Do YOU nod to "realism"?

[UngainlyTitan]

But does it really, truly matter to have Cha or Con or whatever be used to apply a bonus to something?

Not really in my view.

...
And "realistically" the ability "to hit" is some combination of multiple attributes at any one time

This I completely agree with, in my view the feat Melee Training: Stat represents the effort taken to keep up a skill in an area not associated with ones primary focus. Sort of like the physics professor that does martial ats or fencing.

 

[D'karr]

That, and I just want to smooth out the to-hit formula. That's how I want it at my table.

I've noticed that which ability is used really doesn't matter much. I've run and played Dark Sun extensively and I noticed that the themes were mechanically viable for ANY class, because they did not rely on fixed abilities for their mechanical support.

I could play an Athasian Minstrel (theme) as a rogue (dex based), a warlord(cha based), a fighter (str based) or a psion (int based) as the base class, and the enjoyment of using the mechanics of that theme was not hampered by my primary attribute. I thought that was a great way of working the idea of the theme and letting the mechanics support it.

IMO multiclassing would be much better served if something similar was used for multiclassing. That way the multiclass would remain mechanically viable even if the multiclassed into class was originally using a different primary attribute than the original. There are still other issues (imo) about multiclassing but mechanically I think that is the biggest one.

Multiclassing is one of the few things that I still don't particularly enjoy about 4e in a mechanical sense. The pendulum swung too far as it relates to multiclassing IMO.

 

[keterys]

Making ability scores not matter for to-hit (but still matter for damage, skills, etc) helps the game a lot as far as I can tell.

 

[El Mahdi]

Why would someone be on the 4e forum if they don't play 4e?

Because "I don't play 4E" does not automatically equal "I hate 4E".

I have the core books, though I don't actually play the game...but I would if I was invited to play with a good group.

I do however like many of the concepts of 4E, and freely steal them for my own games. Including a rudimentary "powers" system.

I doubt I'm the only one for whom this is applicable.

 

[Mallus]

I think the problem is with Melee Training (Charisma) rather than a divinely-powered melee attack that happens to be based on Charisma. I can accept either in my games, but I would prefer the latter as it has more thematic resonance for me.

Me too. Melee Training is a kludge, no doubt about it. But CHA-based axe swings for my paladin, or INT-based swordplay for a Swordmage work nicely in terms of informing the in-game fiction.

So why not just 'buy' attack bonuses like you select a feat or skill?

This would work. Well, I think. It's basically how Mutants and Masterminds 2e handles it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't understand the need to balance out roles per power source and balance out attacks per ability score.

Because some people always got tired of Charisma being a dump stat. Does it "make sense" to use Charisma? Depends entirely on where your "realism" dial is set... and we've seen in multiple threads, KarinsDad, that your dial is set much closer to earlier editions of the game. Realistic enough in certain rules and places that matter most to you for whatever reason... despite the fact that they still aren't actually "realistic" as an absolute.

For many people, though... the ones who like the 4E game... the dial is set in a wildly different direction, where the usability of interesting game rules matter more than trying to recreate a "realism" that the game itself already has baked in (rather than being willing to create their own realism by justification as you put it.)

But you know what's the best part of D&D (in all editions)? It's all fudgeable. In every game, you could (if you were so inclined) houserule the game to remove any offending parts you didn't like, and the game still works. So if you didn't like using CHA as an attack stat... you could easily change a Bard's attack stat to INT or DEX and cause no real problems. Would entail a little bit of work? Sure. But if the game is otherwise fun to play... running D&D entails a little bit of work anyway, so why not houserule?

After all... if (in another example) you like the 4E game but just can't get past the use of the word "Bloodied"... it's no big deal to change it to something more palatable. And it won't effect the game at all.

 

[Rechan]

Because "I don't play 4E" does not automatically equal "I hate 4E".

Ah. When I read "Play", I wasn't thinking "at this current time", but "I play it if/when I can".

 

[Rechan]

IMO multiclassing would be much better served if something similar was used for multiclassing. That way the multiclass would remain mechanically viable even if the multiclassed into class was originally using a different primary attribute than the original. There are still other issues (imo) about multiclassing but mechanically I think that is the biggest one.

Indeed - the 'doesn't match primary scores' is one of my bugaboos. The to-hit formula also is nice because it means you don't need a golf bag of implements/items to use multi-class powers. I take a really loosey-goosey approach to implement usage.

I don't like the dependency on the novice/adept/bla feats for multi-classiing. I dislke one or two things about hybrid classes, but the general effect seems ok.

 

[talok55]

Quite frankly, I don't see how you can avoid using a 4E power unrealistically. Some are rather neutral and others like the fighter's come and get it or the paladin's divine challenge kick realism (or whatever similar word you want to use for it) to the curb. I think the best you can do is pick powers that aren't as silly, and avoid classes with stupid (unrealistic) class features (the paladin).

 

[talok55]

You need to add "Keep your realism out of my fantasy".

I think 4E already has that covered.