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

[Sashi]

I really like the idea of giving every stat a single effect that it has and nothing else does. Not something huge, but something that rewards people who decide to branch out of their "core" stats.

Str: Carrying Capacity
Con: Healing Surges
Dex: Initiative
Int: ?
Wis: ?
Cha: ?

I like the idea of a +1 attribute bonus to any mental skill for each point of int bonus.
What could you have for Wis and Cha, though?

 

[hong]

Why should I have to chose?

You always have to choose. That's why you have classes. The list of choices may or may not be entirely congruent to your desired schema, but that's what you get for playing a mass-market game.

 

[hong]

How so? In 3e, everyone who invested in INT got skill points and could find a place to put'em.

And in 4E, everyone who invests in Int gets the corresponding bonus on Int-based skills.

There was a reasonable incentive to invest or not invest, because it provided some general utility for virtually every class.

Which it still does, if you want to be good at Int-based skills.

It is true that in 4E, you will not get fighters with 25 Int, and wizards will have higher Int on average than everyone else (except maybe warlords). But again, this is exactly the same as in 3E.

 

[Incenjucar]

Mental stats could have abilities tied to them. The thing is that you would have to rework the math all over again, and it would most likely add to complexity.

 

[Vendark]

I for one am glad that I no longer have to make my fighter a genius in order for him to be an excellent athlete.

I hate it when my characters are incompetent at large swathes of day-to-day adventuring life, so in 3.X I often felt forced into putting a higher number into Intelligence than I otherwise would have wanted to for the concept.

 

[DonAdam]

A few brief things to add:

1) You can only have one 8 by the point-buy rules. A 10 doesn't really feel like dumping to me.

2) You don't get to complain both that Int is a general dump stat and that its too easy for everyone to get rituals. Pick one or the other. (not naming names, just saying)

3) That said, I understand the desire for Int to do more for non-magic users. Feats should be fine. As it is, the Warlord's feat selection is pretty thin given his ability spread of Str-Int-Cha (which is why I suspect you'll see a lot of multiclassed warlords). I suspect that future releases will correct this problem naturally.

4) Complaining that there's no reason to have high Int and Dex is rather like complaining that there's no reason to have high Wis and Cha. The only reason the latter isn't just as suboptimal is because there are a few specific class builds that use both. So I suspect that future class builds will also have Dex-Int combinations.

 

[see]

Dexterity has another near-universal role. When battlefield conditions preclude closing to melee range, fighters, paladins, rangers, rogues, and warlords are all going to be dependent on Dex to be relevant (either because they have no ranged at-wills and so have to use basic ranged attacks, or because their ranged at-wills use Dex). Same is true of clerics who don't pick either ranged at-will, and both clerics and warlocks at ranges greater than 10.

 

[AllisterH]

I really like the idea of giving every stat a single effect that it has and nothing else does. Not something huge, but something that rewards people who decide to branch out of their "core" stats.

Str: Carrying Capacity
Con: Healing Surges
Dex: Initiative
Int: ?
Wis: ?
Cha: ?

I like the idea of a +1 attribute bonus to any mental skill for each point of int bonus.
What could you have for Wis and Cha, though?

Two things I disagree with.

1. STR - Carrying capacity is a non-issue for all of the classes. Basically, the largest single source of load is the armour for a character and characters that don't get the heaviest armour are also the classes that don't NEED a high STR.

2. DEX - Initative isn't as important as before. In 3E, at low and high levels where the game came down to rocket tag, yes, having a high initative was essential but in 4E? Even versus a "CHALLENGING" encounter, a PC will not be going down in one attack

 

[Kaffis]

How do you make someone roleplay their intelligence?

"Sorry, you only have a 12 INT, and that tactic you're undertaking is more of a 14."

In general, roleplaying is kind of a "lead a horse to water" thing.

12 is hardly a dump-statted value, though.

"Sorry, that's a pretty clever tactic and you've got an 8 intelligence, so you're not the brightest bulb in the pack; would your character really come up with that?" is something I'm more amenable to. On the other hand, a character with an 8 intelligence could certainly pick up tactics that were used against them a couple times, or might suggest tactics the party has used before (and, to be really in-character, might do it when the tactics aren't entirely appropriate). Kind of like bone-headed management latching onto buzzwords to try to cover up their incompetence and lack of real analytical skills.

 

[Kaffis]

What's most glaring to me is that amount of people that think Intelligence means clever, when Wisdom pretty much personifies it since clever people are perceptive and intuitive.

Intelligence is for Wayne the Brain.

Wisdom is for Cugel the Clever.

Well, to some extent. I think 4e actually reinforces the notion that tactical insight is an intelligence-linked stat, what with the warlord.

Devising a plan to deceive the local villain and trick him into revealing himself? Quite possibly wisdom-inspired. Devise an ambush? I'll take wisdom there, too. Lay a siege? Intelligence-based planning, IMO. Recall that so-and-so the infernal has a long-standing grudge against the dark god your villain is trying to awaken, and enlisting his help to thwart the villain? Totally intelligence.

So, yeah, it's not clear-cut, yet I can come up with plenty of things that I think I rightfully consider intelligence-based that could be described as "clever."