D&D 4E My Big 4e Hurdle: Well-Rounded vs Lopsided

[MaelStorm]

I disagree with you.

I like it because you can concentrate on fewer abilities and not worry too much if you took the right decision or not. You know the system is not going to penalize you if you're choosing a physical abilities or its opposite mental counterpart. I think this gives more flexibility to a class. You can now opt for a martial character that chooses STR and CHA as main abilities (instead of STR and CON), this opens up new and interesting possibilities for non-combat skills (like Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate) and it also make your character more compatible to multiclass. (EX: A fighter that choose to invest more in CHA instead of CON can multiclass more easily with the Warlord, Paladin, and Warlock.)

But if you want to create a well-rounded character in 4E, nothing forbids you to do so. It's only if you're looking for Min/Maxing your character that a well-rounded character is less interesting.

I know this doesn't solve anything. But if you don't like this, you can try to house rule it. Pick up a sheet of paper and each time there is a choice between two stats handwave the one you think is not appropriate and tell your players in advance. Anyway, what you will choose to do in the end is your decision entirely.

 

[small pumpkin man]

One of the Paladin at wills at D&DEXP had a power which was str to hit & dmg and gave +3(I assume either chr or wis) damage one top of that if you'd marked the creature.

 

[Jhaelen]

It's also a reaction to the MAD* that was so common in 3.5.

Yup.

It looks like they're trying to limit the number of attributes which are critical to any given build to about 3.

Yup. I'm still not sure I like their solution to the MAD problem. I'd have preferred it if all attributes were equally important to all classes. I.e. solve the MAD problem by making it a problem for every class.

I like the idea that you cannot be good at everything. I think you should be forced to concentrate on a certain subset of your potential abilities rather than being good at everything.

As ususal, I'll reserve final judgement until I've seen the whole rulest. It's quite possible there will still be enough reasons to, e.g. have high scores in charisma AND wisdom.

 

[phil500]

I think the idea is (for example) to make it less unfair that clerics get a huge bonus to will saves, whereas other classes dont.

I guess it could encourage min/maxing, but I still think this system will encourage less of it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think its just fair to allow two attributes for one defense...

reason: the attacker may chose from 6 attributes to attack you. You should at least ahve the choice between two attributes, so that a weakness can´t so easily be exploited.

 

[Revinor]

I can easily see Wis being a new dump stat (except for Clerics obviously).

Both Cha and Wis has least number of interesting things attached to them. Ignoring the attacks (you can find an attack for every stat if you look for it) and defenses (two stats for each), I think bonuses are


Str:
Hit and damage with base attacks (AoO etc)
Encumberance ?

Con:
Starting HP
Number of healing surges

Dex:
Initiative
Second defense (AC)
Base ranged weapon attacks

Int:
Second defense (AC)
Languages?/Skills?

Wis:
Nothing extra

Cha:
Nothing extra

Wis/Cha seems to be useful mechanically only for the Will defense if you are not using them for attacks. In previous editions, Cha generally used to be a dump stat for some players and this has created certain metagame defense mechanism - low Cha characters were generally ridiculed for being ugly/stuttering/squiky voices/whatever. Wis has no real interpretation in role playing terms (as opposed to Int and Cha), so I expect it to be new low favorite for most people.

 

[Lizard]

I can see an argument for parity in 'number of vital stats'. My poor Paladin has passed to his final reward (CR 4 encounter my ass!), but he was educational -- he needed Str, Con, Wis, and Cha, and even with a high point based build, was lacking in several areas (being a half ogre didn't help). If all classes had three 'important' stats, it would at least be fair, and it would be hard to have three pure 'dump' stats.

I'm very interested in seeing how Int isn't the Universal Dump Stat in 4e, the way Cha was in...well...every other edition of the game. Since it doesn't seem to add skill points or skill picks (ala SWSE), what's it good for, for non-wizards? Does anyone know if it has a 'general purpose' use? Or will the Cha/Diplomacy monkey of 3e be replace by the Int/Knowledge monkey of 4e, that is, the one guy with it pumped to the max and the rest of the party lacking it?

(And in so many games of 3x I'm in, the low charisma *character* is run by the high charisma *player*, so ends up being the party leader because he roleplays his diplomacy better than the guy with the better actual high *roll*. I don't see 4e solving this -- I don't see ANY game solving this, it's not a knock on 4e, just an observation of gamer dynamics..)

 

[Cirex]

I was surprised to see that intellect doesn't have any impact on skills, although we still need to see the full pack of rules, but doesn't seem the case right now.

I think the Warlord requires intellect too, but, what would be the difference between a clever rogue and a dumb one now?

 

[small pumpkin man]

I can see an argument for parity in 'number of vital stats'. My poor Paladin has passed to his final reward (CR 4 encounter my ass!), but he was educational -- he needed Str, Con, Wis, and Cha, and even with a high point based build, was lacking in several areas (being a half ogre didn't help). If all classes had three 'important' stats, it would at least be fair, and it would be hard to have three pure 'dump' stats.

I'm very interested in seeing how Int isn't the Universal Dump Stat in 4e, the way Cha was in...well...every other edition of the game. Since it doesn't seem to add skill points or skill picks (ala SWSE), what's it good for, for non-wizards? Does anyone know if it has a 'general purpose' use? Or will the Cha/Diplomacy monkey of 3e be replace by the Int/Knowledge monkey of 4e, that is, the one guy with it pumped to the max and the rest of the party lacking it?

Thing is, as a Cleric or Paladin, what are you getting from dex that you aren't getting from int? Ranged weapons? You already have ranged at will attacks that will do more damage and provide nice effects on top. Sure a bow has more range, but it also uses two hands. So your essentially choosing between initiative (which is less useful with the longer lasting combats) and your Religion/Arcana skill. Not exactly some huge obvious deficit.

Doesn't change the unfortunate fact that it looks like most pickpockets and Woodsmen are going to be as think as two short planks, but that's not "universal".

 

[Felon]

You wouldn't. And you wouldn't create a 3e paladin with more charisma than strength, either, if you're deciding based on mechanical advantage like you suggest. I call shenanigans on the suggestion that any 3e players were creating paladins with better charisma than strength, on purpose, because they thought it was equally powerful with the opposite.

For a 4e paladin, assuming that no paladin abilities use strength (some cleric abilities do, so who knows), strength still improves charges, attacks of opportunity, and miscellaneous attack types that aren't powers. It also improves Fortitude Defense, if Constitution isn't as high. And in 4e, that may well be the case.

I'm afraid I'm calling double-dog shenanigans on your shenanigans. Yes, there were players of paladins doing exactly what you think no paladin playerr was out there doing.

As to your 4e paladin, all you're doing is proving that he's in the same spot that you suggested the 3e paladin was. He'll have one prime ability score that really matters, and he'd be fairly nuts not to lopside his character in favor of it.