So Int does NOT add to skills

[Imp]

Int being unrelated to skill gain might finally make a non-book-smart - but cunning - rogue not optimizational suicide.

How does one stat "non-book-smart, but cunning"? The stats don't distiguish between those two really. Besides, a (3e) rogue could always use some more Con.

 

[Kordeth]

How does one stat "non-book-smart, but cunning"? The stats don't distiguish between those two really.

Low Int, high Wis.

 

[The Little Raven]

Low Int, high Wis.

I've always viewed Wisdom as "cunning," not Intelligence, since cunning requires you to be observant and intuitive, both traits of Wisdom.

 

[Kordeth]

I've always viewed Wisdom as "cunning," not Intelligence, since cunning requires you to be observant and intuitive, both traits of Wisdom.

Err--yeah, that's what I said. "Not book-smart, but cunning" = low Int, high Wis.

 

[The Little Raven]

Err--yeah, that's what I said. "Not book-smart, but cunning" = low Int, high Wis.

I know. I was supporting what you were saying, and adding in my own anecdotal comments on the subject. I probably should have prefaced my post with "I agree."

 

[Felon]

Sounds like 4e is going to be a system that very much embraces dump-statting and pump-statting.

 

[The Little Raven]

Sounds like 4e is going to be a system that very much embraces dump-statting and pump-statting.

Then it's just like D&D has always been, since at least two stats were usually dump stats for each class in previous editions (such as Intelligence, which wasn't particularly useful for non-spellcasters before 3e's skill points; or Charisma, the most classic dump stat in the game). See, they are going for old-school feel.

 

[Felon]

Then it's just like D&D has always been.

See, if that's intended as a serious remark, then that is kind of a sloppy equivocal argument. 4e is supposed to be an improvement, not an homage to bad design strategies of the past. I didn't much like Cha being a dump stat. I don't want to see the same thing happening to four-out-of-six ability scores for every character.

 

[Stalker0]

See, that just a sloppy equivocal argument. 4e is supposed to be an improvement, not an homage to bad design strategies of the past.

Felon has a point. I completely get what they are doing with the two stats to a defense thing. Definitely allows for some archetypes that haven't been modeled well.

But if int really only adds to a few skills for most classes, then I cry foul. Every stat should do SOMETHING for each class. A wizard still gets hitpoints from con, why shouldn't the rogue get something for being smart? Heck, I want strength to be important enough to a wizard to at LEAST consider it.

But again, we are jumping the gun right now, we haven't seen the whole picture. Int may very well add to something we haven't seen. Or perhaps it factors in to social combat.

 

[The Little Raven]

See, that just a sloppy equivocal argument. 4e is supposed to be an improvement, not an homage to bad design strategies of the past.

That's if you think the idea of dump stats (stats your class doesn't need to get it's job done) is a bad one. I don't. Just like a wizard has never needed to be strong or dextrous or charismatic, and the fighter has never needed to be smart or wise or charismatic. I don't see why that should suddenly change, since the idea that every single stat should be useful for every single character just makes you have to spread your points around (if point buy), thus making you less good at what you should be good at (since your fighter will have less Strength in order to buy up that Intelligence and Charisma).