Fix Stat Polarity

[Sadrik]

This is something that I see as a core mechanical problem that lends itself to strong but not tough characters, smart but not quick, charismatic but not wise and vice verse. So without further ado I'll let the chart speak for itself.

STR
Basic melee or heavy thrown weapon attack
Basic melee or heavy thrown weapon damage
Encumbrance
Athletics skill
Primary for Fighter
Primary for two-weapon Ranger
Primary for melee Cleric
Primary for Warlord
Primary for strength Paladin

CON
Starting HP
Healing surges
*Fortitude defense*
Endurance skill
Primary for infernal Warlock

DEX
Basic ranged or light thrown weapon attack
Basic ranged or light thrown weapon damage
Initiative modifier
*Reflex defense*
AC defense
Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery skills
Primary for Rogue
Primary for archer Ranger

INT
Arcana, Dungeoneering, Heal, History, Nature, Religion skills
Primary for Wizard

WIS
Passive Insight
Passive Perception
*Will defense*
Insight, Perception skills
Primary for lazer Clerics

CHA
Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Streetwise skills
Primary for charisma Paladin
Primary for fey Warlock

 

[keterys]

So... judging from the chart, Con, Dex, and Wis are too good for secondary stats or the other three are not good enough.

And you're potentially making them more so, by forcing the defense onto them only? Or perhaps something else? What's the change you're looking for or suggesting?

Also, Str is probably too popular, perhaps lending to the 'maybe Rangers should be all Dex' and 'Paladins should be all Charisma' theories (and/or clerics should be Wis only, etc, etc).

 

[fissionessence]

Hm . . . maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can see all your chart does is make Intelligence and Charisma even less attractive to many characters, without really enhancing any sense of uneven 'polarity'.

Perhaps you could explain, as I was unable to glean what the chart was supposed to 'speak for itself'

~

 

[Siberys]

I think that's the chart of how it is in core, un-altered 4e.

What I want to know are what your suggestions for rectifying it are? I already allow INT for initiative in place of DEX, for example. I've also made the number of trained skills one gets based on INT, like in Saga Edition, as opposed to a static number.

Edit - just noticed the lack of choose-one for saves. Yeah, that does gimp INT even more.

 

[Nymrohd]

I'll kind of agree with how the OP placed the defenses, if you don't use Dex or Int with your class, you will always choose Dex optimally since it has more effects and the same with Wis/Cha (Wis for senses) or Str/Con (Con for healing surges). What I dislike about the polarity is that in 4E abilities are very important (while in 3E magic items and spells pretty much made starting scores irrelevant for the non primaries). I like to think that the abilities represent my character so I don't like dumping stats at all.

 

[Jack Colby]

Some of the skills you listed under INT are not INT skills...

 

[DreamChaser]

Also, each defense is either or...it's not just Con, Dex, & Wis. It's the other three potentially too.

Also, your chart is a little unfair because it sorts out all the strength variations but none of the variations (class-by-class) for the other stats.

Int & Cha is key for Warlords (half each)
Cha is key for many rogues

Just a thought...the class references are incomplete.

DC

 

[Garthanos]

I have said it before but I think it deserves re-presented... In real life there are more than one way to skin a cat... accomplishing the same goals by maximizing ones own best capabilities is how very successful people operate. It's not some wishy-washy the game cant decide thing, it's actually a better simulation ;-), the desperate circumstance of being attacked in a deadly way really is the time this seems most appropriate. As an example, I could easily argue using wisdom for a reflex defense (you notice the attackers most likely goal and adjust your defense to accommodate before it can be done).

Melding or blending the attributes which might contribute would be too bland in its own way allowing that the other attributes are in there but de-emphasized by the individual character because that would be the losers method... playing to ones strengths is the winners technique and heroes are nothing if not winners. Elric of Melnibone be damned ;-)

I guess what I am saying is that don't break the cool parts with your fix...Cool fixes which encourage diverse attribute selection seem possible.. but they I think they can be found at a different level.
I do agree we might need more reasons to pick constitution over strength (In PHB2 their is a flood gate of primal characters coming and high constitution in a battlerager is already very nice).

I dislike "easy" mono-attribute characters, I want some fighter at wills that exploit INT and WIZ and Encounters and Dailies that even more emphasize CON, I want more Wizard, class features (builds) which bring Wisdom better in to the picture.

 

[DreamChaser]

and how!

 

[Sadrik]

Perhaps you could explain, as I was unable to glean what the chart was supposed to 'speak for itself'

The chart was suppose show an "in the grand scheme view" of moving the defenses back to their 3e versions will = WIS, Reflexes and AC = DEX and Fortitude = CON.

As far as reason, what can I say I don't like the effect that it has on character creation. Slow wizards and all the other combinations. It forces your stats in a non-natural way. You choose sub-par because you want to be smart and quick? That is BS.