Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 4932136" data-attributes="member: 14506">Okay we have seen it and we all know what it is. In 4e, the stats are coupled together into three pairs and you only take the best one for your defense. This means you only need one high one, the other coupled stat can be dumped. You make your INT low because your DEX gives you everything and why double up your stat resources in both areas. This causes dumb or quick characters, tough or strong characters, and wise or personable characters.So what the designers did is give three couples that are very similar. STR and CON make sense being coupled together because they could possibly make sense for the Fortitude defense, WIS and CHA because they make sense for Will and DEX and INT too.The problem arises when the game mechanics don't conform to the expectations. Generally you think of strong or smart characters and you think of tough or quick and you even think of the wise recluse vs. the personable leader. Since the expectations are often those, would it not make sense to couple them in that way? This would form a more natural mechanical polarity to enforce those stereotypes- the mechanical fact that people dump one in the pair to boost the other.The answer here is simple, couple the stats in a different way. One that generates the traditional stereotypes (smart or strong, tough or fast, and wise or personable). So you arrive here:STR or INT CON or DEXWIS or CHANow you have to decide which pair is tied to what defense. WIS and CHA clearly still form the Will defense. The other two are more difficult, I would say CON and DEX is Fortitude and STR and INT is Reflexes. I would also continue AC as DEX and INT so you wind up with this:AC = DEX or INTReflexes = STR or INTFortitude = CON or DEXWill = WIS or CHASo this is simply another approach, it is not necessarily better, it allows you to follow the more stereotypical placements of stats at the expense of having the defenses look a little bit more awkward than their standard formation. Note that the standard formation is not that realistic either...</blockquote>

Verification