D&D 4E How would you handle the basic stat conception in 4E?

[Xyl]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a

Weightlifter Shane Hamman? Str 23, based on his snatch weight.

Olympic-class stats are much higher than most people think...

 

[pawsplay]

To me, ability scores are a game artifact. They might have some relationship to innate ability, but mainly, they determine how likely you are to succeed at a given task. Just as a for instance, Peter Parker's Int is higher than the Int of many college researchers who are theoretically smarter, because I know that if he has to solve a scientific problem in order to stop a villain, he will do it way before those college professors 90% of the time. Similarly, action heroes often have a much higher Dex than you would expect from their background and lifestyle.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't think it's very useful to try to quantify characters this way.

Of all the stats, only two really equate to anything measurable IRL: Strength and Intelligence. It's pretty much impossibly to quantify how wise or charismatic someone is, and both Dex and Con do so many different things it's impossible to figure them out. (Is Dex gracefulness? Flexibility? Balance? Quickness? Coordination? And is Con pain tolerance? Endurance? Immune system response? Cardiovascular fitness? The answer seems to be "all of the above," even though these things really aren't all that linked.)

So these debates always seem to come down to strength and int. Well, despite how much people like to use IQ as a measuring stick, I'd wager that intelligence doesn't break down so nicely either. Some people are good at strategic thinking, some people have photographic memories, and so on. Personally, I'm good at analytic philosophy but terrible at remembering names. Where does that put my Int score?

That leaves strength. And I'm sure you could write up a chart - "A character with Str X can bench-press Y pounds" - but how helpful would that really be? It makes real-world analogies impossible, because the average upper-body strength for men and women is pretty different IRL but not in D&D.

I'd say it's best to just let the measurements remain vague.

 

[Gloombunny]

I don't think it's very useful to try to quantify characters this way.

Of all the stats, only two really equate to anything measurable IRL: Strength and Intelligence. It's pretty much impossibly to quantify how wise or charismatic someone is, and both Dex and Con do so many different things it's impossible to figure them out. (Is Dex gracefulness? Flexibility? Balance? Quickness? Coordination? And is Con pain tolerance? Endurance? Immune system response? Cardiovascular fitness? The answer seems to be "all of the above," even though these things really aren't all that linked.)

So these debates always seem to come down to strength and int. Well, despite how much people like to use IQ as a measuring stick, I'd wager that intelligence doesn't break down so nicely either. Some people are good at strategic thinking, some people have photographic memories, and so on. Personally, I'm good at analytic philosophy but terrible at remembering names. Where does that put my Int score?

That leaves strength. And I'm sure you could write up a chart - "A character with Str X can bench-press Y pounds" - but how helpful would that really be? It makes real-world analogies impossible, because the average upper-body strength for men and women is pretty different IRL but not in D&D.

I'd say it's best to just let the measurements remain vague.

Even Strength is a conflation of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle, plus a certain amount of endurance and even just mass.

(Men and women having different average strengths is no problem for D&D, though - just give your female NPCs lower Str stats. PCs are supposed to be exceptional, not representative of the norm.)

 

[pawsplay]

Of all the stats, only two really equate to anything measurable IRL: Strength and Intelligence.

Even then, they don't mean what people think they do. Pure physical power is one of the least important functions of Str. Most of it seems to be "twitch muscle" and physical learning, including a lot of what in other games is "agility."

As for Intelligence... it is not equivalent to IQ. Real IQ includes cognition, memory, and abstract reasoning (Int), perceputal organization and practical knowledge (Wis), and vocabulary, and knowledge of socially appropriate responses. I would say IQ most correlates to Int (because Int governs skill acquisition), but it also would affect Wis and Cha, in about that order. Int also governs "cleverness" (such as when it is a prereq for feats, when it allows you to overcome certain kinds of spells, when it involves problem solving) which in real life is measured more by things like a Global Assessment of Functioning. However, your GAF most correlates with probably Wisdom.

And that's setting aside Garder's multiple intelligences, to say nothing of ethnocentrism. How well do you think a smart human would do on a dwarven IQ test?

 

[pawsplay]

Even Strength is a conflation of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle, plus a certain amount of endurance and even just mass.

(Men and women having different average strengths is no problem for D&D, though - just give your female NPCs lower Str stats. PCs are supposed to be exceptional, not representative of the norm.)

It's questionable whether D&D even handles that level of detail. Based on lifting power and throwing, you might say there's a two point difference or so. That would mean either giving men a +1 and women a -1, or making one or the other the "base race." It also means that men would be relatively stronger compared to women in the same ratio as a human is to a halfling. I don't think you can really justify that.

Men do jump further than women, but not enough to make a difference in D&D terms. So unless your games involve a lot of weightlifting competitions, parallel bars, or childbirth, I don't think men and women really justify distinctions in game.

 

[Nyeshet]

QFT. I think it's silly that they carefully created a point-buy system, and then gave you opportunities to just 'add one stat' regardless of point-buy value. At the very least, improving your stats through level raises should follow the same point-buy system that your initial stats did, so characters aren't so strongly incentivized to dump everything into their primary stat.

Interesting. So what you suggest is - perhaps - that every level the PC gains 1 point buy value point. They can use it immediately to increase a low stat, or they can save them up to increase a higher stat.

So, if all PCs start at level 1 with Point-Buy 25 (as an example, it may be as high as 32 for all I know), then by the time they are level 30 they all have stats equivalent to a Point-Buy of 54 (or 61, if started with 32).


Level . . . Point Buy Equivalent Total for Stats for said Level
Lv 01 . . . 25 . . . 28 . . . 30 . . . 32 . . . 35
Lv 05 . . . 29 . . . 32 . . . 34 . . . 36 . . . 39
Lv 10 . . . 34 . . . 37 . . . 39 . . . 41 . . . 44
Lv 15 . . . 39 . . . 42 . . . 44 . . . 46 . . . 49
Lv 20 . . . 44 . . . 47 . . . 49 . . . 51 . . . 54
Lv 25 . . . 49 . . . 52 . . . 54 . . . 56 . . . 59
Lv 30 . . . 54 . . . 57 . . . 59 . . . 61 . . . 64

So, if you consider Point Buy [PB] 34 to be typical of a PC entering the Paragon Tier, then they should be starting out with PB 25. On the other hand, perhaps you think entry level Paragon Tier PCs should be more powerful - say, PB 39 or even PB 44. In such a case the PCs would start with PB 30 or 35, respectively.

A gave a range of values as I have spoken with some DMs in the past that will not even consider starting their PCs at less than PB 30 or 32. I've even heard of higher starting PBs, but it always seemed a little extreme to me. Just having 3-5 levels would put PCs so far above most of the population that there does not seem to be a need for starting with such a high (33+) PB to point out their [the PCs] exceptional nature, etc.


Does this idea (+1 PB point per level) sound workable / reasonable / balanced?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Here is another idea:

Start all stats at 7. Then allow a roll of 1d6 for each stat.
Yes, this will place characters in the 'mundane' range of 8 to 13 (although racial modifiers could create a 14 or 15 in rare instances.)
No 'starting' 14s, 15s, 16s, 17s, or 18s (much less the elvish 19s.)

A problem with the old system was that the mundane *was* mundane, and soon the extraordinary became mundane also. 3E amplified this trend, IMO.
For example, if you had a 13 in strength in 1E or 2E, you wouldn't become a fighter. Nah, too weak for that. (And if your highest stat was 13, you would have thrown the character away and rerolled, too.) A 14 intelligence? Not a good idea for a magic-user. Just too low.
They would ask: where's your 15? Minimum pre-requisite. Where's the 16? Where's the 17? The 18? You need 16s, 17s, and 18s, to become that class! If it's under 15, it's not even worth consideration.

Enter 3E. Now you may increase a stat every 4 levels. Very minor magical items you can make yourself can increase stats. Minor buff spells can increase stats briefly (depending on edition.)
And stats go on above 20. They go on above 30. 40. Heck, 50. And, if you have millions of gold pieces and are able to craft epic items (like a 3E version of the old Girdle of Giant Strength) then you, too, can have stats in the 40+ range.

It's like Inflation came to stats. 10, 11, and 12 were always considered worthless (but, at least, not one of those '9' stats, or heaven forbid, an '8' stat!)
13 and 14 were always so so. 15 was a maybe.
The 'good stuff' were 16s, 17s, and 18s (and, of course, for elves, the 19 dexterity ...)

Now, start with an 18, buff it to 20 with levels, 23 with your +3 bracers of strength, and 25 with the 2nd level Bear's Strength, and voila, your low level character is a fighting machine ... and the specialness, the uniqueness, of the 25 is devalued.
Once upon a time, 25 was a stat only titans had. Now, any low level character with enough NPC and party help can get it.

I say: lose the Inflation. Gary Gygax once said that Intelligence roughly equated to IQ. Go with the equivalent of that in every stat.
If an IQ of 130 = Intelligence 13, then 1 in 100 people have an Intelligence of 13 or higher. (The dice say differently, of course - probabilities are different - but PCs are special people, IMO.)
Thus, 1 in 100 people have a Strength of 13 or higher. And if you are so strong you are stronger than 99 out of 100 people, then you're pretty strong! Or fast! Or wise! Or charismatic!

If you have a 13, and it makes you stronger, faster, or brighter than 99 out of 100 people, that's a special thing, and you should have bonuses to match (my +3 / spells +75% business, for 13s)
The DICE say that an 18 is not equal to that. An 18, is scored by 3% of those rolling, or present in 3% of PCs and NPCs. Thus, my 13 is much more rare than the average 18 rolled!!
So, that 13 should be special.
An ACTUAL 18 should be nothing short of a miracle. If your character has an 18, you character is supernaturally endowed. He or she can perform feats that would astound everyone else, be considered impossible by most people (that elvish 19 would be even more astounding, pushing far into the supernatural ... but that's what elves are about, I fear.)

With that 26 point buy, people try for a high stat or two, and leave one stat at 8, quite often (Charisma, is that dump stat ...)
Why must everyone have an 18? Why should it be that they simply must have a 16, 17, or 18? Why can't they be content at 14? 13? They gain 1 point to add to a stat per level - they will be able to get to an 18 eventually in a stat, and when they do, they will be superhuman in that stat!

But it shouldn't be 'requisite' that you have a 15, 16, 17, or 18 in order to have a viable character ('oh no, nothing above 14. Let's erase these stats and roll again. Gads, with only 2 14s, a 13, an 11, 2 10s, and an 8, these rolls are useless!')

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

In other words, my '13' is equal to a '19' in the standard system.
If you go with my 'inflation-removed' system, and you have a 13, you can be as proud of that as those with 19s in the old system.
And then we do not have everyone boasting: 'I have a 17.' 'Well, I have an 18.' 'Well, I have a 19.' 'Well, *I* have two 19s.' Etc.

EDIT:

In the old system, if you used a Wish, you could raise a stat 1 point from, say, 13 to 14. In the old system, would you have risked using a Wish for that purpose (with all the penalties and dangers inherent in the spell to deal with) ?
With this system, wouldn't the Wish be more worth the risk and danger, to raise the stat from 13 to 14? Wouldn't it mean a lot more?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Superstats

I would allow that, stats are linear up to 20.
Thus, the bonuses for 20 would be: +12 / spell capacity +275%.
(Of course, good luck getting to 20. It might be easy in 3E. It won't be easy in my game.)

Beyond 20, stats are not linear. Instead, capabilities double for every three points gained.
Thus, 23 represents double 20 (thus, 23 is double the theoretical human maximum.)
26 is double 23. 29 is double 26. 32 is double 29. And so on.

There are beings that are hundreds, or thousands of times more capable than human beings, in a particular stat. Strength is the most obvious of these, as we have incredibly big and powerful creatures like dragons.
A dragon must be able to lift and move it's own tremendous mass. What does a dragon weight? Countless tons? It's no small feat of strength for a dragon to even move, much less fly around.
What could a dragon 200 feet long pick up? A big rock? A house? A freight engine that weighs 200 tons?

If the stats were merely linear, a dragon would have a strength somewhere in the thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, because they are thousands of times stronger than humans, and the best a human can must is 18 (or, in superhuman cases, 19 or just maybe 20.)
So, the exponential increase instead. So if a dragon was 1,000 times as strong as a human, it would have - what? ... 23 is 2x, 26 is 4x, 29 is 8x, 32 is 16x, 35 is 32x, 38 is 64x, 41 is 128x, 44 is 256x, 47 is 512 x, 50 is 1,024x ... so the dragon would have 50 strength.
It would have incredible bonuses with such a stat? How incredible? I don't know, but they should be staggering. If it can pick up a freight engine that weighs 200 tons, if it hits you with it's claws it should do some SERIOUS damage to you (impact by a freight engine is 20d6, no? Impact of a claw by a dragon capable of lifting a freight engine should be just as awful.)

For a character to attain stats above 20, we are talking major magical items. Once again, these cannot be manufactured by the character in question unless he is over 10th level. And then, manufacture of the item should be onerous and time consuming.
It should, basically, be easier to go adventuring and take the incredible risks therein, to gain such items in the wild (items made in magic rich begone times) than to do it yourself.

Take the Girdle of Giant Strength. How strong is a being 20 feet tall? I don't know, but sounds like somewhere in the mid 20s. So perhaps the Girdle gives a 25 Strength?
Want to make such a Girdle? How many millions of gold and months of time do you have?
Or, perhaps there is one in those old ruins everyone is talking about. Care to go find out? The choice is yours to make.

EDIT: In the film Forbidden Planet, the Krell had an average IQ of 1,200.
To represent this as an Intelligence of 120 is, IMO, not reasonable.
Under the system I proposed, the Krell would have an average Intelligence of around 27 (or, 5 times the maximum human IQ of around 230 ... 23 is 2x 20, 26 is 4x 20, so around 27.)