D&D 4E Obligatory dump stats in 4e: the irrelevance of Intelligence

[see]

All "Thrown" magical weapons have the "returning" property inherent.

Ooh, I missed that. Looks like magic javelins are going to be in high demand as a backup ranged weapon for strength-melee characters.

 

[AllisterH]

I dunno. We'll see. Books are coming in 5 days, after that give about 3 months of playtests and I think we'll have a much better idea of what's what.

THIS

Let's not forget that when 3.0 was in its first month of release, the "monk" was the uber character and fighters were still considered a great class.

re: Int (and Wis)

One of the things I'm wondering about is are we undervaluing the Ritual Feat? Looking at it, in campaigns, I can see a lot of characters wanting it and many of the rituals key off of Arcana. We might see a lot more brainy fighters than we expect.

 

[Nifft]

One of the things I'm wondering about is are we undervaluing the Ritual Feat? Looking at it, in campaigns, I can see a lot of characters wanting it and many of the rituals key off of Arcana. We might see a lot more brainy fighters than we expect.

Ritual Casting is great. But again, I'd argue only one or two dudes need it: one for Heal & Nature, one for Arcana & Religion.

And they can act as each other's back-up.

Cheers, -- N

 

[gribble]

Errrr... what melee wizard archtype? There has never been such a thing. Wizards have only ever cared about Int, Con, and Dex. Investing into any other stat has been 100% sub-optimal in all previous editions of D&D.*

* specialist wizards in 2e being a possible exception, as I seem to recall they had different stat requirements, depending on spell school.

There was a character in a 3e game I played. Specialist diviner. He had a reasonable Str, and had invested some feats in melee combat, with the logic that at low level (one he'd cast his 1 or 2 spells for the day) he could still contribute effectively. Was he a totally optimised character? Hell no. Was he more effective than an "optimised" wizard at low levels? Yes. Did he survive to epic levels and become a very powerful epic-level wizard? Yes.

I'm not even trying to say it's a common archtype or anything, but my point is that that character would never exist in 4e, because even if a wizard put points in Str, he'd never choose to use a sword over his at will Magic Missile... a character who chose to do so would be so clearly inferior to one that just dumped all his points into Int (even at low levels) that it's effectively a punishment for the RP aspects of the character. At least in 3e the character was a viable option, and more effective than a straight wizard at low levels... i.e: it might have been a "sub-optimal" choice, but it wasn't the absolute no-brainer, no-benefit from doing it that it is in 4e.

 

[gribble]

Please answer the following question: What makes intelligence in 4th edition less valuable than charisma in 3rd edition?

I'll give it a shot:
In 3e, a low Charisma still gave you penalties that mattered for a Fighter (penalty to Intimidate a class skill, penalty to Leadership, and it sure sucked when the Charisma drain/damage starts flying around). Sure, it was still the optimal stat to dump, but it wasn't (entirely) a no-brainer.

In 4e, a fighter loses absolutely *nothing* by dumping Int.
I.e.: it is totally a no-brainer decision, and any fighter who doesn't do it is effectively "penalised" (because they're missing out on points they could put in other abilitites).

 

[gribble]

Someone ealier in the thread pointed out that this was a good thing because stat dumping would give your character a weakness. But thats very untrue, actually the opposite has happened, you can now have a very low stat that almost doesnt affect anything.

Exactly. In 4e your best (required?) dump stat doesn't hurt you at all, and therefore it *isn't* a weakness. In fact, any character which doesn't dump that stat effectively has a weakness - one that manifests in their other stats... weird.

 

[Victim]

There was a character in a 3e game I played. Specialist diviner. He had a reasonable Str, and had invested some feats in melee combat, with the logic that at low level (one he'd cast his 1 or 2 spells for the day) he could still contribute effectively. Was he a totally optimised character? Hell no. Was he more effective than an "optimised" wizard at low levels? Yes. Did he survive to epic levels and become a very powerful epic-level wizard? Yes.

I'm not even trying to say it's a common archtype or anything, but my point is that that character would never exist in 4e, because even if a wizard put points in Str, he'd never choose to use a sword over his at will Magic Missile... a character who chose to do so would be so clearly inferior to one that just dumped all his points into Int (even at low levels) that it's effectively a punishment for the RP aspects of the character. At least in 3e the character was a viable option, and more effective than a straight wizard at low levels... i.e: it might have been a "sub-optimal" choice, but it wasn't the absolute no-brainer, no-benefit from doing it that it is in 4e.

You could use STR instead of CON for your Fort defense (although taking Con and using a staff has its advantages).

 

[Spatula]

I'll give it a shot:
In 3e, a low Charisma still gave you penalties that mattered for a Fighter (penalty to Intimidate a class skill, penalty to Leadership, and it sure sucked when the Charisma drain/damage starts flying around). Sure, it was still the optimal stat to dump, but it wasn't (entirely) a no-brainer.

In 4e, a fighter loses absolutely *nothing* by dumping Int.

He loses points from skill checks and access to feats. Which is to, pretty much what he lost in 3e from dumping Cha.

I'm not even trying to say it's a common archtype or anything, but my point is that that character would never exist in 4e, because even if a wizard put points in Str, he'd never choose to use a sword over his at will Magic Missile... a character who chose to do so would be so clearly inferior to one that just dumped all his points into Int (even at low levels) that it's effectively a punishment for the RP aspects of the character. At least in 3e the character was a viable option, and more effective than a straight wizard at low levels... i.e: it might have been a "sub-optimal" choice, but it wasn't the absolute no-brainer, no-benefit from doing it that it is in 4e.

No, it was a sub-optimal choice in 3e, too. Putting points into anything other than Int, Con, and Dex is 100% suboptimal for a wizard in 3e. Maybe you're rolling for stats and some spare 16's to go around, but in a point-buy, or with reasonable stat allocations, investing in Str and melee feats is a waste from a mechanical point of view.

A couple of folks are coming into a min-max discussion (dump statting is about optimizing your character mechanically) and arguing for sub-optimal mechanical choices for flavor. If you want to do that stuff, great. I do it all the time myself, because I love unusual characters. I am currently playing a Ranger 1/Psion 9 with a 14 Str and a cool-ass crystal scimitar, that he uses in combat. But that sort of thing has no bearing on character optimization talk.

If you want to talk about how a viable melee-mage would look in 4e, that's a seperate discussion, but warlord/wizard (or wizard/warlord) multiclassing would probably work just fine.

 

[Nifft]

He loses points from skill checks and access to feats. Which is to, pretty much what he lost in 3e from dumping Cha.

Which feats? I know there are feats a spellcaster might care about, but what would a Fighter want?

Cheers, -- N

 

[gribble]

You could use STR instead of CON for your Fort defense (although taking Con and using a staff has its advantages).

Except that Str is *strictly* worse than Con, because it doesn't add to starting hp and healing surges. There is absolutely zero mechanical reason for a wizard (or any other class who's powers aren't keyed to Str) to put points in Str instead of Con...

He loses points from skill checks and access to feats. Which is to, pretty much what he lost in 3e from dumping Cha.

There are no fighter class skills, or useful feats for a fighter keyed to Int in 4e. Ingoring the other advantages I've already pointed out that a high Cha gives a fighter in 3e, there is the undeniable fact that one of their class skills (Intimidate) keys off Cha. Try again.

No, it was a sub-optimal choice in 3e, too.

Never said it wasn't (in fact, if you *read* what I posted I actually said it was sub-optimal). What I said was that it was a *viable* option in 3e - it totally isn't in 4e.

A couple of folks are coming into a min-max discussion (dump statting is about optimizing your character mechanically) and arguing for sub-optimal mechanical choices for flavor.
...
But that sort of thing has no bearing on character optimization talk.

I did no such thing. As I stated, it was a viable (if not 100% optimal) option for a wizard in 3e. It certainly gave them something to do after their spells were used, and wasn't the total no-brainer that dumping Str is in 4e. In 3e, it was a sub-optimal choice that gave you some additional options and abilities that a wizard dumping Str didn't have. In 4e, it's totally bunk, and doesn't give you *anything* that putting those points in Con doesn't.

If you want to talk about how a viable melee-mage would look in 4e, that's a seperate discussion, but warlord/wizard (or wizard/warlord) multiclassing would probably work just fine.

Nope. A warlord is a leader, which is something this character definitely *wasn't*. He was crazy (part of the reason why he was wading into melee in the first place), and never really considered his allies or tactics beyond "blow it up"!