Will CON become a dump stat?

[UngeheuerLich]

What are you trying to say here? In 3.5 you could play a low Int, Con, Dex, or Wis character. Of course you'd have penalties to deal with--your dumb character would have fewer skill points, your low Con character would be mroe frail, your low Dex character would be slow and clumsy, and your low Wis character would be susceptable to charms and illusions--but that's all exactly what one should expect from having those weaknesses. What would be preferrable? You have a low ability score, but it's not actually limiting in any in any way? It's just a low number on your character sheet?

If you want to play character with a peg leg, but you don't actually want it to impact your agility, then go ahead and have the peg leg, but don't lowball your Dex.

peg leg is ok, but seriously crippling is not.

In ADnD the no bonus/malus range was 8-14. You could affort playing a clumsy character. You notice it. But you are not unplayable.

A character with 6 con in D&D 3.x is unplayable in the sense of: cought in a fireball = dead sense. Thats too much. Also Int of 8 means not beeing able to cover half of your obligatory skills. (paladin = no ride, diplomacy, concentration etc) And with the reliance of str, con, wis and char, a point buy (which i don´t use) paladin is outright useless...

As i said, i hope a character who dumbs a stat on purpose will have a hard time doing some things... but he must be playable.

2 stats feeding into one defense ignoring the other? A good solution... i don´t know. I know systems where two stats feed into one defense (both) but with armor beeing DR instead of AC. If you let feed two stats int one defense, you need to counterbalance this by using two stats for attacks, or you have to use the average of both stats for defenses. Or the base defense is lower than 10. Some solutions to think about. Is it desireable? I don´t want to judge before we see the real affect of different stats. I bet those who have actually seen and tested the rules know why it is done the way it is represented.

And remember: Peg leg != both legs and arms cut off.

 

[Felon]

In ADnD the no bonus/malus range was 8-14. You could affort playing a clumsy character. You notice it. But you are not unplayable.

This part I don't understand. In AD&D, where a score of 8-14 meant no bonus or penalty, how did anyone ever notice it? It didn't affect anything. You'd basically have to actively explain to people that your character was clumsy and explain the low number on your character sheet, but it would never actually impact anything otherwise.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

you could go down to 6 or seven... and you are only 1 or two points worse than the average character...

also skill checks in ADnD raw was roll 20 under your current value. between 14 and 8 the difference was huge. but in combat you could still survive.

edit: and to justify this argumentation: skills will be affected by your stat in 4e. And supposedly more things we don´t know about.

 

[Cadfan]

So, here's my bottom line scenario. We got two dwarves, Abel and Baker. Dwarf Abel buys 14 Str & 16 Con, while Dwarf Baker buys 8 Str & 20 Con. They both use axes. If Baker is able to build his dwarf so that he can shill Con for all of his axe attack and damage rolls, then what benefit is he missing out on that Abel gets for investing in Str?

That's getting a bit too specific.

1. If its really possible to use Con for all ax attack and damage rolls, then presumably Abel wouldn't choose to build an ax wielder in that fashion. If Con really is the ax wielder stat, and strength is, say, the greatsword wielder stat, then asking what happens when you stat up a greatsword wielder and give him an ax is beside the point. You're not supposed to do that anymore than you're supposed to stat up a feeble minded barbarian and then start him as a wizard.

2. That's too specific in the sense that we don't actually know you can do that with an ax. We have some places we know how things work, and can reasonably discuss them, but that's not one of them.

3. For the sake of discussion, assuming that the ability to use Con for ax work functions like using Cha for paladin powers or Dex for rogue powers, then the higher strength ax wielder would have better attacks of opportunity, charges, and other non-power based attacks. He would also be eligible for non weapon specific powers such as Cleave, which (we think) function off of one's strength score.

I think 4e has dump stats. I think which stat is a dump stat varies a LOT by class. I definitely think that rumors of Con's demise are highly exaggerated. I think that feats could make it possible for stats to be less dumpable, and I hope that multiclassing is fun and easy and gives yet another reason for not dumping stats. Unfortunately, I don't know details on any of this. I kind of wish that there were no dump stats at all, but with what we've got, it seems sort of like the profusion of martial classes has fixed this for me. That is,

Q: What do you call a high Intelligence Fighter in 4e?
A: Warlord.

See what I mean? When I get the urge to play a smart guy in armor with a big sword, I'll just reach for the "smart guy in armor with a big sword" class, and do alright.

 

[Remathilis]

True Story

rogue.
Str: 13
Dex: 18
Con: 14
Int: 16
Wis: 10
Cha: 14

Focus on Wis and Cha.

I wanted my rogue to have a social, witty personality. I had ranks in bluff and diplomacy. I played up the swashbuckler/rake scenario.

At first level, this was fine. His will save was +0, but he had a +6 to bluff and diplomacy. He was still a typical rogue though, so all his stat-bumps would go to Dex...

Flash-Forward 20 levels.

My rogue has a Will save of +6 and a bluff skill of +16 or so. Sure, he's witty and charming, but more often than not he's charmed more often than charming. So my charming rogue spends most of his higher-level experience charmed, dominated, held, asleep, or any other manner of "my PC isn't playable" moments.

That 14 cha is really looking good now, eh? I could've gotten away with an 8 (or 10) and sunk a few more skill points into bluff and diplomacy, then bumped my wis to 14 and had a +2 better to will saves.

Some charming rogue, eh?

However, in 4e my charming rogue gets to use his cha mod to his will defense. So I can safely have my 10 wis and better cha without becoming the laughing joke of the will-save crowd.

I have more options without relying on feats (Force of Personality, add cha to will saves, Comp Adv) or weird loopholes (huh. Master Inquisitive gives a +2 to will at 1st level. Sign me up).

(Oh, initially the PC had a 13 int a slightly better str/con. 9 sp/level convinced the DM to allow my to change that. Now my rogue doesn't have to be smarter than most low-level wizards to get his skill selection up).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

True Story

rogue.
Str: 13
Dex: 18
Con: 14
Int: 16
Wis: 10
Cha: 14

Focus on Wis and Cha.

I wanted my rogue to have a social, witty personality. I had ranks in bluff and diplomacy. I played up the swashbuckler/rake scenario.

At first level, this was fine. His will save was +0, but he had a +6 to bluff and diplomacy. He was still a typical rogue though, so all his stat-bumps would go to Dex...

Flash-Forward 20 levels.

My rogue has a Will save of +6 and a bluff skill of +16 or so. Sure, he's witty and charming, but more often than not he's charmed more often than charming. So my charming rogue spends most of his higher-level experience charmed, dominated, held, asleep, or any other manner of "my PC isn't playable" moments.

That 14 cha is really looking good now, eh? I could've gotten away with an 8 (or 10) and sunk a few more skill points into bluff and diplomacy, then bumped my wis to 14 and had a +2 better to will saves.

Some charming rogue, eh?

However, in 4e my charming rogue gets to use his cha mod to his will defense. So I can safely have my 10 wis and better cha without becoming the laughing joke of the will-save crowd.

I have more options without relying on feats (Force of Personality, add cha to will saves, Comp Adv) or weird loopholes (huh. Master Inquisitive gives a +2 to will at 1st level. Sign me up).

(Oh, initially the PC had a 13 int a slightly better str/con. 9 sp/level convinced the DM to allow my to change that. Now my rogue doesn't have to be smarter than most low-level wizards to get his skill selection up).

this.

My gnome could compensate it a bit by having a good will progression and a feat. 4e will be better in that regard.

Only remark: that charisma bonus of +2 helps you on your opposed charisma check to resist attacking your friend when you are already charmed...^^

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

this.

My gnome could compensate it a bit by having a good will progression and a feat. 4e will be better in that regard.

Only remark: that charisma bonus of +2 helps you on your opposed charisma check to resist attacking your friend when you are already charmed...^^

You could even extend this to fighters with a low Con. Maybe I'm playing an old veteran soldier. He's still smart and tough as nails, but he gets tired faster than he did when he was 20.

If he was a 3e fighter and I gave him a low Con score, he'd be useless for his role. In 4e, I can give him a lower Con and he'll just need to rest more often; not ideal for a fighter, but not a game-breaker.

Same with a low-Wis or low-Dex character. A wizard can be clumsy without being barbecue, and a gnome can be foolish/hasty without getting mind-controlled every ten seconds.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

good examples....

of course the wizard could have been given some kind of int armor ritual... but if thats more elegant then allowing int to compensate directly for a low dex value... i for myself are a bit clumsy in some things... but my aim with a bow and reflexes are fine... knowing where the next blow will go is often better than just reacting when you notice the blow... a combination of both is best of course, but game balance has precedence...

 

[WalterKovacs]

This part I don't understand. In AD&D, where a score of 8-14 meant no bonus or penalty, how did anyone ever notice it? It didn't affect anything. You'd basically have to actively explain to people that your character was clumsy and explain the low number on your character sheet, but it would never actually impact anything otherwise.

My Fighter/Rogue had an intelligent sword. It didn't want to fight, but I could roll under my wisdom to make it work, in which case it was a +5 longsword, if i failed, it flew out of my hands.

My 8 Wisdom was RADICALLY different than a 14 would have been with "no bonus or penalty".

 

[Vaeron]

Your MU/wizard never had use for anything but Int, Dex, & Con. Now he'll just want Int and Con.

I agree, but I think it's sensible.

A big part of Dex was the fact that wizards ran out of spells so easy. Then they had to have a good dexterity score in order to hit anything with their thrown dagger/crossbow/what have you. Allowing them to use "cleverness" as a means of dodging attacks, and the ability to use spells over again like an actual wizard, does kind of negate the need for a high dexterity score. Can we name very many nimble wizards? How nimble was Gandalf? Dumbledore? Merlin? Now that wizards do more damage with a reusable magic missile than with a spare crossbow, there's absolutely no need for Dex. It was a stat that, really, didn't make a lot of sense for a wizard to have to train in the first place.