 16, but the difference between her and the 18 Strength fighter was noticeable and next time around, it's going to be another 18 Strength'er. The warlock was similar in that the player just wanted someone who was generally smart and capable all around. That one really paid the price.

If you decouple the attributes (partially), then you can get back to realistic ranges of ability. And that variety is good for role-playing.

 

[kermel]

Yeah, I agree. Just spend 20 minutes rolling up characters and you'll remember how fun it is, and how interesting is to play with an atypical array of ability scores instead of a standard build.

 

[Skallgrim]

I love this idea. Assignable attributes are a design flaw. They make it too easy to get the group unbalanced with respect to each other. Also it would be nice if once you trained a skill you became good at it, regardless of attribute scores (another area where attribute scores create an imbalance). A character should be defined by the powers and skills she gains as she levels, not by attribute scores she picked at 1st level. Also, character creation is the point where you're least likely to have the experience needed to make an informed decision about attribute scores. The most difficult decision at character creation should be what class to play.

Given that Attribute scores are chosen, just like powers and skills, and can be modified by choice as you gain in levels, what makes them so different in your mind than powers and skills?

After all, you could remove the attribute itself entirely from the equation and create "Powers" which had various benefits.

You could pick, say, four levels of "Strong", to give you +4 to hit, +4 to damage, and +4 Power bonus to Fortitude Defense (so it didn't stack with the bonus from your levels in "Hardy" power).

I don't have the time to work out the entire game mechanic for this, but I'm fairly sure that you could simply rewrite the entire "Attribute" mechanic, as a "Power" mechanic, and keep the mechanical internal workings completely identical, except now you didn't assign and boost attribute scores, but selectd "Powers" at first level and subsequent levels.

This should completely meet your requirement that the character be defined by the powers and skills she gained as she levels (as you didn't say that you had any problem with 1st level characters starting with 2 At Will Powers, an Encounter Power, a Daily Power, Skills, Feats, and Class Features. Now the same character just has more initial "Attribute" Features, right?

I'm not (entirely) being facetious. I'm really curious what aspect of buying and increasing attributes you dislike, given that you choose feats, skills, and powers.

 

[kermel]

Do you want Quickdraw or Alertness? That's a choice.
Do you want to hit often and do more damage, or do you want to suck? That's not a choice.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Do you want Quickdraw or Alertness? That's a choice.
Do you want to hit often and do more damage, or do you want to suck? That's not a choice.

it is really sad, that you define your character only by chance to hit. A rogue which can handle some hits could be quite cool, a smart fighter with 3 more known languageues can turn a fight into a skill challenge...

the to hit is not the most important, only if you look at combat seperately...

 

[kermel]

it is really sad, that you define your character only by chance to hit.

Can you tell me where did I say such a thing?

I totally support characters with different flavours, what I don't support is characters sacrificing their combat performance because of flavour. You shouldn't need to fight worse because you want to play a smart fighter. In Dungeons and Dragons every Player Character fights, and all of them should contribute to combat. It isn't considered balanced to play with a character who can't fight well but has a lot of out of combat skills, as combat may not be the only thing, but surely it is very important in this game.

Of course you may agree with my opinion or not, but please don't feel sad for something I didn't say.

 

[DracoSuave]

You don't fight worse to be smart, unless you foolishly decide that you don't want to have a decent Strength (which represents not only raw might but the ability to apply it athleticly).

Your points could have come off of Dex/Con or Wis.

 

[knasser]

it is really sad, that you define your character only by chance to hit. A rogue which can handle some hits could be quite cool, a smart fighter with 3 more known languageues can turn a fight into a skill challenge...

the to hit is not the most important, only if you look at combat seperately...

We're not defining our characters solely by combat ability, that's the problem. Those of us who have an interest in creating more rounded and realistic characters get left behind quickly. In my game we have two real power gamers and two people more attracted by the role-playing. The two power-gamers just want to say they're super tough and look how many people they've killed. The others have created characters that they can actually believe in as people - they're strong, but not super-strong and smart but not the smartest a human could be. When the action starts, the two power-gamers are blatantly ahead of the others. This isn't a problem with the group as such, it's a problem with the game that makes it almost obligatory to put high scores in primary stats if anyone else is. In other systems, someone pumping all their points into one area will have a weakness elsewhere and rounded characters are viable. In 4e, the designers decided that weaknesses aren't fun (you're not even allowed a character with an ability score less than 8, by RAW) and the power difference between a slightly less maxed out character and a maxxed out one is very clear.

People want to play fighters who aren't Greek gods and priests who aren't zen masters. There's a whole range of concepts that are realistic, but aren't very effective in the game.

 

[Nail]

People want to play fighters who aren't Greek gods and priests who aren't zen masters. There's a whole range of concepts that are realistic, but aren't very effective in the game.

That's not true.

Being "effective" in 4e only means that you can face and overcome level-appropriate challenges. You'd be hard pressed to build a 4e PC that's "well-rounded" and yet unable to be effective. (In 3e, this was not as true.)

What you are talking about is entirely a DM issue. If you are playing in a game where 2 players are dominating the field, you should talk with your DM about how to level the playing field. Usually you'll find no house rules are required --> The DM has a substantial bag of tricks at his disposal. Don't let him tell you otherwise.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

People want to play fighters who aren't Greek gods and priests who aren't zen masters. There's a whole range of concepts that are realistic, but aren't very effective in the game.

This happens in any game that allows a player to choose how much a character specializes in something. Players who specialize heavily in combat are better at combat--that's a feature, not a bug. If the players who didn't focus exclusively on combat effectiveness feel sidelined, it's probably because they aren't getting to engage in the other activities for which they designed their characters.