How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"

[billd91]

But of course the question might arise - what's the point of having all these stats then, if they never affect anything?

And if they keep affecting things, what happens now?

Maybe one way to "balance" stats better would be a mix of point buy system and attack/defense system that rewards all combinations of stats, but in different ways.

This is one area where I think 4e tried to do well but ultimately falls down. Spreading around the offensive stats based on powers (including offensive damage bonuses) is a good idea and making stats interchangeable for defense has some attraction. But by still having other non-skill factors like number of healing surges and initiative be modified by a single, non-interchangeable stat undermines the system. It means that some classes have an easier time dumping 3 stats while others have only 1 or 2.

Ideally, all 6 stats should have significance in the system. Three offensive stats and three defensive might work. 3e's break between Strength and Con seems the best example of this - Physical attacks and Fort defense. Moving all Wisdom based offenses to Charisma would achieve a similar result - Charisma attacks (cleric/druid spells, etc) and Will defense. It's harder to match up Dex and Intelligence in a satisfactory manner, though.

With 3 solid defensive stats that don't double with offense, and one primary offensive stat and a secondary offensive stat, then there's a real trade off that must be made in allocating abilities.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Die Alliance scum!

Loktar! KEK.

 

[jmucchiello]

This is one area where I think 4e tried to do well but ultimately falls down. Spreading around the offensive stats based on powers (including offensive damage bonuses) is a good idea and making stats interchangeable for defense has some attraction.

The easier solution is to just remove the stats. It simplifies all the power right-ups. Give classes inherent attack and def bonuses at first level and then create many varied "classes" (or expand the number of subbuilds within each class) that share maybe 30-50% of their powers with a limited number of other classes.

Then you make a few feats that allow your character to be "Really Strong" or "Really Smart".

According to this thread the skirmish part of 4e would be not be overly affected by such a simplification from the point of view of the optimizers. If everyone should have an 18 or 20, just assume they do. Why clutter the character sheet with the actual numbers?

And for the role-play part? You would no longer have to play up to a high Int or play down to a low Wis. You could just play your character any way your wanted. As long as you were consistent, no one would care what the numbers were.

This iI have to admit. That was the last thing I thought would go wrong when the story described him adding a self-replicating piece of code to the system.

Admittedly, this is not a new idea. There are plenty of existing "binary attribute" RPGs in existence (You have a power or you don't = binary). No reason why D&D can't be one of them someday.

 

[jmucchiello]

Back on topic, having seen how this thread has gone I'd like to rephrase my first post into a question:

You could just not worry about it and let things play out so he can actually LEARN from his supposed "mistake".

Shouldn't the player with the somewhat lacking build learn from his mistake? If you just tell him "You gotta have an 18" what does he learn from that?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Man, your fighters sucked. 18/00 all the way!

oh, forgot the zeros ^^

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But of course the question might arise - what's the point of having all these stats then, if they never affect anything?

And if they keep affecting things, what happens now?

Maybe one way to "balance" stats better would be a mix of point buy system and attack/defense system that rewards all combinations of stats, but in different ways.

For example, at the moment, the cost for raising a 16 to an 18 is 7 points. 7 Points could get a 14 and 13 in some other stat. What does this give you? Probably about a +2 to +1 spread over two defenses. Compared to a +1 to attack and defense.
How do we value attacks vs defenses? I'd say we value it higher than a bonus to a defense. The +1 to attack helps you against _every_ monster you encounter, the +1 or +2 to a defense against _some_ monsters you encounter. So, let's set the multiplier at x3. A +1 bonus to attack is as much worth as a +1 bonus distributed over 3 defenses. So, the 18 is effectively worth as much as a +1 bonus to 4 defenses (since it also imrpoves one defense, not just attack)

So maybe at the moment, the price is simply too low?
Maybe the sensible cut-off point should be 16?

Of course, it doesn't really change things. Now someone might ask a newbie: "What, your Wizard has a INT of 20? That's wasteful! You'll be hit all the time! What good is your attack bonus if your stunned or dead?"

An 18 may not be so costly that its not worth taking...at the moment is is just right...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So maybe at the moment, the price is simply too low?
Maybe the sensible cut-off point should be 16?

Of course, it doesn't really change things. Now someone might ask a newbie: "What, your Wizard has a INT of 20? That's wasteful! You'll be hit all the time! What good is your attack bonus if your stunned or dead?"

An 18 may not be so costly that its not worth taking...at the moment is is just right...

the 18/13/13 array is sensible for a race that gets +2 to both 13s if they add to 3 different defenses and the secondary doesn´t play a too high role in the class...

 

[Janx]

Back on topic, having seen how this thread has gone I'd like to rephrase my first post into a question:

Shouldn't the player with the somewhat lacking build learn from his mistake? If you just tell him "You gotta have an 18" what does he learn from that?

amen.

Some people have done some math, and there is a statistical difference in damage dealt per round and "length" of combat.

But is it noticeable in play?

a PC generally sucks, because when they try to do their "main job" they fail most of the time. Worse, another PC does their job MUCH better. Still worse, another PC whose focus isn't the same does that job MUCH better.

I see making a PC as a private matter. Sure, I might ask for suggestions on "what's better to take"? But just being told what to do, not the right way to broach the subject.

If nothing else, let the PC do his thing, and when the PLAYER notices that you kick more butt, he'll ask questions about your PC, and notice the differences in choices.

 

[malraux]

amen.

Some people have done some math, and there is a statistical difference in damage dealt per round and "length" of combat.

But is it noticeable in play?

a PC generally sucks, because when they try to do their "main job" they fail most of the time. Worse, another PC does their job MUCH better. Still worse, another PC whose focus isn't the same does that job MUCH better.

I see making a PC as a private matter. Sure, I might ask for suggestions on "what's better to take"? But just being told what to do, not the right way to broach the subject.

If nothing else, let the PC do his thing, and when the PLAYER notices that you kick more butt, he'll ask questions about your PC, and notice the differences in choices.

I disagree. If this were an experienced player trying out a different sort of build, that's one thing. Someone new to the game is going to have a much harder time groking how the builds affects the character. I don't see instructions on how to create a character as significantly different than instructions on how to do actions in combat. If the player were only ever taking a single action on each combat turn, rather than a move, a minor and a standard, would you say that no one should ever explain that you can take all three every turn? Is that power gaming to take every action on every turn? I don't see much of a difference between the two.

 

[Nifft]

After reading this thread, I'm becoming more and more inclined to the idea that 5E should follow M&M 2E and HERO 6E's lead in removing stat modifiers from attack rolls and defenses.

Stats have always been a blunt instrument. 4e did a lot to functionally remove them -- since the viable choices are so limited, and since characters depend on their powers & class features for their distinctiveness rather than their stats -- but I guess it's a bit too much of a sacred cow to kill them explicitly.

Cheers, -- N