Fix Stat Polarity

[Remathilis]

I also like the idea of making an attack stat for this game. But that still does not fix the stat polarity issue.

You will still see str over con, dex over int, and wis over cha (or vice versa). Players cannot naturally place their stats. I want to be smart and quick. Oh crap, now I am overlapping my resources in one area.

Simply breaking the defenses into three stats instead of three pairs of stats has to happen to fix stat polarity. However as pointed out, it makes some stats worse than they already are (INT looking at you). That is why I see this as a core mechanical problem it is not just a quick easy fix. So lets consider options on how to balance the stats more in the rest of the thread.

I noticed your deliberately ignoring secondary effects: dirty pool ole' man.

First off, things that exist in list don't play out well in real life. Lets take an examples.

A rogue's primary is dex. All his at-wills, encounter and dailies are keyed off dex as an attack stat. However, his secondary are Str or Cha; they simply get more boom out of those two scores than say, a wizard. If I'm going for an artful dodger, I can ignore wisdom and max out my charisma. I could also now choose between brutal scoundrel powers (str) or more hp/surges (con). The only dump stat I have now is Int (since it only helps a few skills for me).

Your idea would force me back into my 3e MAD problem; if I want to be charismatic, I need to stat-dump wisdom and thus my will defense suffers. If I want to be a strong melee fighter (like a brutal scoundrel) my fort defense suffers. I don't have the ability points to be strong, hearty, quick, charismatic and wise.

In fact, every class with nearly would get defense-hosed.

Cleric (Str/Wis, Cha) Poor Fort & Reflex Def (though lazer clerics could skip str for con)
Fighter (Str, Con, Dex, Wis) Only class safe. (depending on weapon choice)
Paladin (Str/Cha, Wis) As Cleric (cha clerics could skip str for con)
Ranger (Str/Dex, Wis) Poor Fort defense (archer rangers could skip str for con)
Rogue (Dex, Cha, Str) Poor Fort, Will (see above for skipping str for con)
Warlock (Con/Cha, Int) Poor Reflex & Will (Infernals could skip cha for wis)
Warlord (Str, Int, Cha) All Three suffer! (hosed)
Wizard (Int, Wis, Dex, Con) Ok, they'd be safe too (depending on implement)
Swordmage (Int, Str, Con) Poor Reflex and Will (Shielding swordmages are better off).

Of course, if your combining this with your http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-will-class-powers-ruining-my-archetypes.html removal of at-wills, all bets are off and now EVERY class needs uber-stats to remain viable.

Seriously man, just play 3e...

 

[keterys]

I tink removing attack stats would really go a long way in changing the importance of abilities and alleviating MAD. The more I think of it, the more I like it. The question is, what would you tie attacks to? Simply level?

Yeah - at the moment I'm thinking start at +5, increase by 1 at 5/15/25 and 11/21. Always on odd numbers, so doesn't stack with the even numbered +1s and it'd catch the hit # a little bit.

 

[Sadrik]

..
If their were conditions under which only one or the other could be applied that would also do the trick without shifting the math, ie you dont always get the better or always get the worse of the two. For instance Will ...discepline and spirit, do not always cooperate ... its old inner conflict idea.
A confused character, a stunned character, etc.
These conditions would need to be frequent enough that it would impact a players character design (which is the target I see).

It goes back to the idea of using the appropriate attribute with a skill not just one. When climbing a really tall cliff you use Con when you want to get over fast you might use Str, when trying to estimate how long it will take you use Wisdom etc.

Absolutely the conclusion that I have been drawing toward. However, implementing something like that is very difficult.

If 4e design nixed the defenses in favor of I use my CHA to attack your INT! Your stats would each have a defense value. Attacks would simply key off of your different stats and attack different stats.

For instance
STR
Melee defense
CON
Internal harm
DEX
Dodging
INT
figuring things out stuff like illusions
WIS
internal mind defense
CHA
social defense

 

[Nymrohd]

That sounds a bit more powerful than it should be. +5 to begin with should be rare. And you only get +10 total if you start with a 20 and get an ED that boosts your attack stat. I was thinking about start with a +4 and end up with a +8, and include the weapon/imlement expertise feats that seem to have been removed. Maybe with an epic version as well for +2 (but make sure they are untyped bonus so they don't devalue feat bonus to attack roll feats).

 

[Nymrohd]

Absolutely the conclusion that I have been drawing toward. However, implementing something like that is very difficult.

If 4e design nixed the defenses in favor of I use my CHA to attack your INT! Your stats would each have a defense value. Attacks would simply key off of your different stats and attack different stats.

For instance
STR
Melee defense
CON
Internal harm
DEX
Dodging
INT
figuring things out stuff like illusions
WIS
internal mind defense
CHA
social defense

And in one move, you would complicate the system a lot more and increase ability dependence a lot, with no sure way to balance abilities against each other.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

Perhaps a solution would be to just reduce the number of abilities.

Instead of having six of them, just combine Str/Con, Dex/Int and Wis/Cha.

Call them Fortitude, Reflexes, Will, to keep things simple.

Double the cost for point buy, or halve the points available. You won't get much higher stats but you'll get twice the bang for your buck.

For racial ability bonuses, if your race gets one +2 bonus, you get two +1 bonuses to assign as you want (but you can't assign both to the same group). If your race gets two +2 bonuses in different groups, you get +2 to one group and +1 to the other. If your race gets +2 bonuses in the same group, you get +3 to that group.

Another option would be to remove race bonuses completely and add a bunch of points for buying whatever stat you want, reducing the impact of race stat bonuses quite a lot. Humans (and other races with a single +2 bonus) could get 4 extra points and races with two +2 bonuses could get 7 extra points. Or something like that, I haven't actually looked into the math.

 

[77IM]

If 4e design nixed the defenses in favor of I use my CHA to attack your INT! Your stats would each have a defense value. Attacks would simply key off of your different stats and attack different stats.

The problem with such a system is that the attacker chooses both the attack stat and defense stat. He's obviously going to attack with his best stat, and attempt to target your very worst stat. This kind of sucks for the defender. The genius of the best-of-two defenses is that the selection of defense stat is shared between attacker and defender: The attacker picks a defense, the defender picks which stat to use for that defense (the better one, obviously).


Here's a house rule that inverts this: If you have combat advantage, instead of getting a +2 bonus to attack, your opponent uses the worse of their two stats for defense. It's kind of like the old denied-Dex-bonus-to-AC rules. I'm not sure it fully addresses stat polarity but it does give a nice little boost to the guy who has invested in both Dex and Int. (Not sure what to do about AC and heavy armor -- maybe you get 1/2 your armor value to AC). This would also substantially improve combat advantage, which may warrant a rogue nerf (maybe, -1 sneak attack die), but would also make combat advantage meaningful to non-rogues.


-- 77IM

 

[Garthanos]

And in one move, you would complicate the system a lot more and increase ability dependence a lot, with no sure way to balance abilities against each other.

I was thinking of having specific conditions which penalized a specific stat... a temporary stat reduction you have been hit with an Anger spell your perception (wisdom) is low, you normally defend against the lies coming at you by analyzing the subtleties of the person with wisdom ... but right now that is under a minus 5. I can still use some other attribute INT to fuel my defense like logic to predict what they are up to but... maybe its not my best.

Its not a change the rules in some fundamental fashion, it just gives me a circumstance to use the secondary Defense (I would speculate out to even Secondary Offensives if we had them, for instance an Intelligent swordmage who was befuddled might be reasonable to choose basic str based attacks.)

 

[Sadrik]

And in one move, you would complicate the system a lot more and increase ability dependence a lot, with no sure way to balance abilities against each other.

Lol, this idea was "wouldn't have been cool if", implemented properly it would have been no different than STR vs AC instead it would have read STR vs STR.

Big deal. Not complicated. Maybe, even simpler than its current form because defenses are written into the stats themselves rather derived from one of two stats.

STR 18 +4/14

and at 10th level:
STR 18 +9/19

The complication.

Since the game is not implemented in this way it is a non-option, without a re-write of PHB.

 

[Garthanos]

T

Here's a house rule that inverts this: If you have combat advantage, instead of getting a +2 bonus to attack, your opponent uses the worse of their two stats for defense. It's kind of like the old denied-Dex-bonus-to-AC rules. I'm not sure it fully addresses stat polarity but it does give a nice little boost to the guy who has invested in both Dex and Int. (Not sure what to do about AC and heavy armor -- maybe you get 1/2 your armor value to AC). This would also substantially improve combat advantage, which may warrant a rogue nerf (maybe, -1 sneak attack die), but would also make combat advantage meaningful to non-rogues.

-- 77IM

WOW I over looked this post glad I jumped back.. CA becomes quite interesting in balancing attributes. I like it! It's what I was talking about coming up with conditions that occurred frequently enough and which switched the choice around .. you cant use your best. This is general enough to be useable.