Trimming the Fat: Three Ability Scores

[FadedC]

OK, perhaps this thread is not for you.

Well I gave a logical analysis of the state of the stats system in 4e as opposed to what they previously were. If your unwilling to discuss any opinion that might not 100% agree with yours then perhaps this thread is no longer for you.

 

[Felon]

Well I gave a logical analysis of the state of the stats system in 4e as opposed to what they previously were. If your unwilling to discuss any opinion that might not 100% agree with yours then perhaps this thread is no longer for you.

I'm willing to discuss a lot, but I would rather the thread scroll off the page than just have to entertain everyone who has a yen to deconstruct. I love to argue, I enjoy debate, but for this thread I'd just like to move forward with the practical considerations rather than have to be put on the defense from square one, which is what I had expected.

But to provide a more detailed reply to your previous post, I think the emphasis on boosted hit points does diminish the value of Con. I do think that pumping both Dex and Int will be a self-defeating investment.

 

[FadedC]

But to provide a more detailed reply to your previous post, I think the emphasis on boosted hit points does diminish the value of Con. I do think that high Dex and high Int will be a self-defeating investment.

I agree on both of those points. However I think con was so incredibly important in 3e that you can reduce it's value and still have it be an important stat (the primary use of con in 4e is not to increase hp but to increase your # of healing surges which are VERY important). As I said the dex/int tradeoff is the only stat decision that might make people assign stats significantly differently then before (assuming no additional info).

 

[small pumpkin man]

I share your distaste, but disagree with your conclusion. I think the system needs to provide an additional benefit to being both Strong and Healthy, both Smart and Quick or both Wise and Charming. My inclination is to think that there should be feats and class abilities that either require or benefit from high score in both abilities within a pair.

For example, a Lightning Reflexes feat might add extra if you have bonuses in Int and Dex. Alternatively, there could be an exploit that uses Str for damage and Con for the secondary benefit. Or, an Cha-based spell with a minimum Wis requirement. In some respect this would be like MtG - spreading over multiple abilities (or colors) is disadvantageous because you lose focus, but it can also certain combinations (or multi-color cards) that are otherwise unusuable.

(And, because someone else will say it if I don't: powers or feats based on multiple attributes are a more elegant solution than off-attribute minimum requirements.)

I would, admittedly, be completely behind something like this. I'm still very much hoping for that rogue feat which gives int bonus to trained skills.

 

[Felon]

I share the OP's distaste for the way they're handling attributes in 4e. Not only does it completely dispense with any sense of believability and verisimilitude, it encourages attribute dumping and min-maxing.

Assuming our suspicions turn out to be correct, I'm wondering if the emphasis on dump-stating was a design objective or just the side effect of some other goal?

What was the discussion that ultimately led someone to say "why don't we have Int-based Reflex saves"?

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what I can do about it. It's probably something that is so thoroughly ingrained in the system that it can't be house-ruled without a major overhaul (and editing every single monster, NPC, etc in the books).

Well, I considered that issue. My resolution is to forget the NPC's and monsters. Let them work the way they work. The three ability scores are basically for PC's.

 

[KidSnide]

Well, I agree with you as to the system that I'd like to have, but what I'm trying to now is deal with the reality of the hand that we're being dealt.

To be completely fair, we don't know what hand we're being dealt. It is quite possible that the system does have some benefit to Int+Dex, etc... and we just haven't seen it yet. It is not so original an idea -- it stands to reason that the developers at least considered it.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's entirely possible this is to allow for easier multiclassing, or to allow for your smart, heavily-armored warrior who doesn't need no stinking dexterity.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Just the naming doesn't sound quite right to me.
Brawn I like, but to me covers only STR not CON (fitness/toughness etc)
Technique to me is a trained thing, I quite like swiftness (of body and mind). Still not perfect!
Instinct is, to me, closer to WIS and the mentally strong part of CHA but not charming part of CHA (I always think that DnD has a real problem over wisdom being both perception and mental strength-3E will bonus- and CHA being charm and mental strength-3E sorcery type powers, but, as always, I digress).
I am afraid I can't think of anything better to my taste than your names


However, it would still work in 4E, having 3 ability scores, just replace every score listed with your new one. Really simple. It would work in any edition. My first home built RPG had just 3 stats- STR NIMbleness MENtal- but that is a slightly dif take on a 3 stat system. You might have guessed it was written when I was about 12 so my munchkiness didn't need no social interaction ability- MENtal was for magic LOL. I personally don't like 3 in DND (I want 7 ability scores STR, CON, DEX, INT, INDomitability, PERception, CHArm but I am digressing again ) but there is no reason for it not to work if you are happy with such broad concepts.

 

[fafhrd]

What is this a reference to?

It was a bad joke in reference to the thread title...and probably a threadcrap. Sorry. I'm in withdrawals and need my 4e fix. Makes me jittery. Hope ya understand.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

OK, perhaps this thread is not for you.

If you just want people to talk about your hypothetical ruleset without debating its relevance to 4e, the house-rule forum is thaddaway: http://www.enworld.org/forumdisplay.php?f=45

Personally, i think it's INTENDED that there are some "dump" stats. It's not a bad thing to have a dumb fighter, or a frail wizard, or an ugly ranger. It helps differentiate characters in the party a bit. In my mind, all they really need to avoid is having any stat be useless for MOST classes, so you end up with 3e-like parties where everybody (except maybe the sorcerer) is freakishly ugly.