Mental stat bonuses are more powerful than strength bonuses.

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think the more important consideration is that spellcasting hyperspecialists have a lot of room for dumpstating, much, much more so than fighting types. So a bonus to a spellcasting stat needs to be balanced out more carefully than a Str bonus.

A Wizard can survive just fine with a godawful Str and Cha. If he is reasonably protected by meatshields, he can have a very low Dex as well. And he can get away with a somewhat soft Wis because his class save progression protects him, he has some spells to help, and NPCs will usually not perceive him as a choice target for Will attacks. A Wizard can count on two dumpstats, and he potentially has as many as three or even four with some modest sacrifices.

Similar story for a Sorceror or Cleric. A Druid can do this even more easily because he can lean on his animal companion and wildshaping (although this is less attractive because of the Druid spell list).

A Fighter has only two dumpstats, Int and Cha. The remaining four do not all have to be strong, but taking penalties is very, very dangerous in all but the most extremely exotic builds.

 

[Terath Ninir]

While a fighter might attack hundreds of times per day -- though not in one of *my* campaigns -- that doesn't compare to the number of critters a wizard, or even a higher level cleric or druid, can hit with a single spell. The increase in save DCs is also very significant. If your spellcasting stat rises high enough, you might even be able to hurt rogues with your Reflex spells once in a while.

Also, I just can't believe that an Int penalty is not significant for *any* character. If it doesn't matter, than you or your DM isn't using skills enough in the campaign. Charisma penalties are less significant, but can be disastrous if you have significant social interaction. Wisdom penalties, of course, are an open invitation to charm person and the like.

No, I'm not buying the counterarguments so far. But I'm open to further arguments.

 

[Amaroq]

I'd agree with you, actually, though for a different reason: Skill Points.

I find that 'Int' is a very poor 'dump stat' choice for any character due to the reduced skill points. A fighter-type, a monk, or a rogue with a negative intelligence modifier is dramatically weaker than the same class with a positive intelligence modifier and the ability to do things like Tumble through squares without provoking AoO, etc.

That said, its all relative to the campaign and style of play, right? In a world where spellcasting is king and the arch-villians are all powerful casters, the party needs spellcasters with high Int. In a low-magic world where the GM pits the party against the orc/ogre/giant progression, awarding magical swords and armor, the Strength bonus can be more important. In a world where the GM spends half to three quarters of the time on political and social maneuvering, the character who used Charisma as a dump stat is going to bored and feel useless.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

While a fighter might attack hundreds of times per day -- though not in one of *my* campaigns -- that doesn't compare to the number of critters a wizard, or even a higher level cleric or druid, can hit with a single spell.

You're kidding, right?

Assuming maximum packing, a fireball is going to hit a grand total of 40 medium creatures - and will generally hit much, much fewer, considering that monsters tend to get bigger as you go along (so you'll be able to pack fewer into the same space) and you'll never, ever find a "perfect fireball formation" outside of a contrived example.

 

[Corlon]

I think generally most killing spells use fortitude or reflex to stop them, which would rule for getting physical stats as to protect yourself from the high mental stat people.

Sure the wizards can dish out a lot of damage, but they're very fragile, whereas the fighter (even with not great con can pull off more hit points than a wizard) can dish out damage and take it. Raising constitution and dexterity help keep wizards alive.


So I think I'm taking the middle road, they're pretty equal. Each has it's own use. Both can be used more or less depending on the dm (physical skills aren't worth using if there's nothing to climb, jump, balance on, etc., whereas mental skills aren't worth using if the campaign is mainly without social interaction).

 

[Dimwhit]

You're kidding, right?

Assuming maximum packing, a fireball is going to hit a grand total of 40 medium creatures - and will generally hit much, much fewer, considering that monsters tend to get bigger as you go along (so you'll be able to pack fewer into the same space) and you'll never, ever find a "perfect fireball formation" outside of a contrived example.

Dude, when you use fireball as an example, of course it's not much. Fireball is a WEAK spell. Nice when you're 5th level, but it's insignificant compared to the true power of a Wizard.

I think CZ's point becomes much more potent at the high levels (15th and above). A high Intelligence on a Wizard is far, far more deadly than a high strength on a fighter. Not really even a contest.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Str is the "weakest" of the physical stats. My ordering of ability scores in terms of overall power in D&D is: Dex, Int, Con, Str, Wis, Cha.

Certainly, mental stats are not always weaker than physical. The WOTC position on this doesn't make sense.

 

[AuraSeer]

Also, I just can't believe that an Int penalty is not significant for *any* character. If it doesn't matter, than you or your DM isn't using skills enough in the campaign.

Your major error here is in ignoring the fact that party members compensate for each other's weaknesses.

IMC skills come up an awful lot-- at least once per character per combat, and plenty of times in between combats. Most of the required skills can be covered by a single character. Whenever we need a Search, Disable Device, or Open Lock check, the rogue takes care of it. The bard handles social interaction and many Knowledge checks. The cleric has Heal, Spellcraft, and more Knowledge. With all that support, the rest of the party can get by with a lot fewer skill points.

I'd have absolutely no problem playing a sorcerer, fighter or cleric with a racial Int penalty. For a skill-heavy class like rogue or bard it would be tougher, but a bonus to Dex or Cha could more than make up for it. The only classes that would necessarily suffer from lowered Intelligence are wizards and the like, whose spellcasting explicitly requiresas much Int as possible.

Charisma penalties are less significant, but can be disastrous if you have significant social interaction.

See above. If the party bard or sorcerer has high Charisma plus max Diplomacy ranks, why does the half-orc barbarian ever need to negotiate? He can go play in another room while the grownups talk.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Dude, when you use fireball as an example, of course it's not much. Fireball is a WEAK spell. Nice when you're 5th level, but it's insignificant compared to the true power of a Wizard.

So what you're saying is that a bonus to the saving throw DC of, say, Fireball is insignificant? I guess that doesn't say much for your "Int Bonuses are UBER!!!!!" point of view.

Find a better example, then. A Meteor Swarm can affect, what, 100 dice rolls with a single casting? And that's probably the highest you'll ever get. Meteor Swarm is also a poster-boy for "Underpowered High Level Spells."

In other words, Int bonuses aren't as strong as Str bonuses because they affect fewer rolls during a standard "adventure" - which has been my only point all along.

I think CZ's point becomes much more potent at the high levels (15th and above). A high Intelligence on a Wizard is far, far more deadly than a high strength on a fighter. Not really even a contest.

Then demonstrate it.

 

[Dimwhit]

No, I'm saying that the high INT makes the DC all but impossible to make at those high levels, resulting in much more damage (or more likely save-or-die results ending in death). Whereas the extra damage from a higher strength at those levels isn't nearly as significant.