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

[Felon]

I like so much of what I've seen, but there seems to be one reoccurring mechanic that just stinks on ice. I wish there was some extant clever term for it, but I don't think there is one yet. Basically, it's allowing players to decide which ability score modifier to apply in a given circumstance. For sake of simplicity, I will use the portmanteau "lopstatting".

The broadest case of lopstatting we've seen is the defense system, which allow players to pick one of two ability scores to apply to their AC, Reflex, Fort, and Will saves. We've also seen it in the class paths, where one rogue uses Strength for attack and damage, and another uses Dex. And we're seeing it with the Dragonborn's breath weapon (which can apparently use a Str-based attack roll).

This seems to really make a totally lopsided character, with one ability score set as high as he can get it and the others left at their base value, much more efective than a well-rounded character with multiple mid-range ability scores. There is a finite list of things an ability score modifer can apply to: attack, damage, defense, initiative, hit points, skill checks, and maybe a couple of other things that aren't springing to mind right away. It doesn't take too many instances of this kind of cherry-picking before a character is virtually a one-state wonder.

I don't think I'd mind this if it seemed like lopstatting was just one character-building option, but it appears to be a component that's hardwired into defenses, classes, and other core elemnts of the game, so the well-rounded path is just a suboptimal option. And that's something that I just buy into. For me, it begs the question of why there are multiple ability scores to begin with if ultimately every character is empowered to just use their best one.

 

[The Little Raven]

We've also seen it in the class paths, where one rogue uses Strength for attack and damage, and another uses Dex.

This is not correct.

There is a tactic which allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage with Sneak Attack and certain specific abilities, but you are still making a Dexterity attack and adding Dexterity bonus to damage normally.

And we're seeing it with the Dragonborn's breath weapon (which can apparently use a Str-based attack roll).

Giving a race an ability that is dependent on a single ability score makes that ability useless to players of classes that don't need it. A dragonborn wizard's breath weapon would be useless to him if Strength was the only thing he could use.

For me, it begs the question of why there are multiple ability scores to begin with if ultimately every character is empowered to just use their best one.

Well, this isn't correct either. For defenses, you have two relatively appropriate scores that can apply to each one, but that doesn't mean you can swap in your Charisma for your Reflex defense.

 

[Ximenes088]

I'm not feeling this, myself. Compared to 3.5, I'm seeing more evenness among the classes. From the look of the Rogue class, you have one class primary attribute- Dexterity- and then a pick from one of two others- Strength or Charisma. That's two important stats. I'm fine with having each class encourage two important stats, rather than the multiple-attribute-dependency torment you saw in 3.5e monks and paladins.

There are also some examples of spells and feats that do not tap into conventional stats. The wizard, for example, has a level 15 attack spell that uses Wisdom as the to-hit bonus, not Intelligence. And there's the much-derided Golden Wyvern Adept feat which allows a wizard to subtract his Wisdom bonus worth of squares from an area effect spell to create safe holes in it. Also, unless you want to play a straight Class X from 1 to 30, you're going to have to take into account the stat needs of any multiclass powers you choose.

 

[Dausuul]

You raise a legitimate concern, but there is an opposite problem that one must also consider--the system in which EVERYBODY has above-average scores in stat X because it's just too valuable to accept a penalty in, and everybody dumps stat Y unless it's important to their class.

For example, in 3.X, how often did you see a character with a below-average Constitution score? Pretty seldom, I'd imagine; Constitution was just so valuable to everybody that you simply didn't take a low stat in it. Likewise, it was unusual to see characters with Dexterity penalties, though not unheard-of. On the other hand, Charisma was routinely used as a dump stat by anybody who didn't have Charisma-based class features.

So there's a balance to be struck, and I think 4E strikes it pretty well. Consider:

* While you get to pick which stats to use for your defenses, you'll always have three different stats contributing to them. This discourages one-stat wonders.
* As far as we know, you don't get to pick which stats apply to your skills; those are still fixed.

Iron Heroes did a lot of experimenting with letting players pick which stats to use. There were feat chains that let you use different stats on attack rolls, and the Weapon Bond trait which let you pick any stat and use it in place of Strength for your melee attack and damage rolls with a certain weapon.

While this did allow people to focus more heavily on one stat than would otherwise have been possible, it also produced a lot more diversity. You saw characters specializing in every stat and every role; I once played a highly effective melee warrior with Strength 10 and Intelligence 20. If 4E allows this kind of flexibility, it will be a more than acceptable trade-off to me.

 

[Bishmon]

It's obvious that they want the numbers to get into certain ranges and not deviate from those ranges too much. There's a number of reasons for that, ranging from the 'sweet spot' to balance to individual character contributions.

I'm sure that will do most of everything that is intended.

The problem I have is that in my opinion, characters lose a little bit of their character when you look at the mechanics behind it all and see how similar everyone is. Everyone's probably going to have their one high stat that influences most of their attacks and damages. Then they'll have a couple of reasonable stats that may affect a few class powers and will help with the other two defenses. Then everyone's gonna have an encounter power that does roughly two times their normal damage, and a daily power that does roughly three times the damage. And in a few levels I'm gonna get an encounter power when everyone else does, and then a few levels later I'll get a daily when everyone else does.

I think that as characters gain levels, that mechanical transparency will start to disappear a bit. I hope, at least. I just wish they'd show us that, because as it is, looking at what we've got, it's hard not to think that the different classes are just the same numbers dressed up in somewhat different packages.

 

[catsclaw]

For defenses, you have two relatively appropriate scores that can apply to each one, but that doesn't mean you can swap in your Charisma for your Reflex defense.

It's also a reaction to the MAD* that was so common in 3.5. Paladins needed Str to hit, Con for HP, Wis for spellcasting, and Cha for paladin abilities. And they can't tank Dex without losing AC. Maybe that's why there are so many Lawful Stupid paladins running around.

It looks like they're trying to limit the number of attributes which are critical to any given build to about 3. That's even more important in 4e, since you're not going to have the usual +2/+4/+6 stat boost items to shore up your weak points.

* Multiple Attribute Dependency

 

[Stalker0]

I definitely understand some of the OP's concerns. However, after watching a rogue in action in my play test I will say that devoting all of your bonus to dexterity over strength can lead to some consequences.

For example, when the rogue was using deft strike, he had a +9 to hit, and was doing 1d4+5 damage. However, his basic attack (the one used for OAs) was a +2, and did 1d4-1. Guess what, my npcs didn't care a lick about the rogue's OAs, and I would freely provoke them. I never did that to the party's fighter

But to the issue of whether each class has such a primary stat that everyone will have 18's in them and the like, a couple of points:

1) There is evidence to suggest the point buy method has changed in 4e. That is a significant fact. If for example, an 18 in 4e costs 18 points, instead of the 16 in 3.5, then all of a sudden an 18 is a bigger cost for that character. Sure an 18 dex is great for the rogue, but how much is it worth?

2) We have little information on to the secondary uses of my stats, or whether they have any at all. For example, in 3.5 strength affects your encumbrance. Your intelligence affected your skill points.

In 4e, we don't know if there is an encumbrance system, it could be that strength is very important for the wearing of armor (important to paladins, who value charisma above strength normally). As far as intelligence, there is evidence to suggest intelligence does not directly affect skills as it once did. But there could be feats that use intelligence. Skill Training may require int 12+ for example, or the feats are better if you have a high int. In the new social combat system, having a high charisma might be very beneficial, etc.

Or...perhaps stats will be a factor in multiclassing.


However, all of that said, I do share some of the OP's serious concerns about certain stats being too important to certain classes. For example, while I mentioned the possibility for the intelligence score, with our current information int seems to serve no purpose except to fuel wizard powers. If that is in fact the case in the full edition, that means there is no use for any rogue or fighter type to put a single point in intelligence, especially if they have bumped their dex to gain a good reflex save.

However, I remain optimistic that my concerns are the result of a lack of information rather than a true flaw in the system.

 

[Stalker0]

It's also a reaction to the MAD* that was so common in 3.5. Paladins needed Str to hit, Con for HP, Wis for spellcasting, and Cha for paladin abilities. And they can't tank Dex without losing AC. Maybe that's why there are so many Lawful Stupid paladins running around.

However, there is a positive aspect to this. With subtle changes in abilities, you can create many different flavors of paladin. Are you an offensive paladin with high strength, and a moderate charisma so you have some healing, a small bump to saves, and a decent smite?

Perhaps your a real holy paladin with a moderate strength, but a nice big bonus to saves for a high charisma, a great smite, and awesome lay on hands.

So far, it seems that strength serves little purpose for most paladin abilities. Charisma adds to attack, adds to damage, adds to paladin abilities. Why would you ever create a paladin who has a higher strength than he does charisma?

 

[Cadfan]

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.

 

[FadedC]

I have actually seen incredibly effective paladins in Living Greyhawk who had insanely high charisma and low strength. However this requires a lot of feats and planning to make work, and is incredibly weak at low levels. But at high level it could be insanely good, particularly with a level of marshal.

I expect we will see a lot of 18's in primary stats just because it's so easy to get a +2 racial bonus. I'm sure we will see some 20's too but I'd expect them to be less common. Most people will want 3 decent stats for their saves to be based on, while you probably won't want to use con as a dump stat. Strength based classes actually have it a bit tougher because they need str and con, and thus need 4 stats.