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

[Felon]

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.

So, what's with a character lacking in certain areas? If a given class is supposed to be rock-solide in every area that matters to it and weak in all of the areas that don't, then ability scores arre pointless. Just get rid of them and hardwire bonuses into the class.

In 3e, a paladin could have a 14 in Str, Con, Wis, and Cha for 24 points. Given 28 points to spend, he'd have room to maneuver and trade-off. What's the problem?

I'm also curious why you think that in 4e it will be hard to have three dump stats. Everything said in this thread indicates that three dump stats will be matter-of-course (granted, many are trying to depict that glass as half-full).

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?

As far as we can tell, Int is garbage and the days of the brainiac rogue are done. Possibly, the designers didn't want wizards getting big skill surplusses, so they stripped away the perk of getting extra skills from Int and (if we're lucky) made it into a feat.

 

[Lizard]

So, what's with a character lacking in certain areas? If a given class is supposed to be rock-solide in every area that matters to it and weak in all of the areas that don't, then ability scores arre pointless. Just get rid of them and hardwire bonuses into the class.

Nothings wrong with a character lacking in certain areas -- it should just be a function of class balance that all classes have the same number of "important" stats.

I'm also curious why you think that in 4e it will be hard to have three dump stats. Everything said in this thread indicates that three dump stats will be matter-of-course (granted, many are trying to depict that glass as half-full).

I'd like to think it will; I don't know that it will. I like it if characters have to think as hard about their low stats as they do about their high, that there are no 'dump' stats, regardless of class.

 

[Felon]

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.

As stated in my preivous post, paladins could buy positive bonuses in all of those ability scores. If he wanted one to be especially high, he had to lower something else. Assigning those numbers might have involved some painful decisions, but I'll take painful decisions over having my character-design decisions virtually already made for me by the designers.

 

[Voss]

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.

Hmm. I think it will encourage more. 3 stats you absolutely care about, and 3 stats you don't care about at all. Con will matter a little a low levels, but becomes less important as level increases. Dex will matter for the init bonus, but only to a certain degree. The real problem is the classes that are saddled with complementary stats. The cleric looks to be based on Str, Wis and Charisma, so either has to give up on a good reflex save, or take stat points away from his class powers. Thats a disadvantage when compared to a warlock, who is looks to be sitting very comfortably with Con, Int and Cha.

Of course, a class that has Con, Dex and Wis (for the perception bonuses) is going to have it all- as it stands unless you really, really care about opportunity attacks, he'll have everything that matters (at least from the available information).

 

[catsclaw]

As stated in my preivous post, paladins could buy positive bonuses in all of those ability scores. If he wanted one to be especially high, he had to lower something else. Assigning those numbers might have involved some painful decisions, but I'll take painful decisions over having my character-design decisions virtually already made for me by the designers.

Sure, but look at your example--to get a fairly mundane +2 in the "important" stats you have to burn 24 of your 28 points. You could move one of those to +3 by keeping Int and Cha at 8, or I guess you could drop Wis and Dex to 12. That's really not a lot of room to "maneuver and trade-off".

There's a difference between an "interesting design constraint" and a "creativity-killing straightjacket". I'm assuming all of the stats will be useful in their own right--powerful abilities in every class keyed to each of them--so you actually can make some interesting decisions (e.g., "As a fighter, should I boost both Str and Dex and mix-and-match the 'brute' and 'finesse' feats, or do I drop one so I can boost my Wis and take advantage of this insight talent tree?")

As far as we can tell, Int is garbage and the days of the brainiac rogue are done.

Yes, yes. It's quite clear, given the 2% of the rules that we've seen, that Int is now useless because the designers are idiots. Also, they're turning the game into WoW and anime, they're dumbing it down and making it all combat so they can capture the "ADD 6-year-olds with disposable income" market, and they've made first level characters so complicated no one will bother learning the game. Oh! And they're trying to kill the market for roleplaying games so they can sell off the D&D trademark.

Did I miss any?

 

[Lizard]

Yes, yes. It's quite clear, given the 2% of the rules that we've seen, that Int is now useless because the designers are idiots. Also, they're turning the game into WoW and anime, they're dumbing it down and making it all combat so they can capture the "ADD 6-year-olds with disposable income" market, and they've made first level characters so complicated no one will bother learning the game. Oh! And they're trying to kill the market for roleplaying games so they can sell off the D&D trademark.

Did I miss any?

Hey, all I said was that I was interested in seeing what uses Int had to non wizards. I didn't say it would have none. I am *hopeful* that the drive to make sure no one is sub-par in their 'role' doesn't mean non-role-abilities can be safely ignored. I would like to see the Fighter feel some pain for low int and cha, the rogue regret a poor wisdom, the wizard not disdain strength with no effect. Obviously, there will always be lower stats, but I'd like a low stat, whatever it is, to be at least an occasional hindrance and not completely ignorable.

It's GOOD to have weaknesses and flaws, to sometimes be faced with a challenge for which you are ill-prepared. Doing everything pretty well and some things spectacularly is not as much fun as having some things you just plain suck at.

 

[drjones]

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.

But if you really want to be different don't you have just as much choice as in 3rd to not take the optimal mathematical option? Except that since the numbers are more shallowly curved the difference in outcome should be less noticeable although the only way to find that out is to playtest some non-maximized characters which we (probably) don't have.

 

[arscott]

I think you're missing the greater point here. This isn't just about encouraging lopsided characters or making certain stats less important.

It's about making ALL stats less important. Look at what's going on:
-Int doesn't modify skills
-Con doesn't add to hp each level
-Touch/Ranged touch spells no longer rely on Str and Dex

In other words, you can have a really good score in one stat and be quite competent at your role. And (this is the important bit) that one score is the score that is thematically appropriate for your character Archetype.

You can't have a good wizard that is not smart. You can't have a good armored fighter that is not strong, etc. If you want to play a dumb wizard, you by definition want to play an ineffective one (or, alternately, you're using a different definition of dumb and really want to play one with low Wis or low Cha).

You start by putting points in your primary attribute. If you go for an 18, then you're using up a lot of your point buy (more than half, in 3e)--you're playing a dedicated specialist. If you go lower, then you're saving many more points for all of your other skills--your not quite as focused, but you're quite a bit better at everything else.

Once you've got your primary stat figured out, then distribute the rest however you'd like. No matter which stats fit your concept of the character, you'll still do well--not like in 3e where a 6 con or dex means quick death.

I'm quite willing to bet that whatever your good secondary ability scores, there will be character options that take advantage of them and build on your archetype:

For example, the rogue needs dex. Str and Cha support are built into the class powers. We've already been told that Rogues will have a feat that lets them use a high int score to boost all skills, and dabbling in wizardry (a classic rogue ability) will also require good int. For the scouty types, I'd be staggered (sorry, dazed) if there weren't some wis-based feats that boosted the rogue's perceptive abilites.

And I expect similar options in support of all classes (or at least, characters of any class. The rogue will probably be able to take advantage of some toughness-granting Con feats, but that's not really specific to his archetype).

 

[Voss]

There's a difference between an "interesting design constraint" and a "creativity-killing straightjacket". I'm assuming all of the stats will be useful in their own right--powerful abilities in every class keyed to each of them--so you actually can make some interesting decisions (e.g., "As a fighter, should I boost both Str and Dex and mix-and-match the 'brute' and 'finesse' feats, or do I drop one so I can boost my Wis and take advantage of this insight talent tree?")

Except there is absolutely *no* evidence to back up this assumption. Sure we haven't seen a good amount of material, but we have seen quite a bit. And none of it suggests that any of the classes are using more than 3 ability scores, and some can get by with 2. Heck, with the exception of the golden wyvern feat, everything the wizard can do is solely Int based (the one spell using wisdom in the 10-16th level spells was pointed out as an error).

It looks like there will be the option of bumping up this secondary stat or that secondary stat, but everything else can go hang (unless you 'multi-class' in a suboptimal way, much like the half-elf warlock with the int based wizard power. And yes, it isn't all about optimizing, but picking an ability to do more of what you already do, but with small numbers isn't a good thing).

 

[The Little Raven]

clever rogue

There's a big different between "clever" and "smart." Intelligence is smart (knowledge, memory, logic). Wisdom is clever (intuition, perception, thinking on your feet).