D&D 4E Is Intelligence 4e's dump stat?

[Fifth Element]

Didn't they announce that there would be no negative modifiers to attributes? I seem to recall that somewhere. If that is the case then can any stat be a dump stat? Ok so my character has an intelligence of 5. If I have a crappy GM who ignores roleplaying, then it sounds like I won't care if I have any attribute in the crapper. There must be some penalty to really low scores.

Str: No decreased chance to hit.
Con: HP don't factor in by level
Dex: No negative AC for bad dex.
Wisidn't matter much anyways
Int: Not tied to skills anymore
Cha: No penalty to skills like diplomacy

The penalty to really low scores is that your modifier is much less than everyone else's. It's really irrelevant if the scale is -4 to +4, or +0 to +8. It's the range itself that matters, not whether something is called a "penalty". If everyone else has +4 to something, then having +0 is effectively a penalty.

 

[Celebrim]

The penalty to really low scores is that your modifier is much less than everyone else's.

That's true.

It's really irrelevant if the scale is -4 to +4, or +0 to +8.

That's not entirely true. The reason is that modifiers interact with other values that have a fixed size.

Imagine a str 3 character compared to strength 18 both armed with longswords in the two systems.

In the system with penalties, str 3 character does 1d8-4 damage, for an average of 1.75 (assuming a floor of 1). This is ~20% of the 1d8+4 damage (avg 8.5) that the str 18 character does.

In the system without penalties, the str 3 character does 1d8+1 damage, for an average 5.5. This is ~41% of the 1d8+9 damage (avg 13.5) that the str 18 character does. Comparitively speaking, the strength 3 character is more dangerous in the new system. The actual advantage of str 18 compared to strength 3 has been somewhat reduced.

 

[broghammerj]

They said there will be no negative modifiers in-terms of racial ability modifiers. They haven't said anything about ordinary ability modifiers. I imagine those be the same as usual.

I don't have races and class so someone should clarify this for discussion but I took this of Enworld 4E news page:

"From Wizards Presents: Races & Classes: Ability score adjustments have a net positive benefit (i.e. not of the type -2 / +2). "

 

[CleverNickName]

That's what he was saying. Yes, every stat should have a noticeable effect. But no stat should be so important to all classes (I'm looking at you, here, Constitution) that by dumping it you're hurting the character's viability in a significant way.

Affect every class in some small way? Yes. Affect every class in a significant way? No.

What he said.

 

[broghammerj]

The penalty to really low scores is that your modifier is much less than everyone else's. It's really irrelevant if the scale is -4 to +4, or +0 to +8. It's the range itself that matters, not whether something is called a "penalty". If everyone else has +4 to something, then having +0 is effectively a penalty.

While I agree with you somewhat that everything is relevant. Under a no penalty system this build becomes playable:

Idiot Fighter
Str 18
Dex 18
Con 18
Wis 7
Int 7
Chr 7

Say I am a bumbling, strong fighter. With no negative penalties, I play essentially the same as this fighter:

Average Intellect Fighter
Str 18
Dex 18
Con 18
Wis 10
Int 10
Chr 10

The average intellect fighter costs a lot more in attribute points but will have the same skill modfiers, etc. There will be no difference between them in technical game play. Lax GMs or roleplayers who don't play the dumb fighter appropriately are essentially giving them a free pass. As you alluded to, it is very important to what the range of bonuses are. 0-4 has much less impact than say 0-8. It also depends the modifiers start. In 3.5 a stat of 3 gave you a -4 penalty, but 10 was 0. If there are no neg modifiers then a stat 3 is equivalent to stat 10. That is 7 free attribute points to put in some stat that has more impact to your character......I worry about power gaming.

 

[Fifth Element]

Imagine a str 3 character compared to strength 18 both armed with longswords in the two systems.

In the system with penalties, str 3 character does 1d8-4 damage, for an average of 1.75 (assuming a floor of 1). This is ~20% of the 1d8+4 damage (avg 8.5) that the str 18 character does.

In the system without penalties, the str 3 character does 1d8+1 damage, for an average 5.5. This is ~41% of the 1d8+9 damage (avg 13.5) that the str 18 character does. Comparitively speaking, the strength 3 character is more dangerous in the new system. The actual advantage of str 18 compared to strength 3 has been somewhat reduced.

This is true, but a corner case. A Str 3 character shouldn't be attacking anyone with a longsword.

Generally, the difference in average damage will be some fixed value (equal to the difference in bonuses).

 

[Fifth Element]

As you alluded to, it is very important to what the range of bonuses are. 0-4 has much less impact than say 0-8. It also depends the modifiers start. In 3.5 a stat of 3 gave you a -4 penalty, but 10 was 0. If there are no neg modifiers then a stat 3 is equivalent to stat 10.

Yes, in all of this I am assuming the designers have considered the effects of moving the bonuses upward. Changes to skill DCs, monster hit points, etc.

 

[broghammerj]

Yes, in all of this I am assuming the designers have considered the effects of moving the bonuses upward. Changes to skill DCs, monster hit points, etc.

I would hope so as well. My next question is why all the changes to stats? Did people really have trouble calculating negative modifiers? Changing attributes to only positive appears to be a subtle change but it would have wide impacts on everything. The possibility of power crrep is enormous since stats are the core of your character build. It appears the goal of 4E is to make the system less intertwined....by removing one card the whole house of cards doesn't collapse. I guess I have to get rid of my 3E way of thinking and approach this move differently.

 

[Celebrim]

This is true, but a corner case. A Str 3 character shouldn't be attacking anyone with a longsword.

It has nothing to do with corner cases. Name some values.

While you are looking for the non-corner case, let's try out the same example this time with STR 10 vs. STR 12.

System with Penalties: 1d8+0 vs. 1d8+1, str 10 does ~82% of the damage of STR 12.
System without Penalties: 1d8+4 vs. 1d8+5, str 10 does ~89% of the damage of str 12 and hense strength 10 is relatively less disadvantaged compared to str 12 than the other system.

The point is that the size of the range isn't the only determining factor.

Generally, the difference in average damage will be some fixed value (equal to the difference in bonuses).

But the difference isn't always what's important. A sword that does +5 damage is how much better than a sword that does +0 damage? Well, that depends on things like whether swords tend to do d8 damage or d100 damage. We can't answer the question in isolation.

Also, since we are talking about penalties, the difference in average damage depends in part on how we handle the minimum possible damage of an attack. Is it 1? Is it 0? If it is zero, then the penalty of a negative number is larger than if the minimum is one.

The same reasoning applies to the interaction of other stats with fixed numbers, like Con with hitpoints, Int with # of skills, and even potentially the relative value of a feat that gives a fixed bonus. Penalties are different than smaller bonuses in several ways.

 

[AllisterH]

I would hope so as well. My next question is why all the changes to stats? Did people really have trouble calculating negative modifiers? Changing attributes to only positive appears to be a subtle change but it would have wide impacts on everything. The possibility of power crrep is enormous since stats are the core of your character build. It appears the goal of 4E is to make the system less intertwined....by removing one card the whole house of cards doesn't collapse. I guess I have to get rid of my 3E way of thinking and approach this move differently.

Er, all they said was that there were no racial penalties to my knowledge. When did we get information that there are no negative modifiers?