So Int does NOT add to skills

[AZRogue]

The way Skills work, I just don't see this as a big deal anymore. There are no Ranks to worry about. I don't think it will impact things that much one way or the other. It will still be important depending on what Skills you want to be best at.

 

[Stalker0]

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).

The reason dump stats are bad is because it forces a narrow set of archetypes. For example, let's say I want to play a smart fighter in 4e. From what we know I could do this, and I would have a good reflex defense. But I would have a low init, a low ranged attack (and damage, dex adds to both for ranged weapons), and miss out of bonus to skills like acrobatics that will likely be more useful to a fighter than arcana.

So while I can play a smart fighter, overall I'm better served putting my points into dex. So the mechanics are hindering me from playing the archetype I want to play.

No one is saying int should be the fighter's prime stat, and no is saying int should be so important that fighter's feel gimped if they don't have int. But if I want to play a strong wizard or a smart fighter, there should be some incentive in the rules to do that.

 

[The Little Raven]

The reason dump stats are bad is because it forces a narrow set of archetypes.

Classes are narrow archetypes. By making them broader, you eliminate the purpose they serve: to provide a narrow archetype package.

For example, let's say I want to play a smart fighter in 4e. From what we know I could do this, and I would have a good reflex defense. But I would have a low init, a low ranged attack (and damage, dex adds to both for ranged weapons), and miss out of bonus to skills like acrobatics that will likely be more useful to a fighter than arcana.

Well, since the fighter is not the ranged attack class, I don't see why bringing up ranged weapons is useful, since that archetype is covered by the ranger (and much better). And this still doesn't address the fact that making all six ability scores necessary will reduce the average score for each of them, since you'll be spending points in all of them. Your fighter will be less effective at his job because he sacrificed a high Strength to get a moderate Charisma score.

So while I can play a smart fighter, overall I'm better served putting my points into dex. So the mechanics are hindering me from playing the archetype I want to play.

And I can play a strong wizard, but I'm better served by putting my points into useful stats, since none of my class abilities rely on Strength. Changing the archetypes that classes cover so you can make any kind of character with any class removes the need for classes, since what you'd want in that situation is a non-class system.

No one is saying int should be the fighter's prime stat, and no is saying int should be so important that fighter's feel gimped if they don't have int. But if I want to play a strong wizard or a smart fighter, there should be some incentive in the rules to do that.

And there are, to some extent (gotta limitations in a class-based system, since classes, by definition, are a limitation). A high Intelligence can mean a higher Reflex save, which means a higher AC (potentially even more, since Intelligence might not be affected by armor, like Dexterity is by Max Dex Bonus and such), so there's a bonus to high Intelligence over Dexterity (if you want to avoid damage more, rather than getting higher Initiative). A high Strength benefits the wizard in absolutely no way in relation to his role. Sure, his dagger attack will get better... but that's not what he's about.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Sometimes, Mourn, you really do talk sense (except when it comes to spiked chains )

The weird thing is that people see dump stats as OK for (traditional, <4E) casters but not for martial classes. Nobody bats an eyelid 'cos STR is rubbish and a dump stat for a Wiz. (But what if I want to play a Wiz with low INT and high STR?) Same as saying that having no real mechanical use for INT for a Fighter is a bad thing IMO.
However I am sure (and I know it is cold comfort) that those who want a lightly armoured damage absorber- defender- (oxymoron?) will be catered to in splat books and fan made classes

 

[The Little Raven]

Sometimes, Mourn, you really do talk sense

I know. Sometimes I even surprise myself because I read my post and it makes sense to me, too.

(except when it comes to spiked chains )

My therapist says everything I tell her about spiked chains is sensible...

 

[Bandreus]

Well, all of this becomes pretty clear when you look at the design philosophy under the new rules.

First, having the new skill system, with fewer and broader skills, an high int char (taking into account his class and feat selection) could pretty easily end up beign quite uber at all of the skills.

Not sure if anyone has posted anything about skills yet. Looks like:


Str: Athletics*
Con: Endurance
Dex: Acrobatics*, Stealth*, Thievery
Int: Arcana, History, Religion, Nature
Wis: Heal, Insight, Perception, Dungeoneering
Cha: Bluff, Diplomacy, Streetwise, Intimidate

* armour check penalty applies (-2 for medium, -4 for heavy)


Rangers and rogues get 6 trained skills, others get 4 (at least some classes have some preselected).


Halflings get +2 Acrobatics
Eladrin get +2 History (?)
Half-elves get +2 Insight
Rangers get +1 Nature (?)

We know elves get +2 Nature, +2 Perception as well. Seems odd there aren't more racial skill bonuses?


Skill Training feat gives +2 to a skill

So Str and Con wont be much usefall for many skills. Dex is for the stealthy ones. Int will boost your knowledge skills. Wis is really usefull, it effects your healing capabilities (surges anybody?), passive insight/perception, gives you some help while in dungeons and dealing with traps (dungeoneering). Cha is the social encounter skill, not int, clearly (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate).

Oh, and having different skills appling their modifiers to different things (attack rolls, damage, AC, and so on) is something for the sake of flexibility.
Even in previous editions, classes had their supposed role in the encounter. They basicly made this a stronger point. Every class will be defined by different builds. The snake attack article just points it out.
You can go for a Dex/Str rogue (Brawny Rogue) or a Dex/Cha one (Trickster Rogue). Also you can choose different build-oriented tactics for your rouge character

Rogue Tactics
Rogues operate in a variety of ways. Some rogues use their natural charm and cunning trickery to deceive foes. Others rely on brute strength to overcome their enemies.

Choose one of the following options.

Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma modifier against opportunity attacks.
Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to your Strength modifier.

The choice you make also provides bonuses to certain rogue powers. Individual powers detail the effects (if any) your Rogue Tactics selection has on them.

And similar things will appen for every other class. Suppose you have a Warlord Str/Int build. Would his AC be so low that melee is too dangerous for him? Well, you should see the point in the ability score modifiers coupling thing.

By the way, why wouldn't you want a smart fighter, or a smart rogue? you can go for it, even if your ability scores won't perfectly fit your chosen build. Well, maybe you want to multiclass with some wizard training feat anyway, so a good Int will make your spells more usefull.

 

[jtrowell]

[..]
By the way, why wouldn't you want a smart fighter, or a smart rogue? you can go for it, even if your ability scores won't perfectly fit your chosen build. Well, maybe you want to multiclass with some wizard training feat anyway, so a good Int will make your spells more usefull.

Or, to keep the martial theme, you take the warlord training feat instead, as warlords have been said to have some uses for INT.

Hell, you could as well play a warlord if you're into playinga smart fighter. (and then maybe invest in some fighter training if you really want your shield bash power or the like)

 

[MerricB]

One of the joys of the new system is that having skills is no longer hostage to a high Intelligence score.

In the first 3e campaign I ran (started in 2000!), one of the players had a cleric with a 7 Intelligence. The problem with that was that he wasn't competent in some key areas of his class that he should have been good at! Things like Diplomacy, Knowledge (Religion), Spellcraft and so forth. With only 1 skill point/level, they *had* to go into Concentration. And, I'm sorry... shouldn't a cleric know something about Religion and the gods? Apparently not, according to 3e.

Intelligence is now reduced to helping the things it *should* be good at: Intelligence-related skills. Skillful doesn't imply high intelligence. After all, if what you can do physically (like climbing & jumping) is limited by your Intelligence score, why aren't your fighter or thief class abilities limited as well?

Cheers!

 

[Bandreus]

well, keep in mind that ability score modifier still aplie, so if you have a low Int score (or whathever other score) the paired skills will suffer for a negative modifier, although it probably wont mean having less trained skills. but i guess we'll just wait for more info on the subject

 

[MerricB]

well, keep in mind that ability score modifier still aplie, so if you have a low Int score (or whathever other score) the paired skills will suffer for a negative modifier, although it probably wont mean having less trained skills. but i guess we'll just wait for more info on the subject

Well, yes... if you have a low intelligence, the skills that depend on intelligence will suffer. Climbing, otoh, won't.

Cheers!