No, you're wrong because of granularity. In real life it may be possible to measure the difference between every individual, but in D&D they're all going to fall into a bucket from 20 to 16. All the 16s are equally "smart". No one person is last in the class -- a bunch are tied for that position.
Bunk. I'm trained to do administer standardized tests, and I know people within a given field vary widely in their particular talents. There are plenty of people who are fantastic surgeons or car mechanics or whatever who do not have minds that are generally exceptional. If a character has a 14 Int, and most fighters have a 10, and the sharpest minds have 16s to 20s, the character is pretty darn brilliant from the standpoint of the ordinary person. Or from a more abstract rationale outside the game world... it's a few points, so what?
The 18 can't end up at 30. He's doomed to 26, or 28 (at most) using an ED like Demigod.
Whichever. The point is that if he's 4 points behind at level 1, he's 4 points behind at level 30, or more or less, because there are so many other variables.
Prime Requisite isn't the same as primary attack stat. So, you've missed your mark.
I don't think so. Both are measures of optimization. Whether in AD&D or 4e, a fighter can use a good Strength.
(By the way, Prime Requisite was a bad reward mechanic.)
In many respects, yes.
"Conventional rise to fame"? What?
Simply because someone starts as a wizard's apprentice does not mean they will end up being the Arch Wizard of the High Tower, nor does every plucky squire grow up to the nationa's premier jousting knight. Not every legendary character is going to fit a narrow definition of optimization within the game system. Arthur was not the combat monster in the group; Lancelot was. Paksenarrion, in Elizabeth Moon's stories, does not have exceptional skills as a swordsman, but she gains them, even though she is never as fluid as the best she knows, even at a peak where she can outfight many of them.
Regarding your survival comment, the idea of "loser" characters dying and being replaced by non-"loser" characters isn't exactly an argument in favor of playing a "loser" character.
That isn't the idea I had in mind. Any character can die.
You'll have to be more explicit about what analogy you think you're debunking here. It looks to me like both had fine stats for their character's goals, which included piloting and being kickass Jedi.
In the d20 version of the Star Wars game, both took a detour from their primary Jedi skills to take levels in Ace Pilot. It's also not a given that either had truly exceptional ability scores apart from an abnormal Dex and a decent Wis and Int. They simply became very high level characters.
No, I'm just telling you that 4e has tighter design constraints than other editions.
In 1e, a magical weapon could easily make up for a low Strength. In 4e, that got taken away: everyone is expected to have a magical weapon of similar enhancement bonus which increases at the same rate for every PC.
Magic weapons didn't really "make up for" low Str in AD&D. They could just as easily enhance an already powerful powerful character.
In plain words: You can't make up for it. Ever. This is a deliberate design decision in 4e.
Yeah, we already covered that with the example I gave above about the level 1 character versus the level 30 character. Which means the 4 point spread isn't any better at level 30... but it's no worse, either.
Know why? Because all those ways people previously had to "make up for" their deficits in 3.x got abused by dirty, rotten optimizers. Basically, anything your 14 Int loser PC could do to overcome his loser-ness, someone else could slap on his 20 Int pimpmobile PC, making it pimp++. That's clearly not in the best interest of the game.
No, that's not why. There has never been a "make up for" set of abilities in D&D. It has always been power on top of whatever you had before. There is nothing vile about optimizing, nor is it clear that narrower variation between PCs makes for a better game. In any case, it makes 4e an easier game to mess around with, because the expected variation is so narrow, you almost can't make yourself unable to hit somehting.
That's the first reason I've heard yet for deliberately gimping your PC. I guess it's like a One City Challenge game in Civilization -- you're bored with the regular game and you want to give yourself a handicap.
Cheers, -- N
But that's not what I was doing. I just liked the idea of the character. I never felt gimped, useless, or impractical, although I realized other characters might have some advantages in some ways.
I say, give the character the stat you want for them. If the picture in your mind is of an incompetent character, then the problem is the concept, not a stat. Saying, "Hm, I see him as more of a 14, bright not but brilliant, a plucky, hard-working soul more than a gifted mage," you are still picturing a competent character and it's hard to go wrong in that direction. Even though it might give someone fits who feels every character has to be hot-rodded. Where does this need to be in control come from? It's not like D&D is going to injure you or steal your money if your character is not strong enough.
