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

[Merlin the Tuna]

*#$%! Abilities that deal with Str, Int AND Cha?

I thought they were getting rid of Multi-Ability Dependent classes. Consider this one of the few things that actually angers me about 4e.

Why would they do that? It makes more sense to have everybody want a piece of different pies than to have a bunch of one-dimensional classes.

And I wouldn't be that concerned that the Fighter doesn't draw from Int; with that out of the way, I'm hoping he gets a bit out of Wis, which would have the nice secondary effect of making his Will save a little less terrible.

 

[Rechan]

Why would they do that? It makes more sense to have everybody want a piece of different pies than to have a bunch of one-dimensional classes.

Have you ever tried to play a Monk with 28 Point Buy?

It's a real PITA with classes like Paladin and Monk where you need good stats in 3-4 abilities.

Whereas a wizard can simply lean on his high Int or a rogue on his high Dex; all of their class abilities are keyed into that one ability.

 

[hong]

Have you ever tried to play a Monk with 28 Point Buy?

It's a real PITA with classes like Paladin and Monk where you need good stats in 3-4 abilities.

Whereas a wizard can simply lean on his high Int or a rogue on his high Dex; all of their class abilities are keyed into that one ability.

It's all relative. If a wizard needs Int, Cha and Con (for example) to do wizarding, then he's in the same boat as everyone else and the problem goes away.

 

[mhensley]

The only thing that concerns me about this is the reasoning and fluff for how and why a warlord can heal people.

 

[Rechan]

No, I think that rather they are going in the opposite direction; getting rid of single-ability dependent classes.. At least I hope so. If all classes are MAD, then MAD is no longer a problem for an individual class... And it creates a decision for the player; "do I emphasise on my tactical know-how (int), my influencial leadership (cha) or my raw fighting power (str), rather than just (as in 3.5) "I'm a wizard so I have int... only"

Making MAD a problem for everyone is like saying "Instead of you getting a disease, EVERYONE gets one!"

MAD is BAD. I'd rather select my character's focus by what feats and powers they choose.

 

[Rechan]

It's all relative. If a wizard needs Int, Cha and Con (for example) to do wizarding, then he's in the same boat as everyone else and the problem goes away.

The problem doesn't go away, it just means EVERYONE has the headache and their character is subpar.

 

[hong]

Making MAD a problem for everyone is like saying "Instead of you getting a disease, EVERYONE gets one!"

MAD is BAD. I'd rather select my character's focus by what feats and powers they choose.

How is that different to selecting your character's focus by what abilities you max out?

 

[hong]

The problem doesn't go away, it just means EVERYONE has the headache and their character is subpar.

Subpar relative to what?

 

[Rechan]

How is that different to selecting your character's focus by what abilities you max out?

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

 

[Rechan]

Subpar relative to what?

Just subpar. Ineffective. Not as useful as it could be.