No more ubiquitous dump stats !?

[AllisterH]

1. There does't seem to be any indication that you can "switch" out your ability modifiers for the skills. It only applies to your defenses to my knowledge. Anyone know differently?

2. I thought the default was Point-Buy a la 3e and not straight a point for point of stat?

Assuming the above is correct, I think deathdonut's prediction will be true. Comparing it to 3E, the difference I think is that EVERYONE in the party will be subject to the same constraint unlike say the monk compared to the druid.

 

[Felon]

I've read so many things about 4e that really appeal to me that I hope that on this issue it's a simple matter of not seeing the full picture, because it's really on the cusp of being a deal-breaker.

It's the difference between stamina and strength - take American football players as an example. They can hit incredibly hard with a sharp burst in the tackle, but they're not going to be running any marathons (I saw a video recently with an adult bodybuilder being out-treadmilled by a 14 year old cross country runner - he was exhausted after about 2 minutes and she was fine). That's the example of Str vs Con right there - in a fight he's going to do more damage initially, but over time she's a better long term bet.

OK, but look at what you're talking about and then look at how the rules implement it, Just saying "use Con for attack and damage instead of Str when using axes" is a very ham-handed way of trying to factor Con into the arena of damage-dealing. In 4e, it looks like they not only decided to opt for simplicity over complexity, but they also opted for simplicity over elegance and accuracy as well. I've listened to every podcast, read their preview articles, and I constantly get the vibe that when it came down to deciding how to handle something mechanically, they decided a "close enough for government work" solution was ultimately the way to go.

When you can shill one ability score for another--use Strength for your defenses, use Con for your offenses, despite them being intended explicitly to serve the reverse functions--it really makes me wonder what's being accomplished. I can be frail and unhealthy but still have a good Fortitude defense, because my stamina suddenly doesn't affect the numbers. I can be a 98-lb weakling and still cleave through plate mail, because muscle simply ceased to be a consideration. That's very awkward and unintuitive.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

When you can shill one ability score for another--use Strength for your defenses, use Con for your offenses, despite them being intended explicitly to serve the reverse functions--it really makes me wonder what's being accomplished. I can be frail and unhealthy but still have a good Fortitude defense, because my stamina suddenly doesn't affect the numbers. I can be a 98-lb weakling and still cleave through plate mail, because muscle simply ceased to be a consideration. That's very awkward and unintuitive.

I think it's more of a case that "by using good judgement and maximising my abilities, I can overcome my natural lack of strength my choosing to specialise in weapons that don't require it".

Don't forget - you can't just swap out Str for Con (or vice versa) on EVERY attack. You can, however, choose attack powers that use Con instead of Str. Your basic attack might therefore be weaker, but your specific powers will be comparable. So you can choose to play a character that realised he wasn't as physically strong as some of his counterparts, but found weapons that didn't require so much raw strength to wield, but did require stamina.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

When you can shill one ability score for another--use Strength for your defenses, use Con for your offenses, despite them being intended explicitly to serve the reverse functions--it really makes me wonder what's being accomplished. I can be frail and unhealthy but still have a good Fortitude defense, because my stamina suddenly doesn't affect the numbers. I can be a 98-lb weakling and still cleave through plate mail, because muscle simply ceased to be a consideration. That's very awkward and unintuitive.

You could just play without defenses and use six passive ability scores. Decide which passive score is approprate as defense vs which attack and you are fine.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem in 3.5 was there were scores that were too good. Typically, there was no class that didn't benefit from Dex/Con/Int, since Dex controlled AC, ranged and Reflex, Con had Fort and the ever important hp, and Int was for skill points (which were in short supply). Strength was unneeded to all but melee combatants, Wis wasn't useful except for will saves (which was a sore-point unless you maxed out wis anyway) and Cha wasn't useful except for socials.

This led to some lopsided builds, especially in point-buy environments (it wasn't unheard of to see wizards in LG with S:8, D: 16, C: 14, I:16, W:10, Ch:8 and be extremely successful, but I digress) It also led to MAD, which made playing effective paladins, monks, and druids in limited point buy (or without stellar rolls) difficult.

4e has allowed for the choice to be "would I rather have a higher str or con" instead of "would I rather have a +1 to hit/dmg or +20 hp?" It also has build in those "no brainer" feats (few rogues I knew of didn't take wpn finesse at the earliest opportunity, now they don't have to). Of course, each score will still have reasons to exist separately, but this is now mainly secondary elements (healing surges, starting languages) or defines by class power, not the always usefulness (or seldom usefulnes) current.

Will it fix wizards with low str/high con or a rogue with a lower wis/higher cha? No. Neither has any edition of D&D so far.

Oh, because I see them and I want to use them: