Let us shine.

[Incenjucar]

The main issue with 4E and ability scores is that your primary stat has an overwhelming effect on your combat performance in most (not all) cases. This is true in most earlier editions, as well, but to-hit seems to be a bit more precious in 4E than in prior editions.

 

[Mallus]

In 4E there is really no room for characters who have a relatively balanced ability stat spread.

It's not like players were dying to play characters with all 13s in AD&D, either.

In 4E what use does a fighter have for intelligence?

What use does a fighter have for INT in editions 0-3.5?

 

[harlokin]

The main issue with 4E and ability scores is that your primary stat has an overwhelming effect on your combat performance in most (not all) cases. This is true in most earlier editions, as well, but to-hit seems to be a bit more precious in 4E than in prior editions.

Possibly, but 4E also allowed you to choose the higher of two attributes to grants bonuses to each defence, and also made Charisma a worthwhile attribute; both of which were positive innovations.

 

[keterys]

I think it might be that people are paying more attention to it, more than anything else.

I mean, a str bump could be 4 damage per attack, with 5 attacks per round, for a 2h-er in 3e. That's a pretty notable effectiveness change.

Similarly, a +1 to the save DC of your spells from stat was as huge in 3e as the +1 hit is for casters in 4e.

In earlier editions, you flat out _couldn't get spell levels_ if your stat wasn't high enough.

 

[Mallus]

A problem with 4E is that all characters were equal. Totally, totally equal.

Inaccurate, but let's run with it...

A problem with 3.X is that some characters could dominate.

What makes you think certain 4e characters *can't* dominate? Even if PCs are more-or-less mechanically equivalent, why wouldn't the smarter/better played PC succeed more often than a less-well-played one?

Or should "domination" be purely a matter of initial class choice?

Oh, and the Harrison Bergeron analogy doesn't work. It's simple story, really. Why do people have trouble w/it? Nothing prevents 4e players from playing smart or dumb. The rules actually *don't* call for blowing an air horn in the ear of tactically-savvy players before they do something savvy in combat.

If 4e represents the descent into Vonnegut's classic bit of satire, then every board game with equivalent starting sides --say like chess or checkers-- does to.

 

[Aenghus]

The problem with 4E was that characters felt generic, and you were shoehorned into playing a Role.

The good thing about 4E was that all the Classes were given equal opportunity to shine, and had a clear design concept.

4e classes never felt generic to me, while the character sheets are superficiallly the same devil is in the details, in play they feel different to me.

Partially that's the referee's responsibility in making sure to describe the differences between different PCs in interesting and evocative ways. Painting a picture with words is a skill that's been needed in every edition of D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But anyway, it sounds like 3ed was conceived as a game where everybody should shine, each at different moments of the game, or in different battles with revolving circumstances.

While 4e sounds like it was conceived as a game where everybody should shine the same all the time, hence nobody really shines, maybe glow.

...but then again I'm probably wrong.

Only slightly. 3e, however it was concieved, allowed different classes to shine under different circumstances. Casters shone when they had time to prepare, forknowledge of the nature of coming challenges, and were able to re-charge their daily spells frequently. It doesn't take long for players to figure out how to make sure those circumstance come up consistently, nor did it take many levels for casters to have the powers to make that happen. Non-casters shone when the chips were down, the casters were mostly out of spells, and there was no way to force the situation to the party's advantage - generally in the last few rounds of a TPK. The end result was the non-casters shining a bit at the lowest levels, and the casters utterly dominating thereafter.

4e was concieved as a game where everyone would get to contribute all the time, and shine occassionally, regardless of the exact circumstances. It mostly succeeded. Dailies and action points let individual characters have shining 'moments of awesome' when the player decided to spend those resources. Everyone had solid base-line abilities to be useful all the time. No one ended up 'tapped out' the way low-level casters used to when they were out of spell.

 

[Klaus]

Can't really agree there while I understand what you mean. You're right about how much the approach determines things but 4E really does force you to focus to be useful to the party. In 4E there is really no room for characters who have a relatively balanced ability stat spread.

Look at Valeros from the PF Beginner Box. 16, 15, 12, 13, 8, 10. A fighter like that in 4E would be laughed at. In 4E what use does a fighter have for intelligence?

4E has higher stat requirements for relevant abilities because individual ability scores have very little value. Since powers generally use 1 main stat and one secondary depending on build. Add to that the stat pairings for defenses and it's very easy to make a very powerfully min-maxed (Though I don't like using this word here) character. Which is essentially required anyway because good luck hitting a cr +1 soldier with str 15 or lower.

Reflex saves?

Skill Training (History), then picking up History-based skill powers to reflect your concept as a traditionally-trained career soldier that had to resort to adventuring when his unit was wiped out?

Being a Str/Int Warlord? (which is, in essence, a fighter, even if not a Fighter)

Min/Max means "minimizing your weaknesses, while maximizing your strengths", which means focusing enough to be good without giving your character an Achilles' Hell.

As for hitting a CR +1 soldier with Str 15: A 1st-level Fighter (Weaponmaster) with Str 15 and a longsword has a basic attack of +6/1d8+2. A Lesser Earth Elemental (Level 2 Soldier) has AC 17, so the Fighter will need 11+ on a d20 to hit the Elemental (a flat 50% chance).

 

[Tony Vargas]

What use does a fighter have for INT in editions 0-3.5?

AD&D: additional languages

3.x: Feat prerequisites, Craft skill, additional skill points. (Really, for the skill points, INT was desireable to almost any class - maybe least to the fighter, who was so lacking in worthwhile class skills.)

 

[Raith5]

I wasn't being clear, my fault. It's amazing how people assumed I was talking about combat. I was more thinking, "this is a den of thieves, my kind of people," and "If you don't know how to conduct yourselves at court, let me do the talking." I'm talking about situations where your character concept allows you to shine in a mechanical way. I'm not talking about nuking the enemy, and I want to avoid the wizard just casting a spell being the best.

How does 4th ed enforce this kind of problem?

I think the style of play of the players and DM is the most dominate influence here. 4th has plenty of mechanics - including skill challenges and some utility powers - to assist players who want to do the things you speak of.

I dont think 4th ed is perfect - it could have gone further with these mechanics.

But I just can t see 4th is worse than any previous edition in enabling these styles of play where players can put their backstory or archetype into action in non-combat situations.