Removing MAD

[Garthanos]

Really now, this is simply a pairing down of needed stats for classes to open up more options for them so they are not so one-dimensional during character creation.

I was responding to other suggestions about removing ability from the attack roll and basing it entirely on level... which I considered a bit too extreme... your congealing of tertiaries and double primaries is less extreme feeling somehow... but I would rather have more ways of having differing secondaries

I would still like more reasons for a Dexterous + Wizard, perhaps a mage build which emphasized the hands and gestures . as his implement... complex rune patterns scribed in air would be quite cool.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I keep hitting a point in each of these discussions where I'm happy with my decision to remove attack stats entirely.

There's a lot of similar alternatives for this out there. Which one did you ultimately decide worked best for you?

 

[Garthanos]

You still are limiting power selection through initial stat placement. By saying this rogue with high stat X is good with these powers and poor with these because low stat Y you are effectively limiting powers

Totally divorcing them is not something most people would consider reasonable either... there IS a connection.
Economically speaking having other stats have less power does not encourage diverse characters. Tying all capabilities of a class to one attribute kind of makes the class in to a caricature.

At the one end we have one stat to rule them all and in the darkness bind them stripping characters of style and yes realistically one stat can indeed be adapted to many uses (within reason), and at the other end to be as adaptable and capable as you might be to exploit the most synergistic possibilities being good in a broad number of things is better.

Paying for the adaptability to use one attribute with a feat like D&D does whether its Intelligent Blademaster or Finesse Fighter or backgrounds that represent one adapting different attributes towards starting hitpoints I find rather interesting.

Making every attribute useful for every class as much as possible to me is almost a form of idealism, ok yes the renaissance ideal, where as one stat to rule them all is sort of a modern idealism.(insert bit about "winners" changing the ball game to emphasize their own best features)

My opinion, D&D 4e is seriously the coolest version ever. ;-)

One method I had considered long ago was what I thought of as reverse engineering the character. In D&D terms you would choose the characters moves, their class features and skills and from those you would derive their attributes. The guy who took black smithing will have better ability to lift heavy weights than the guy who chose jeweler, but the latter will have some advantages when he tries to draw the runes on the blades and when he tries to pick the lock even if he didn't pick lock smith.

 

[Sadrik]

Tying all capabilities of a class to one attribute kind of makes the class in to a caricature.

Are they not already this way in 4e? I mean the importance of your prime stat is paramount. You cannot have a 14 WIS cleric and be competant like in previous editions. You need maximum power all the time or at least as near so as possible.

This happens because the way the system ties all powers to a single stat. Where as before if you were a wizard you needed a little DEX to make sure your touch attacks succeeded, the cleric needed a little STR to make sure he could swing a weapon properly. Instead we now have a game that is geared towards the bloated uni-stat.

I guess, my thought is if you are going to have that in place by the RAW. Why not use that to your advantage in the design of future products? It is how the game is. So, develop around that trend and enhance it.

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that it is best to simply give each class a single prime stat and have no secondaries or tertiaries or second primaries. What do they accomplish other than forcing players to assign their stats in a certain way. They wind up looking like requirements and characters look cookie cut. I like options not limitations.

Unless the primary stat is somehow weakened, I see no way that this paradigm can shift. Players will always want a 18 or 20 in their primary. It just does not make any sense to do otherwise. Every power is based off of it so why do anything else? Non-gamist types may try to play a wizard with a 14 INT or something and will quickly become frustrated with the system.

So as the game moves forward, the designers should do one of two things. Either embrace what they have, a system that keys nearly everything off of the uni-bloated stat or make a change to the core rules such as moving the attack bonus away from the uni-bloated stat or something similar to weaken the power of the primary stat to encourage more even stat placement.

I think change would be difficult, and besides they are very clearly embracing the enhancement of the uni-bloated stat. As evidenced by the new PHB2 feat that makes all basic attacks based on your uni-bloated stat.

So from a design perspective, a feat that allows the Ranger to use his STR powers with his DEX. And so on down the line. These feats would shore up characters so that they would be free to place their stat points outside of their primary stat anywhere they want. Giving them many options to play a smart Ranger a tough Ranger etc. In addition, a feat that allowed players to assign their defenses as shown here.

The 4e design fiat is any stat = any use. Embraced completely this can really improve the core functionality of the game and open options for players (outside of the core assumption of a uni-bloated primary stat). Why cookie cut characters when not necessary.

 

[keterys]

There's a lot of similar alternatives for this out there. Which one did you ultimately decide worked best for you?

'Instead of basing your attacks on a particular ability bonus, treat your ability bonus as +5 at 1st, +6 at 5th, +7 at 11th, +8 15th, +9 at 21st, +10 at 25th. Weapon and Implement Expertise feats are not allowed.'

Weapon enhancement still gives a bonus to hit, stats still affect damage and specials. I'm still doing a little analysis on whether it imbalances any races doing so, but I suspect it balances more than it unbalances. You never gain more than +1 per level, it's about +2 more than expected, subsumes the expertise feat (which came out after I thought of it and gave the bonuses to the same levels, so eh) but it probably makes spending point buy to get an 18 in a stat entirely too costly. Not sure if that's a bug or feature.

 

[Sadrik]

'Instead of basing your attacks on a particular ability bonus, treat your ability bonus as +5 at 1st, +6 at 5th, +7 at 11th, +8 15th, +9 at 21st, +10 at 25th. Weapon and Implement Expertise feats are not allowed.'

Weapon enhancement still gives a bonus to hit, stats still affect damage and specials. I'm still doing a little analysis on whether it imbalances any races doing so, but I suspect it balances more than it unbalances. You never gain more than +1 per level, it's about +2 more than expected, subsumes the expertise feat (which came out after I thought of it and gave the bonuses to the same levels, so eh) but it probably makes spending point buy to get an 18 in a stat entirely too costly. Not sure if that's a bug or feature.

The more I think about it the more I like this house rule. It really mitigates the power of the uni-stat and allows for more varied stat placement. This is a good thing. By the RAW though I think they should really embrace the uni-stat because it will make the game overall better with more options for players.

 

[Garthanos]

The more I think about it the more I like this house rule. It really mitigates the power of the uni-stat and allows for more varied stat placement. This is a good thing. By the RAW though I think they should really embrace the uni-stat because it will make the game overall better with more options for players.

Yeah, as much as I resist I am buying in to it as well. It seems likely without something dramatic my subtle lets make dex more useful for mages tricks just wont have the impact I would like.

For as RAW, I did say I kind of like the feat for the swordmages being able to use there uni-stat for mundane sword-play well the idea that adapting your best abilities to the situation at hand is a heroic winner thing to do so just making it there for all the pc's has some interest too. But I think the fact that you are paying for that uni-stat usability is significant too... I am able to use it because of something special, which is rather cool in itself. Do all Swordmages choose Intelligent blademaster?