Fix Stat Polarity

[Sadrik]

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

The secondary stats could be added to the list but they are secondary...

 

[Sadrik]

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

Ah yes that is another house rule to boost int up.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

This is a real issue with 4e - mechanically speaking, your character should put an 18 into his primary attack stat, a 13 in his secondary class stat, and throw a 1 on some other stat arbitrarily. (For some classes, a 17 in the primary stat and a 16 in the secondary stat may be preferable.) If you don't do this, your character will be less effective than the system assumes he will be. He might be slightly underpowered; he might be seriously underpowered.

The obvious fix is to give players more stat points to work with, but this doesn't help, because then you'll just get people with an 18 in the primary and an 18 in the secondary.

How can we best deal with this, then? My suggestion: identify each character's primary and secondary stats. Give the player 22 points between those two stats. Give the player another ten points for use in the other four stats, with a max score of, say, 14 for any given tertiary or quaternary stat.

It'll increase your party's power level, yes, but the impact should be somewhat minimal, and will show up most in an increase of one to two points in various defenses. Offensive capabilities won't significantly change.

Most importantly, it's pretty simple, and doesn't have any long-term gameplay changes, beyond maybe giving the party slightly harder encounters than they might otherwise have.

 

[keterys]

More and more I like removing 'attack stats' - instead of whatever your stat is, treat it as 5 at 1st, 6 at 8th, 7 at 14th, 8 at 21st, 9 at 28th for attack (or any other system that's decently fair of a progression, can divorce it from the stat bumps entirely). Damage is whatever it says now, secondaries whatever it says now, etc.

 

[Sadrik]

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.

 

[77IM]

More and more I like removing 'attack stats' - instead of whatever your stat is, treat it as 5 at 1st, 6 at 8th, 7 at 14th, 8 at 21st, 9 at 28th for attack (or any other system that's decently fair of a progression, can divorce it from the stat bumps entirely). Damage is whatever it says now, secondaries whatever it says now, etc.

I had this same idea the other day. The formula I came up with was 4+ 1/7 your level. (1/7 your level is identical to the stat-bump progression is, except at level 7-8, when it is only off by 1.) Also I start with 4 instead of 5, because an 20 at first level is kind of rare, and will be rarer still if you separate attack from ability score. Alternately, you could describe total base attack bonus as 2/3 your level + 4 (+ enhancement and proficiency etc.), so that you don't need to deal with a pseudo-ability score when calculating attack bonus. Keeping the damage based on the normal ability score makes sense and seems balanced with the secondary ability score uses.

.....

To address the OP's issue, here's an alternate house rule that might work (but which has its own problems):
Defenses use the WORSE of the two ability scores. If your class gives a +2 bonus to a defense, it doesn't anymore; instead, that defense uses the BETTER of the two ability scores.

Another avenue you might explore is allowing other areas to use best-of-two stats, with a different set of pairings. For example, maybe melee basic attacks could be based on Str or Dex, whichever is better, and ranged basic attacks could be based on Dex or Wis (since aiming is like Perception which is a function of Wis?). Hit Points could be based on Con or Cha (since your "strength of personality" keeps you going? I dunno...). You get the idea. Part of the issue with this, is that 4e doesn't have a whole lot of derived traits to apply this method to.


The way I solved the problem at my table is to charge half-price for stats that weren't used by your class. So dumping points into both Int and Dex maybe isn't very useful, but it's not very costly either. (I don't see why you should pay full-price in the point-buy if you're not getting full value. It defeats the purpose of point-buy.)

-- 77IM

 

[keterys]

Simply breaking the defenses into three stats instead of three pairs of stats has to happen to fix stat polarity.

No... it doesn't. If anything it makes the problem more extreme for some characters.

Now, making it based on the average of the two or lower of the two or something else like that? Sure.

 

[Sadrik]

No... it doesn't. If anything it makes the problem more extreme for some characters.

Now, making it based on the average of the two or lower of the two or something else like that? Sure.

Ok, true it does not have to happen. Taking the lower of the two is an option that I was exploring a while back. It is viable. However it is not. A wolf who has an INT of 3 has an AC penalty. I nixed the idea because of these situations.

Another idea is you assume a +2 average for INT and DEX (or any of the polarities) and go with defenses following this formula REF: 8 + INT + DEX.

So, if a rogue has a 8 INT and a 18 DEX he winds up with 8-1+4=11.

I worry about messing with the math too much though. It really trickles throughout the game.

 

[Garthanos]

Another idea is you assume a +2 average for INT and DEX (or any of the polarities) and go with defenses following this formula REF: 8 + INT + DEX.

So, if a rogue has a 8 INT and a 18 DEX he winds up with 8-1+4=11.

I worry about messing with the math too much though. It really trickles throughout the game.

..
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.

 

[Nymrohd]

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?