D&D 4E Rich Baker on his 4e Warlord

[Remathilis]

From this I can only conclude that Rechan does not, in fact, know what "subpar" means.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Rechan]

There's no reason to believe that a character with lots of 12s won't have access to their abilities or their abilities won't function. In fact, it's a rare situation in 3E where a class is crippled because someone "only" has a 12. And that's a problem with that class design, not with the use of multiple stats.

I will try to say this with no hyperbole.

My fear is that, like in 3e, characters who have low ability scores, except for one or two, is not going to be able to benefit too much from class abilities that depend on high scores in those abilities for usefulness.

I do not know how to elaborate on this when everyone keeps chiming in with "compared to what in 4e?"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My fear is that, like in 3e, characters who have low ability scores, except for one or two, is not going to be able to benefit too much from class abilities that depend on high scores in those abilities for usefulness.

Why do you keep assuming that abilities will "require" high stats to be useful? Yes, they'll almost certainly be better with higher scores, but there are few precursors in 3E that seem to line up with your fears.

Yeah -- for example, in 3E -- a level 5 wizard with a 19 Intelligence is going to be a better wizard than one with a 13 Intelligence. But both will be able to cast level 3 spells, and stuff that gets fireballed by them is just as dead.

And holy crap, stop calling 12 a low score. You're turning me into a big cranky 3d6-rolling grognard every time you do that. An 8 is a low stat. A 7 is a low stat. A 12 is a decent stat.

 

[Irda Ranger]

With weak abilities, you're missing out on aspects of your class you should be benefiting from.

Wrong. What you have instead is that every class has multiple specialties (because they all have 3-4 important stats), so "I'm a Dex Fighter" and "I'm a Con/Chr Wizard" etc.

You're not sub-par. You all get to choose between being a specialist or having 14's in your three main stats and being a generalist.

And what's more, not Wizards are the same now.

That would be pretty cool, if it's true.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Fine, Rechan, your hatred of characters who, to be as competent as possible, need to have more than one good ability score is noted. You've admitted it's completely emotional and irrational.

So, is there any reason why we should actually continue to talk to you about this?

I didn't think so.

(Look, every class in Third Edition "suffers" from MAD. Fighters do their job best with a high Strength and a high Constitution, but a low Wisdom score means they're inevitably going to be mind-controlled out of the fight or even turned against their allies - so to be most effective they need a decent Wisdom score as well. Likewise, wizards' spells depend only on their Intelligence score, but they have to put themselves in danger so to be most effective they need a high Constitution and Dexterity as well.

In fact, there's really no kind of character which can afford to focus on one or two ability scores to the detriment of all others in any real D&D campaign.)

 

[hong]

Indeed, I think the best thing 4E could do in this regard is reduce the impact that high stats have on effectiveness. So going from 12 -> 16 is a big increase in power, but 16 -> 20 is a much smaller increase. You could still play a 20 Int one-stat monkey if you wanted, but it wouldn't have a disproportionate effect on your power (and might, in fact, end up gimping you compared to someone with 16 Int, Wis and Cha).

Ways to do this:
- Change the way stats impact save DCs (or their 4E equivalent)
- Change the way Str affects attack rolls, Dex affects AC, and Con affects hp
- Remove feats with high-stat prereqs

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Not cool. If the multiclassing is so perfect, it shouldn't matter which way you do it.

Or, there are two different effects you can get, and he had a hard time deciding which to go with.

 

[Kobu]

Or, there are two different effects you can get, and he had a hard time deciding which to go with.

Possibly. He could have written it more clearly if he meant that.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

THis is one of those times that you shouldn't be taken seriously, isn't it? Because you're clearly not trying to make a point here.

I think this is actually one of those rare times when hong is actually making sense.

 

[Rechan]

3.5 assumes a 25 point buy as default (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) I've never seen anyone play the game with stats that low.

I'll assume 4e will be as merciful and make classes assuming relatively the same amount of points (give or take), so that everyone I'll see play has better stats the the default assumption.

Never underestimate the power of DMs to be stingy and limit character options.

I'm leery if the system is built with the assumption you'll have three sixteens and, more DMs look at you like a munchkin if you have a sixteen and a fourteen.

Why do you think "some abilities won't function without high scores," though? A fighter's primary ability now (hittin' stuff so it falls down dead) functions off of Strength, but without a high Strength, a fighter can still hit stuff and it still will fall down dead, although said fighter might have to hit it an extra time or two.

Okay. Let's look at the Paladin. The paladin is built as a melee class, with a smite attack. Strength effects attacking/damage. Being in melee, you're going to benefit from Con. Charisma effects saves and Turning. Wisdom effects Spellcasting. He has 2 skill points, most of which benefit from a high Cha or a high Wis.

Let's give these stats: 12 12 14 15 10 11

Paladin A: Str 15 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 11 Wis 12 Cha 12

Paladin B: Str 12 Dex 12 Con 11 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 15

Paladin C: Str 14 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 11 Wis 10 Cha 15

Paladin A can kick butt, but he's really just a Warrior with some nice saves; he's not really getting much out of most class abilities. His skills, spellcasting, turning, everything isn't going to go far.

Paladin B can reap his class abilities; from Divine Grace, Spellcasting, Turning And those skills of his that, mostly, depend upon Cha or Wis. Except that he's not going to be as useful in the party against most foes - he can resist their save-forcing attacks, but he's not going to be doing a lot of butt kicking; he's more like a subpar cleric with a higher BAB and 1 more HP per HD.

Paladin C can kick a little but (but not much) and his Cha based skills and abilities are actually useful. But he's spread pretty thin.

IMHO all three of these paladins suck. Because they have some abilities that are just sitting there not getting utilized because of their poor stats.

If Smiter Paladin can say "Hey, I don't really want Divine Grace since it's sitting there doing nothing, can I do something with my mount instead", that's fine. But I havn't seen that's the case.