PDA

View Full Version : [4E]Intelligence or Dexterity bonus to AC.



Mordokai
2010-02-09, 10:53 AM
We know that 4E changed few things from 3.5, perhaps the most obvious being that you can now apply the bigger of your DEX or INT modifier to AC, as long as you're wearing light armor or no armor. Ok, it is debatable which change is most prominent, but for the sake of the argument itself, lets presume this is the one.

I won't go into the details why this has always bothered me. I've learned to accept it, like it or not. My question is... why stop there?

Allow me to explain. The reason behind this rule is, as far as I know and have been explained (by my group), that you can apply either of those two bonuses because you're either nimble enough and can dodge blows or you can presume where the blow will land and dodge this way. It strikes me as stupid explanation, but there you have it.

But if that is so... why not simply allow you to take your highest ability score and apply the bonus to AC? If you're smart enough that you can calculate where that sword will be in the next two seconds (which is basically what the above explanation says), surely you can use your great insight and presume what the enemy will do, based on what he did so far. Bam, and we have WIS bonus to AC.

Charisma? Surely you wouldn't want to hurt someone as pretty as me? Constitution? Natural armor! Strength? My, my, what big muscles you have! Basically, another version of natural armor.

Before anybody says it... I am aware of possibility that certain sorcerer builds get that enables them to substitute STR for DEX or INT. I am aware of the same class feature that wardens get and enables them to apply CON modifier to AC. And I am aware of Hide Armor Expertise for barbarians as well. But those are not what I'm looking for. They are feats or class features. If you don't have either of those avaible, there's pretty much nothing you can do.

So can somebody explain what prohibits me from using my highest ability score bonus to AC? Other than because WotC said so. Personally, I'd much sooner allow somebody to apply WIS or CHA bonus to AC instead of INT. CON too. STR is debatable, but as far as I'm concerned, no more than INT.

I will say it right away, I do not like this rule. That is, that you can now apply INT bonus to AC as well. But this is something that has been bothering me for some time now. And I'm just curious to see if somebody else has came to the same idea. Or what other peoples think of it.

Choco
2010-02-09, 10:55 AM
They did int or dex because those are the 2 stats now associated with your reflex save. Simple as that really.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-09, 11:00 AM
I won't go into the details why this has always bothered me. I've learned to accept it, like it or not. My question is... why stop there?
The baseline is that whenever something is based on an ability score, then for the cost of a feat or a class feature, you can instead base it on a different ability score. This has been the case since the latter years of 3.5, and has been carried over to 4E design.

It's a balance thing. Whether it matches verisimilitude isn't really relevant.

Yakk
2010-02-09, 11:11 AM
There is the reflex thing.

In addition, the classes that are encouraged to have a high int/dex are the ones that wear light armor traditionally in PHB1. In PHB2, classes that wear light armor typically get a secondary-stat-to-AC as a class feature (but note: not primary) as a build feature.

In addition, this provides mechanical differentiation between, say, the str/cha warlord and the str/int warlord. The first is going to be wearing heavy armor, while the second can go with hide if they so choose.

Note that your highest ability score is typically 2 to 6 points higher than the one you are applying to AC. So by using your highest ability score, you are gaining 1 to 3 points of AC, which is enough to move your AC from "acceptable" to "top-tier".

Defenders generally get top-tier AC -- if they are using a 1 handed weapon, they get 5+top stat AC (roughly), be it from heavy armor and shield, or from hide armor and high-stat-to-AC.

Wizards start out about 4-5 AC under top-tier, because they lack leather and hide and shield proficiencies. Staff wizards are 4 under, while non-staff wizards are 5 under. They can proceed to spend lots of feats to catch up.

Warlocks, who have int/dex as a secondary stat, start out with leather -- which means their AC is similar to wizards to start with!

You'll see this elsewhere -- the armor the class has and what stats it can add to AC are part of the expected defence ability of the class. If they proceed to sink lots of feats into it, they get about 1-2 AC per feat they sink, until they reach the point where they match defender-level AC.

Allowing top-stat to AC would mean that every class would hit defender-level AC far easier -- and, as an example, Warlocks would start with above-wizard AC levels, instead of basically matching Wizard AC levels by default.

Next, note that con-to-AC-for-Primal-in-Hide was restricted in a number of ways. First, it was one stat that reflects "toughness". Second, it is hide-only: so only classes that are already wearing the top-tier light armor can use it. Third, it is primal only, whose classes already tend to have similar features. Other classes have to MC a primal class, and often buy hide armor (requiring 13 strength) before they can use this feature!

In my experience, this has generally resulted in a cost of about 1 feat for 1-2 AC per feat. The exceptions I've noticed to this rule of thumb is the Str/Con barbarian, who gets a great ROI from that feat, and the Swarm druid at paragon/epic levels.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 11:12 AM
It's a balance thing. Whether it matches verisimilitude isn't really relevant.

It's not that far off verisimilitude. Superhuman intelligence lets you react inhumanly quickly (see also: Ozymandias from Watchmen) because you can process information and predict much more quickly. In other words, you're not actually reacting at all - you've just realized what's about to happen so fast that it looks like you're reacting. Really, you are preempting the event.

The other pairs - Str and Con for fort defense, Wis and Cha for will - also make sense, at least to me.

oxybe
2010-02-09, 11:13 AM
because all defenses are tied to 2 stats and the int/dex pairing seemed like the best one for WotC?

verisimilitude/believability/whatever... is all in the central eye of the beholder. some classes allow a swap due to class features, others require a feat. other classes just say "screw stats to AC, i'm wearing heavy armor!" it's not up to wizards to make it so it's easier for you to immerse yourself into their game. it's really up to you to adjust your suspension of disbelief or move to another game if it really stops you from having fun.

on the flipside, if you should be able to use your highest score for AC, why not for Will? or Reflex? or Fort? would it bee too much of a stretch that a fighter's head is so thick that mind-bending magics can't affect him (Con to Will)?

valadil
2010-02-09, 11:15 AM
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about variable stats to saves? Str/con for fortitude, int/dex for reflex, and cha/wis for will.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-09, 11:22 AM
It's not that far off verisimilitude.
Sure it is (Ozy is an olympic-class athlete). One can find a contrived example for everything, even aside from the cop-out of "hey, it's magic so we don't have to explain it". That doesn't make it verisimilitudinous.

(hm, does that fit on a Scrabble board? :smalltongue: )

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 11:28 AM
Sure it is (Ozy is an olympic-class athlete).

So what? In 4e, you're a hero - for every point of actual speed you don't have due to not being as athletic, simply add a point of "preemptive time" due to your intellect being higher.

And if you're both dumber and slower than he is, that means your stats are lower, which makes you easier to hit - just as the system would dictate in-game.


That doesn't make it verisimilitudinous.

Are you saying that the ability to process information shouldn't affect your speed of action? It makes sense to me.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-09, 11:36 AM
Are you saying that the ability to process information shouldn't affect your speed of action? It makes sense to me.
No, I'm simply saying that an "int" stat has little if anything to do with real-world intelligence, just as a "dex" stat has little to do with real-world dexterity. The feat or feature, like many other parts of the game, doesn't need an explanation beyond "game balance", and I see no problem in that.

Indeed, it has the benefit that you can now play a e.g. a fighter who is skinny and weak but nevertheless competent: your "str" stat doesn't mean you're strong, it means you're good with fighter attack powers. This means added versatility for character building.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 11:43 AM
No, I'm simply saying that an "int" stat has little if anything to do with real-world intelligence, just as a "dex" stat has little to do with real-world dexterity. The feat or feature, like many other parts of the game, doesn't need an explanation beyond "game balance", and I see no problem in that.

Did I say "Real-world intelligence?" I'm pretty sure I said "ability to process information" which is exactly what the Int stat does in D&D.


Indeed, it has the benefit that you can now play a e.g. a fighter who is skinny and weak but nevertheless competent: your "str" stat doesn't mean you're strong, it means you're good with fighter attack powers. This means added versatility for character building.

Given that Str boosts other things (like Athletics) it can't be just "the fighter power stat."

Altima
2010-02-09, 11:44 AM
What really bugs my keister is that only dexterity gives you initiative bonus. So, in all instances, unless your primary stat is intelligence, it's better to go with dexterity.

That's right--WotC finally went the last step and made intelligence a dump stat.

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-09, 11:46 AM
Personally I think it makes plenty of sense. Both Int to AC and Int to Reflex.

And no, I don't think you should be able to apply any ability to any defence etc. Not for free anyway. For example, there is a feat that will allow barbarians (and possibly others? I forget) to apply Con to AC. Literally as you suggest above "I'm just too tough for you! muahaha!")

Kurald Galain
2010-02-09, 11:47 AM
Did I say "Real-world intelligence?" I'm pretty sure I said "ability to process information" which is exactly what the Int stat does in D&D.
Which is why it gives bonuses to perception and information gathering, and is added to the number of actions you can take each turn, right? :smalltongue:


Given that Str boosts other things (like Athletics) it can't be just "the fighter power stat.)
Yes, because weightlifting totally makes you better at swimming, leaping and playing soccer! :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 11:50 AM
Which is why it gives bonuses to perception and information gathering, and is added to the number of actions you can take each turn, right? :smalltongue:

Those are more passive activities (Wisdom) than active.

The "absent-minded professor" archetype (High Int, Low Wis) that misses obvious details because he's too busy focusing on esoterica still applies in 4e.


Yes, because weightlifting totally makes you better at swimming, leaping and playing soccer! :smallbiggrin:

It does actually, since you need to pull yourself through a resistive medium (swimming), push off against the ground to beat gravity (leaping) and of course, kick really hard to score goals (soccer.) You're just proving my points. :smallamused:

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-09, 12:01 PM
There are different types of strength, but it all boils down to muscles.

Strength relates to direct and actual power. Lifting weights (such as yourself up over or through things) striking things, moving things, whatever.

Dexterity is more fine control, the muscular control of the body and so on, as well as being about fast movements.

Constitution is the third muscular stat IMO. It is the kind of muscular thingy that governs your core and stablising muscles. See things like your Buddist Monks beating themselves with sledge-hammers and so on as well as things like yogic muscular control. Neither about speed or strength, but definately muscular.

All three traits as I define them (and loosely) can be trained for, though the types of excersizes for each are distinct.

TL,DR;
Yes, Strength helps with Jumping, swimming and climbing. Not directly sure about football, think it depends what position you are playing. You might get better use out of acrobatics if you are a goalkeeper, though I'm pretty sure there are strikers who go that route too. Probably mostly brazillians.

(note - I similarly like to consider Int Wis and Cha as simply different kinds of intelligence, but know less about that kind of stuff in the real world.)

Artanis
2010-02-09, 12:04 PM
*original post*

There's two big things about this.

First, as you can see, not everybody agrees with you that it would make sense to add the highest of all your stats to AC.

Second, even if it did, 4e accepts that it's a game - and thus treats itself as such - to a far greater degree than 3.5. When verisimilitude clashes with balance, balance takes precedence. Many people like the fact that 4e has this sort of attitude, and many people dislike it. Either way, for better or for worse, that's just the way 4e rolls (no pun intended).

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 12:36 PM
Either way, for better or for worse, that's just the way 4e rolls (no pun intended).

Yet you made it anyway :smallmad:
*groans*

DSCrankshaw
2010-02-09, 12:43 PM
I've always presumed that it's the difference between thinking quickly (Int) and reacting quickly (Dex). So it never really bothered me.

Ozreth
2010-02-09, 12:47 PM
They did int or dex because those are the 2 stats now associated with your reflex save. Simple as that really.

The conversation should have ended here.

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 12:48 PM
I've always presumed that it's the difference between thinking quickly (Int) and reacting quickly (Dex). So it never really bothered me.

Ending here is good too, since this summed up my example perfectly.

Asbestos
2010-02-09, 02:09 PM
TL,DR;
Yes, Strength helps with Jumping, swimming and climbing. Not directly sure about football, think it depends what position you are playing. You might get better use out of acrobatics if you are a goalkeeper, though I'm pretty sure there are strikers who go that route too. Probably mostly brazillians.


I can't think of a single serious athlete that doesn't use weight training to some degree. Even Tiger Woods used weight training in what is generally seen as a the least athletic professional sport. And back when I was doing track/swimming in high school the weight room was certainly not unfamiliar to me, nor was it to the baseball, hockey, soccer, and lacrosse players. Even marathon runners do some weight training.

Susano-wo
2010-02-09, 03:52 PM
The INT to AC is only realistic if it is either: A: in addition to DEX, as both can be justified to assist you. [I say "can be justified to" because every stat can represent different things, even INT, which is the most focused of the six.]

or B: you take the lower of the two, since you can have superhuman perception all you want, but unless you can actually slow time, not just your perception of it, you will still only move out of the way as fast as your little legs can take you..in other words, your reflexes create a sort maximum evasion ability, no matter how quickly you process data.

(ok, the most realistic would be a certain boost from high INT (say 1 or 2), but nay more would have to be matched by Dex :P)

So yeah, its pretty much a pure balance issue. The design philosophy of Wizards for 4e as I understand it Equals: balance/streamlined play>realism (3.5 was mostly like this, but a lot of times realism would spike up and cause balance/streamlining issues :P)

P.S. upon further pondering, since INT is, as Optimystic pointed out, active processing, and Wisdom is passive, then really WIS works here, but INT does not :P

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 04:05 PM
or B: you take the lower of the two, since you can have superhuman perception all you want, but unless you can actually slow time, not just your perception of it, you will still only move out of the way as fast as your little legs can take you..in other words, your reflexes create a sort maximum evasion ability, no matter how quickly you process data.

If you start moving BEFORE the fireball comes out though (and you did see it coming, because you correctly interpreted his finger movements/the particular fluctuations of the air/the caster's focused expression etc.) then it doesn't matter if you're slow, fat etc.


P.S. upon further pondering, since INT is, as Optimystic pointed out, active processing, and Wisdom is passive, then really WIS works here, but INT does not :P

That's not what I said at all.

Wisdom is passive perception - Intelligence is application of knowledge.

Wisdom informs you of things your conscience mind isn't aware of. Someone is licking their lips while talking to you and glancing behind them nervously - they are worried about something and may even be lying to, even as your Intelligence is focused on recording what they're actually saying.

To contrast, Intelligence allows you to know that if a wizard points at you and moves his fingers like so, a fireball will come out. It also lets you know that the heat from that fireball will be mostly concentrated upward, because (for example) it will instantly superheat the air around the impact area, making it rise.You hurl yourself to the ground as it begins to emerge; thus, you make your save.

Dexterity doesn't relay any of that information - it merely allows you to jerk out of the impact zone fast enough to avoid the brunt of the damage once the fireball is already in flight; thus, you make your save.

Same result, different method.

tbarrie
2010-02-09, 05:00 PM
Wisdom is passive perception - Intelligence is application of knowledge.

Wisdom informs you of things your conscience mind isn't aware of. Someone is licking their lips while talking to you and glancing behind them nervously - they are worried about something and may even be lying to, even as your Intelligence is focused on recording what they're actually saying.

To contrast, Intelligence allows you to know that if a wizard points at you and moves his fingers like so, a fireball will come out. It also lets you know that the heat from that fireball will be mostly concentrated upward, because (for example) it will instantly superheat the air around the impact area, making it rise.You hurl yourself to the ground as it begins to emerge; thus, you make your save.

You've just convinced me that it definitely should have been Dex and Wis for Reflexes and AC.

(And, I guess, Int and Cha for Will, which makes at least as much sense as Wis and Cha anyway.)

Optimystik
2010-02-09, 05:03 PM
You've just convinced me that it definitely should have been Dex and Wis for Reflexes and AC.

Well, you can lead a horse to water...

Devils_Advocate
2010-02-09, 05:08 PM
What really bugs my keister is that only dexterity gives you initiative bonus. So, in all instances, unless your primary stat is intelligence, it's better to go with dexterity.
Also, Constitution adds to your hit points and maybe healing surges, I think, and Strength... lets you carry more? Do they still have carrying capacity in 4E?

Of Wis and Cha, Wis is probably better by default, since it improves Perception, and you can probably let one party face character handle the negotiations and stuff. So... no change there.

Here's my question: Wasn't the whole concept behind ability scores that each one gives you an edge in a particular collection of conceptually if not mechanically related things? If you're going to move towards not tying any particular thing to any particular ability score, doesn't that sort of defeat the point of having them? If you're going to do that, why not just eliminate the ability scores entirely?

Because, you know, you could. You could have all of the bonuses to offense, defense, skills, magic, or whatever the heck come entirely from race, class, feats, and gear. And that way e.g. "This is a smart character" or "This is an agile character" would be a conclusion you'd draw based on what a character does and/or is capable of. You wouldn't have the absurdity of a "highly intelligent" character who is played stupidly and not even mechanically good at smart-person-type-things.

In 3E, your Con score really was not a measure of how tough you are, because your hit points and Fort save were determined as much by your number of levels. Similarly, if character A has a better Ref save and better Initiative than character B, how does higher Dexterity give character A "better reflexes"? This is even more the case in 4E, where you automatically become more competent at everything instead of an arbitrary subset of things. You add half your level to every roll and defense stat, I think, so your ability scores don't solely or even primarily determine your ability to do anything. They don't represent any particular level of competence at anything, none of them solely determines your competence compared to other characters of your level at anything important so that a low score is a weakness, and everything that they add to you could just bump up separately, if you just designed things to work that way. So seriously, why have them at all?

I think that ability scores are a holdover from earlier days that were kept for tradition's sake and not because keeping them was a sound design choice. Like alignment, 4E would have been better off to just toss them out entirely instead of shoehorn them into a system where they don't really fit anymore.

Someone discussed this on the Gaming Den forum, and how in accommodating dump stats 4E has sort of spit on some classic character archetypes like the cunning and nimble rogue, the wise and charismatic leader, and the strong and hardy warrior. I can't find the thread right now though, 'cuz I can't get the site to load.

Edit: They also continued the whole weird thing where you have this ability score that you almost never directly use for anything and instead you use the related ability modifier that equals... (the score - 10)/2, round down. UGH. :smallyuk:

Tehnar
2010-02-09, 06:10 PM
You are not adding INT to AC, you are adding stat number 4 to AC. As such the names of stats don't actually have much relevance to the mechanic they support.

Rixx
2010-02-09, 07:22 PM
If you're just going to add your highest stat to everything, why even have more than one stat at all?

oxybe
2010-02-09, 07:35 PM
yes. we should have one stat: "awesomosity" the more awesome you are, the better :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2010-02-09, 07:55 PM
Also, Constitution adds to your hit points and maybe healing surges, I think, and Strength... lets you carry more?
Your highest stat adds to your hit points (courtesy of various backgrounds). Carrying capacity is considered irrelevant.

It would actually make a lot of sense to add wisdom to your AC (instead of dexterity) because you can use your intuition to avoid attacks. On the other hand, perception is definitely more fitting under "int", since int governs your capacity for processing information. Of course, it's not like the difference between int and wis is well-defined in the first place.

Overall, it is pretty easy to handwave a reason for why whichever stat you like should apply to whatever you're doing right now. Swimming makes perfect sense as a dex check. It's easy to see how Streetwise could work on a Tough Guy act, thus a str check. History involves memorizing long tables of facts, and should thus be based on con to keep your concentration. Yes, you can claim that perception belongs under wis; yet with equal ease you can justify it belonging under int, or cha, or perhaps con. And so on and so forth.


I think that ability scores are a holdover from earlier days that were kept for tradition's sake and not because keeping them was a sound design choice.
Precisely.


You are not adding INT to AC, you are adding stat number 4 to AC. As such the names of stats don't actually have much relevance to the mechanic they support.
Precisely, again.


If you're just going to add your highest stat to everything, why even have more than one stat at all?
Primarily to please the oldbies: any system derived from D&D "must" have those six stats, and they "must" start in a range of 3 - 18 (except for the low numbers since nobody wants to play those). But yeah, you could replace them by "prime, secondary, tertiary" and three numbers that are irrelevant.

Altima
2010-02-09, 07:56 PM
Also, Constitution adds to your hit points and maybe healing surges, I think, and Strength... lets you carry more? Do they still have carrying capacity in 4E?

Con does add to your constitution and healing surges (moreso for Dragonborn). Strength lets you, you know, hit hard. Since it is basic attacks that use strength--unless a feat is applied. Strength is also required for some of the better feats to better your weapons, but usually in those cases, it's either strength AND con (though con is a lesser stat) or strength AND dexterity.



Of Wis and Cha, Wis is probably better by default, since it improves Perception, and you can probably let one party face character handle the negotiations and stuff. So... no change there.

This is true, and wisdom is also required for quite a few feats. Although, on the other hand, perception isn't a class skill for every class. So, really, unless you're going for aparticular build, neither are that important (apart from Will save). Obviously, if a race has a bonus to one, such as a tiefling, she's going to maximize its use.



Here's my question: Wasn't the whole concept behind ability scores that each one gives you an edge in a particular collection of conceptually if not mechanically related things? If you're going to move towards not tying any particular thing to any particular ability score, doesn't that sort of defeat the point of having them? If you're going to do that, why not just eliminate the ability scores entirely?

True, but as I've shown, even apart from AC and whathave you, each stat is required for most of the really impressive feat. On top of that, some classes lean on better attributes than others.



Because, you know, you could. You could have all of the bonuses to offense, defense, skills, magic, or whatever the heck come entirely from race, class, feats, and gear. And that way e.g. "This is a smart character" or "This is an agile character" would be a conclusion you'd draw based on what a character does and/or is capable of. You wouldn't have the absurdity of a "highly intelligent" character who is played stupidly and not even mechanically good at smart-person-type-things.

Also true, but 4e goes a little too far in their dump stats. They actively encourage adventurers to have below average stats in some areas. Sometimes, this is a good thing, as it gives characters weaknesses. However, I imagine there's quite a few 4e players and DMs out there having a majority of party members who can't speak proper Common (8 intelligence).



In 3E, your Con score really was not a measure of how tough you are, because your hit points and Fort save were determined as much by your number of levels. Similarly, if character A has a better Ref save and better Initiative than character B, how does higher Dexterity give character A "better reflexes"? This is even more the case in 4E, where you automatically become more competent at everything instead of an arbitrary subset of things. You add half your level to every roll and defense stat, I think, so your ability scores don't solely or even primarily determine your ability to do anything. They don't represent any particular level of competence at anything, none of them solely determines your competence compared to other characters of your level at anything important so that a low score is a weakness, and everything that they add to you could just bump up separately, if you just designed things to work that way. So seriously, why have them at all?

Attributes still do matter in 4e. Your largest influx of HP is at level 1, where you add your constitution score to your starting HP. Even if you never put another point in constitution again, that start constitution score will raise two points. It also determines healing surges.

Little attribute points in your primary to hit stats also add up. Defenses start to over-reach attack power in the paragon path, and some classes need every bonus to eek out enough numbers to even hit consistently.

Your stats represent what you start with--you, as a raw adventurer, as it were. In the first few levels you do rely on them. However, as your levels increase, you lean less and less one sheer brute force and more on the skills you've acquired while trekking through a dark tunnel and getting clawed, bitten, and burned for a few pieces of shiny metal.

Susano-wo
2010-02-09, 08:43 PM
"Those are more passive activities (Wisdom) than active.

The "absent-minded professor" archetype (High Int, Low Wis) that misses obvious details because he's too busy focusing on esoterica still applies in 4e."

Sorry, I should have put a silly smiley to indicate that I didn't appear to be misusing your conclusion, Optimystic--it was meant to be a bit...tongue in cheek is the best term I can think of for it.

In the situation of seeing a wizard do X, therefore you know Y is coming, three things, really, are factoring in (using RL application of the DnD stat model): WIS in spotting that he is starting to cast a spell (and the higher the WIS, the faster you in theory do so) INT in recognizing that he is doing, say, the somatic components of Fireball, and knowing the factors involved and processing what to do(last part might actually go to Wisdom, I think...), and lastly your reflexes taking over to do the actions that your brain is feverishly telling your body to do.

Any one of these, really, weakens the others' ability to function, in essence creating a cap on how much you can do; a weakest link sort of scenario.

RE: assuming the stats to be detached from concept. I frequently do that, though mostly in high prime requisite stats. If I am making a Wiz and I have an 18, its because I need that for him to properly function. HE may be as dumb as a rock, assuming I want to play him that way. (though there have been times that I have, for mechanical reasons, needed to dump my low score into something that conceptually I should have had higher)

However, it is a totally different thing to say that the stats simply =stat1 through stat6, and that there is no correlation of stat to the aspect of the char they are supposed to represent. Because the game isn't set up that way. It is setup to say that the stats represents characteristic groups, and that they influence, within balance, the things you would expect them to influence. A group of people can always opt to ignore this, but that's not the same as what the stats actually are.

RE: stats not mattering in 4th because everything increases by X every so often,that conclusion is false. Stats matter a great deal, since *everyone* increases those scores by 1 every 2 levels, so your stats determine how much ahead or behind the curve you are. So someone with, say, an ending score of 16 in their primary stat is going to miss 5-10% more than the guy who ends up with 18-20 in his primary, throughout his character life--more so if he does not keep increasing said primary with his 4-level increases. Not saying that 3rd does not have this as well, just saying that stats still matter a great deal.

Asbestos
2010-02-10, 12:28 AM
Your highest stat adds to your hit points (courtesy of various backgrounds). Carrying capacity is considered irrelevant.


Yes, but rules for carrying capacity exist. Just as there are (paradoxical) rules for drowning and rules for starvation.

In 3.x there were various feats/features/whatever that basically let you use whatever stat for AC/HP (like that annoying 'must have' one for Wizards that uses Int for HP. WTF?! Even Fey still use Con for HP!)

And, as always, backgrounds are 'optional'. Personally I very rarely if ever use/allow them. If I do its just the 'generic' ones that add +2 to some skill or let you learn a language or let you replace some class skill with a different skill. Mainly because some of the Scales of War/FR ones are stupid. Flipping everyone is 'born under a bad/good sign' its just lame and since its a background it has an effect on RP (or at least characterization) and people end up with very samey 'optimal' backgrounds.


But, since I have many times have taken part in one of these discussions (always with KG no less) I will say that there are those that, thanks to the fact that skills are still influenced by the logically relevant ability score and that the drowning/starving/carrying capacity stuff is in the rules and refers to the logical ability score and that the various classes refer to the logical ability scores (Wizards are smart, druids are wise, sorcerers are charismatic, rogues are dextrous, fighters are strong, etc, etc ((the secondary stats can make this odd sometimes))) Anyway, because of all that there are those (myself included) that feel that it isn't just "Stat 4" or whatever. It is Intelligence or it is Strength and these still (as much as they did in earlier editions) remain relevant and refer directly to those physical/mental attributes that they always have.

Now, thanks to the fact that the fluff fails us (or isn't present) this can make things a little hard and we have things like super-strong sorcerers and people saying that there is no way to say that makes sense and that if you can justify it than you can justify anything (hence why it becomes Stat 4). But then there are those that DO think up reasonable ways it makes sense, but since those aren't 'official' reasons it becomes 'hand-waving' and the arguments continue with one camp saying stats are still measures of ability and others saying they are just stats.


All I know is that in MY games (not in everyones) the ability scores still measure ability. If you have 8 Int, you aren't smart. If you have 20 Cha, you have a powerful presence. My dragon sorcs would get along fine with this guy:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/ActionJackson186/armstrong.jpg
And my charisma to AC rogues use feints and misdirection instead of Stat 6 to evade their enemies.

The rules might not spell this out, but I mean, that's no reason not to have some imagination.

Tehnar
2010-02-10, 12:46 AM
I personally blame point buy. Points shouldn't be used to purchase attributes when a system is level based. Then you get MAD, and get weird stuff that some swing swords better because they are more pretty then others. Attributes stop making sense if you use point buy.

oxybe
2010-02-10, 01:15 AM
I personally blame point buy. Points shouldn't be used to purchase attributes when a system is level based. Then you get MAD, and get weird stuff that some swing swords better because they are more pretty then others. Attributes stop making sense if you use point buy.

i honestly hope you're not serious about this, right? you probably forgot to put a smiley in there somewhere.

Teron
2010-02-10, 01:16 AM
I personally blame point buy. Points shouldn't be used to purchase attributes when a system is level based. Then you get MAD, and get weird stuff that some swing swords better because they are more pretty then others. Attributes stop making sense if you use point buy.
:smallconfused:

That makes no bloody sense.

Asbestos
2010-02-10, 01:35 AM
:smallconfused:

That makes no bloody sense.

I'm going to third the "wtf, mate?" sentiment.

Tehnar
2010-02-10, 01:43 AM
No, think about it. You have a level based, class based system like any iteration of DnD. Now you say Charisma determines your social graces, how well your character handles himself in a social situation. Then you make a class with Charisma as a primary attribute, say a bard. And finally you have a point buy method of assigning ability scores.

Now when you create a bard you are going to want a high charisma, regardless of what charisma really means, because the bard is designed around charisma. That means you have less points to spend on your other 5 attributes. So lets say you assign all other attributes and in your consideration you feel STR should be the lowest for a optimal build (doesn't really matter what attribute it is, I am just using a example). However the oh so clever designer thinks to himself; Wait, thats not right, I want bards to be able to hit things with their rapiers. So what can I do? I said that STR determines how well you hit things, but any decently build bard will have a abysmal STR score. So I will just make it that bards use their Charisma to attack instead of their STR score.

This logic leads to having absolutely no idea what attributes represent. So Charisma is for social interactions, but if you are a bard its also for facestabbery, something that by definition STR is for? It stems from the point buy system, where you have different attribute scores competing for the same resource, and for each class one or more scores will lose.

When you roll for attributes, you accept that your character can be mechanically worse then others. Then there is no need to have CHA apply to facestabbery, simply a bard with good rolls can have a high STR and be good at facestabbery, and a character with low rolls can't. I don't need to change the meaning of ability scores, because I don't strive for balance since a prior characters are not created equal.

oxybe
2010-02-10, 01:51 AM
No, think about it. You have a level based, class based system like any iteration of DnD. Now you say Charisma determines your social graces, how well your character handles himself in a social situation. Then you make a class with Charisma as a primary attribute, say a bard. And finally you have a point buy method of assigning ability scores.

Now when you create a bard you are going to want a high charisma, regardless of what charisma really means, because the bard is designed around charisma. That means you have less points to spend on your other 5 attributes. So lets say you assign all other attributes and in your consideration you feel STR should be the lowest for a optimal build (doesn't really matter what attribute it is, I am just using a example). However the oh so clever designer thinks to himself; Wait, thats not right, I want bards to be able to hit things with their rapiers. So what can I do? I said that STR determines how well you hit things, but any decently build bard will have a abysmal STR score. So I will just make it that bards use their Charisma to attack instead of their STR score.

This logic leads to having absolutely no idea what attributes represent. So Charisma is for social interactions, but if you are a bard its also for facestabbery, something that by definition STR is for? It stems from the point buy system, where you have different attribute scores competing for the same resource, and for each class one or more scores will lose.

When you roll for attributes, you accept that your character can be mechanically worse then others. Then there is no need to have CHA apply to facestabbery, simply a bard with good rolls can have a high STR and be good at facestabbery, and a character with low rolls can't. I don't need to change the meaning of ability scores, because I don't strive for balance since a prior characters are not created equal.

well, seeing as how the bard's facestabbery charisma attacks are actually magical mindf**ks, and "It's magic!" is a general accepted response to "how is that possible?" in D&D-land, yes the bard the attacks you with charaisma. it's magic.

you probably didn't have a problem in 3rd ed when the bard was all like "I'm pretty!" and then his enemies convulsed in dance or whatever.

Tehnar
2010-02-10, 02:05 AM
I was actually mostly thinking about melee training feat when I wrote this. But it also applies to defenses, and all other substitutions.

And if we are going to explain it all by its magic, then why not only have a Magic attribute? Or a Awesomeness attribute some mentioned previously?

Asbestos
2010-02-10, 03:19 AM
I was actually mostly thinking about melee training feat when I wrote this. But it also applies to defenses, and all other substitutions.


I think that Melee Training works by just well, being trained in making regular melee attacks in a way best suited towards the character's strengths. For the Dex classes it makes the easiest sense. It isn't a stretch for Int either (I like the Robert Downing Jr's Sherlock Holmes as an example of this). For Wis, well, the monk has always sort of represented this (Zen Archery is the same thing, but for bows). Con is odd, but Con has always been difficult to disengage from Str (which is why I like Fort applying to both). Cha can be seen as being adept at using feints or using whatever Cha-based magicalness the character has (this works because, to date, all classes that have Cha as a primary score are pretty magical.)

There isn't one awesome fighting style. The Barbarian or Fighter might be suited to a brawling, hit as hard as possible sort of fighting style while the Rogue favors quick jabs, the Avenger goes all Zen and 'becomes the blade', and the Bard makes it look like he's going one way while he goes another. Heck, maybe the Bard does it like Elan with quips and puns.

faceroll
2010-02-10, 03:44 AM
What really bugs my keister is that only dexterity gives you initiative bonus. So, in all instances, unless your primary stat is intelligence, it's better to go with dexterity.

That's right--WotC finally went the last step and made intelligence a dump stat.

About time. I am so sick of hearing people go "well, he is really smart, so he can do whatever he wants to!"

No, he's really smart, which means he's uncovered the cold hard truths of reality and spends the rest of his days weeping sadly in the corner of his padded cell. :smallannoyed:


It does actually, since you need to pull yourself through a resistive medium (swimming), push off against the ground to beat gravity (leaping) and of course, kick really hard to score goals (soccer.) You're just proving my points. :smallamused:

Ehhh, not as much as you think it does. Cross-training is like putting a really sharp edge on a beautifully crafted sword. Most of the... ok, this analogy doesn't really make much sense, but it's an analogy. They aren't supposed to. :smallcool:


yes. we should have one stat: "awesomosity" the more awesome you are, the better :smalltongue:

**** YEAH!!!

Tehnar
2010-02-10, 03:55 AM
For the record I don't like what they did in 3.x when they allowed substitutions of ability scores. However at first they were few and far between, and mostly made sense so I could live with them. The later ones made me grit my teeth though.

I will not argue the justifiability of substitutions, as we can probably go back and forth with examples and counter example why it could and couldn't be used.

However, I will pose you a question. Without looking at the fluff, bonuses to skills and prerequisites what is the difference between Charisma and Wisdom? If you didn't know the character classes, could you tell if a character is using his Wisdom modifier or his Charisma modifier to attack? Could you tell if you didn't use fluff to describe a attack?

P.S. For the record also I find the new Sherlock Holmes movie to be absolutely awful, which has as much common to the original Sherlock Holmes as Robert Downey Jr has to Abraham Lincoln.

Inyssius Tor
2010-02-10, 03:57 AM
the melee training feat

Grr.

I stand by a statement I made last year, that I could find a perfectly reasonable in-universe rationale for the effects of Melee Training in any situation where Melee Training would be worth taking.

Inyssius Tor
2010-02-10, 04:16 AM
However, I will pose you a question. Without looking at the fluff, bonuses to skills and prerequisites what is the difference between Charisma and Wisdom?

P.S. For the record also I find the new Sherlock Holmes movie to be absolutely awful, which has as much common to the original Sherlock Holmes as Robert Downey Jr has to Abraham Lincoln.

To answer that question, I'll pose you this one: Without looking at any aspect of their respective appearances, actions, or reputations, what is the difference between Robert Downey Jr. and Abraham Lincoln?




(On an unrelated note, I'd be interested in hearing you back up your claim that this movie's Holmes isn't anything like that of Arthur Conan Doyle.)

oxybe
2010-02-10, 08:41 AM
However, I will pose you a question. Without looking at the fluff, bonuses to skills and prerequisites what is the difference between Charisma and Wisdom? If you didn't know the character classes, could you tell if a character is using his Wisdom modifier or his Charisma modifier to attack? Could you tell if you didn't use fluff to describe a attack?


huh? are you asking if that, in a total vaccum, without referencing the books or having any indication of what a certain score means? if i wanted a "real" definition i would probably check a dictionary at that point. or just say that wisdom is the proper application of smarts while charisma is what the Macho Man Randy Savage has in spades.

on the second point, no. then again just seeing X Vs Def doesn't tell me much. then again, what's the point of this? a sorceror using his charisma to attack and enemy by lighting him on fire is different from a bard using it to distract him while the warlock gives him a migraine (then lights him on fire).

on the flipside, you're resisting a Detect Toughts in 3rd ed cast by a very average looking person. if you didn't know the character class of the enemy, was it cast by a wizard (int), cleric of knowledge (wis) or bard (cha)?

you need some context for the stats, otherwise a name alone is meaningless. same with powers.

as for melee training in a void:
dex - bob & weave, picking your spot then striking when appropriate
Con - you walk into an attack but shrug it off, then counter.
int - you predict enemy movements and let him walk into it
wis - you swing when it feels "right", more of a gut instinct
cha - you deceive your enemy through body language, making him walk into your attack

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 08:50 AM
you probably didn't have a problem in 3rd ed when the bard was all like "I'm pretty!" and then his enemies convulsed in dance or whatever.

Ok, so I really want to sig this? But the damn sig limits.

Screw it, I'll do it anyway.

Roderick_BR
2010-02-10, 09:51 AM
But if that is so... why not simply allow you to take your highest ability score and apply the bonus to AC? If you're smart enough that you can calculate where that sword will be in the next two seconds (which is basically what the above explanation says), surely you can use your great insight and presume what the enemy will do, based on what he did so far. Bam, and we have WIS bonus to AC.

Not a bad use. Many classes already used it in 3.x

Charisma? Surely you wouldn't want to hurt someone as pretty as me?
I would only allow it for member of the same race, and opposite genders... or variations :smallamused: Otherwise, I don't think that orc cares for your Cha 18. Again, there's ways, but most of them are magic ones, like some creatures that gain deflection bonuses based in Cha.

Constitution? Natural armor! Strength? My, my, what big muscles you have! Basically, another version of natural armor.
Quoting GURPS: An axe will cut through an invalid ancient as much as a health and strong young adult. They wouldn't add enough value for AC. There are some abilities in 3.x that uses it, though, like the DeepWarden PrC for dwarves.


So can somebody explain what prohibits me from using my highest ability score bonus to AC? Other than because WotC said so. Personally, I'd much sooner allow somebody to apply WIS or CHA bonus to AC instead of INT. CON too. STR is debatable, but as far as I'm concerned, no more than INT.
Done. I agree, though, that Int doesn't make more sense than Wis.

Tehnar
2010-02-10, 11:16 AM
To answer that question, I'll pose you this one: Without looking at any aspect of their respective appearances, actions, or reputations, what is the difference between Robert Downey Jr. and Abraham Lincoln?

(On an unrelated note, I'd be interested in hearing you back up your claim that this movie's Holmes isn't anything like that of Arthur Conan Doyle.)

Its elementary:smallwink:. The former is alive and the latter is dead.

On the movie itself

In the movie there is no mention of Holmes drug abuse, homosexuality and while Sherlock Holmes (from the novels) was a proficient boxer, they have gone way overboard with that in the movie. The movie focused on the action, and not the deduction and forensics and thus fails to portray Holmes as the intellectual that he was.




you need some context for the stats, otherwise a name alone is meaningless. same with powers.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. In 4e the stat name meaningless as its use does not conform to their definitions. You can call it stat #4 as well as intelligence and it makes no real difference. Now since fluff is all personal perception, and each can find his own justifications for it, defining attributes from a mechanic point of view is the only thing that makes sense. If there is no mechanic difference between two attributes, then why have 2, why not only 1?

AstralFire
2010-02-10, 11:17 AM
Homosexuality? What?

I own most of the Holmes stories. I do not recall this.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 11:24 AM
Many people mistake his misogyny (and close friendship with Watson) for homosexuality. He does appreciate women, he just considers them too flighty for any kind of attraction to take root, I think.

Tehnar
2010-02-10, 11:26 AM
It was subtly implied then stated out. His aversion to women and his relationships with Watson and his only friend from college. When I reread the books when I was older, I thought it to be strongly implied.

AstralFire
2010-02-10, 11:30 AM
It was subtly implied then stated out. His aversion to women and his relationships with Watson and his only friend from college. When I reread the books when I was older, I thought it to be strongly implied.

Two words: Irene Adler.

He simply believes most women to be incapable of engaging him intellectually. She is a very prominent exception. She is not merely 'a' woman to him, she is 'the' woman. IDK, I feel appalled at anyone doing a critique of anything Holmes neglecting to take her into account.

I seriously wonder why, as soon as a character shows no or limited interest in the opposite gender, so many assume that they are gay. In this day and age it's not even out of fear of them half the time, just some odd fascination. It's like Starcraft: You must construct additional sexualities.

(Or should it be, We require more vespene gays?)

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 11:36 AM
(Or should it be, We require more vespene gays?)

I got a chuckle out of that (and yes, it was in Aldaris' voice, curse you!) :smallbiggrin:

@ Tehnar - at most, he was asexual (and I doubt even that), but he certainly hadn't joined our team.

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-10, 11:39 AM
Actually, if anything I'd go with him being Asexual / Heteroromantic. Well, that and a tiny bit misanthropic actually.

Very much a creature of the mind rather than the body.

[edit - Note, I find the idea that Watson was not only gay, but gay with an unrequited crush very amusing. Not that there's anything to back the idea up, it just gives me the chuckles.]

Yakk
2010-02-10, 11:43 AM
Its elementary:smallwink:. The former is alive and the latter is dead.

On the movie itself

In the movie there is no mention of Holmes drug abuse, homosexuality and while Sherlock Holmes (from the novels) was a proficient boxer, they have gone way overboard with that in the movie. The movie focused on the action, and not the deduction and forensics and thus fails to portray Holmes as the intellectual that he was.

Huh?
Homes was on drugs multiple times in the movie. They didn't show him injecting, but they showed everything else short of it.

They showed in boxing in an overly visual manner. It was, after all, a movie.

I wasn't aware the books explicitly stated he was homosexual -- rather, that he was a misogynist, and not that much of a letch? The two are not the same.

They attempted to show the deduction via CSI style visuals. It being a visual medium, you can say it was badly done, but using visuals to describe deduction (instead of text) is a matter of change of medium, not message!

AstralFire
2010-02-10, 11:45 AM
Actually, if anything I'd go with him being Asexual / Heteroromantic. Well, that and a tiny bit misanthropic actually.

Very much a creature of the mind rather than the body.

[edit - Note, I find the idea that Watson was not only gay, but gay with an unrequited crush very amusing. Not that there's anything to back the idea up, it just gives me the chuckles.]

He was married, and more importantly, very taken with his wife. I'm aware that you're not putting forth this idea, but who in Sam Hill did?

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 11:46 AM
Mostly he did opium, IIRC - you sit in a den and inhale it, no needles necessary.

Draz74
2010-02-10, 11:48 AM
I recall cocaine being the dominant vice, actually.

AstralFire
2010-02-10, 11:52 AM
It was cocaine. Recall that at that time, cocaine's cost made it socially acceptable (I believe it has a relationship with Coca-Cola), while Opium was already associated with a bad reputation.

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-10, 12:04 PM
He was married, and more importantly, very taken with his wife. I'm aware that you're not putting forth this idea, but who in Sam Hill did?

Just occurred to me, whilst reading this topic, actually. No doubt someone on the internet has had similar ideas, though, let's face it. :)

Draz74
2010-02-10, 12:08 PM
It was cocaine. Recall that at that time, cocaine's cost made it socially acceptable (I believe it has a relationship with Coca-Cola), while Opium was already associated with a bad reputation.

Really? I thought opium was pretty accepted at the time too.

AstralFire
2010-02-10, 12:15 PM
Really? I thought opium was pretty accepted at the time too.

Opium was about 2 decades closer to getting smacked with the temperance stick at that point, as I recall - prohibitions started around the time ACD was writing, while Cocaine took until a little bit into the 20th. Could be wrong though, this is me backforming. The fact that it's a stimulant where opium is a narcotic is probably more relevant as Holmes would resent feeling like his brain was being dulled.

faceroll
2010-02-10, 12:39 PM
It was cocaine. Recall that at that time, cocaine's cost made it socially acceptable (I believe it has a relationship with Coca-Cola), while Opium was already associated with a bad reputation.

Cocaine didn't have a social stigma because it was a stimulant, like caffeine, and served many medical purposes. That's why it was socially acceptable. Cost has nothing to do with it.

Tehnar
2010-02-10, 12:40 PM
Sherlock Holmes

I rather liked the television show, the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, in which I feel they managed to portray him fairly well. There was no need for action scenes. As for the homosexuality, that was just my opinion. It did not cause me to resent the movie solely on that, rather my biggest complaint is that Holmes didn't come off as a intellectual and English gentleman.

And from the books as far as I remember, Holmes took cocaine, opium and heroin, with the cocaine being the most prevalent.


As interesting as it is discussing Sherlock Holmes, perhaps we can move that discussion to another thread, before this one gets locked?

OT: I am not saying that what they did with attributes in 4e is wrong (following a more gamist philosophy). I like the system, and think there are numerous good things about it, I just don't like that part.

oxybe
2010-02-10, 02:06 PM
That is exactly the point I am trying to make. In 4e the stat name meaningless as its use does not conform to their definitions. You can call it stat #4 as well as intelligence and it makes no real difference. Now since fluff is all personal perception, and each can find his own justifications for it, defining attributes from a mechanic point of view is the only thing that makes sense. If there is no mechanic difference between two attributes, then why have 2, why not only 1?

couldn't we say that about all versions of D&D though? why shouldn't you be able to attack with charisma? i have a hard time believing that there is only one facet to melee combat worth noting (in this case strength). you seem far too caught up in the minutia and completely missing the bigger picture.

what do you mean that "no mechanic difference between two abilities" various scores govern various things. strength covers some skills & carrying capacity in addition to the basic melee attack (sans melee training). con covers HP, surges, the endurance skill. both dex & int cover AC and Reflex, but their skill coverage is quite difference and dex is also used for basic ranged attacks & initiative. wisdom governs your ability to perceive the world around you through perception, insight & skills like nature. charisma is mostly used for skills that interact with people.

while Str 14 & Int 14 both have the same value (+2) the derived attributes are quite different.

Devils_Advocate
2010-02-10, 10:01 PM
However the oh so clever designer thinks to himself; Wait, thats not right, I want bards to be able to hit things with their rapiers.
At the point where a designer says "The problem with this class based around buffing, spellcasting, and out-of-combat utility is that it doesn't excel at melee", the designation "clever" is already rather dubious. (See also: the 3.x Cleric.)


So what can I do? I said that STR determines how well you hit things, but any decently build bard will have a abysmal STR score. So I will just make it that bards use their Charisma to attack instead of their STR score.
To be fair, it's not like Strength governing melee accuracy wasn't ridiculous in itself. "I'm SO STRONG that I can cut a fly in half!" You basically can't have an enormous and powerful but slow and uncoordinated monster in d20, since a great big Strength score and many hit give a creature a very impressive attack bonus. Yeah, there's a size penalty to hit, but it's relatively trivial.


When you roll for attributes, you accept that your character can be mechanically worse then others. Then there is no need to have CHA apply to facestabbery, simply a bard with good rolls can have a high STR and be good at facestabbery, and a character with low rolls can't. I don't need to change the meaning of ability scores, because I don't strive for balance since a prior characters are not created equal.
Huh?! :smallconfused: You've got it the wrong way around. It's accepting the possibility of mechanical inferiority that makes rolling more palatable, not the other way around. Point buy didn't create players who don't want subpar characters; it was created for the many players who disliked the imbalance of random ability score generation.

If you hate having a mechanically inferior character but roll something like 18 15 12 11 10 7, then you're going to want ways to make the absolute most you can out of only two good scores. But if you can buy several fairly good stats, that's less of a concern. Rolling encourages having ways of leveraging just a few high stats, because that's the method where you might get stuck with just a few high stats. With point buy, that stuff's not so necessary, since you've got more freedom to move points where they're needed.


And if we are going to explain it all by its magic, then why not only have a Magic attribute?
It would make plenty of sense to have a Magic stat in D&D. As it is, spellcasting is very much something that can be arbitrarily associated with whatever ability score you please. And in 3.5, spellcasting is generally powerful enough on its own without additional benefits from a high casting stat.


Or a Awesomeness attribute some mentioned previously?
In 4E, your Awesomeness is equal to half your level. :smallcool:


as for melee training in a void:
dex - bob & weave, picking your spot then striking when appropriate
Con - you walk into an attack but shrug it off, then counter.
int - you predict enemy movements and let him walk into it
wis - you swing when it feels "right", more of a gut instinct
cha - you deceive your enemy through body language, making him walk into your attack
Right. Because something isn't made the exclusive province of one category of ability, you can arbitrarily associate it with whichever you want however you please by tacking on the right fluff. Like making Mage Armor a Conjuration spell.

So why have the separate categories at all, then, if you're going to make them basically meaningless?

Different mechanical categories should be mechanically different. Feinting opponents is fine, but it should work differently from simply being good at landing attacks. It's nonsensical to have scores (or spell schools, or whatever) that conceptually allow characters to do different things, and then allow players to use one to do whatever they want in any way that they want. "Oh, but it really happens in a total different way but just happens to have exactly the same effect" is not satisfying here. If the result is the same, then who cares about a purely theoretical difference? Why have a difference at all if you're going to make it not matter?

I find this really annoying when it's done with alignment. They can arbitrarily designate things as "evil" because "evil" doesn't specifically mean anything, and the arbitraryness contributes back to it not meaning anything.

Artanis
2010-02-10, 10:16 PM
Fun fact: on average, rolling gives you roughly equivalent scores to what you'd get out of point buy anyways.

Xenogears
2010-02-10, 10:45 PM
And from the books as far as I remember, Holmes took cocaine, opium and heroin, with the cocaine being the most prevalent.


I recall a book where he was investigating someone at an opium bar and made sure to tell Watson that he was not doing opium.

OT: I gotta agree that the differences between the stats is blurred enough to make multiple stats a reasonable choice for any given action. Plus most things IRL require you to use two, three, or even more "stats" to do a single action. I mean to carry something you need raw Muscle mass (STR), Stamina (CON), possibly willpower to keep going when tired (WIS), etc. So really the stat system is such an abstract game mechanic anyway it hardly seems to matter.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 05:15 AM
Maybe even Int, to know exactly where to hold it and balance it to minimise body strain.

Charisma is harder to justify- the only likely way Charisma would affect carrying stuff, is using it to persuade other people to carry your stuff.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 08:07 AM
Maybe even Int, to know exactly where to hold it and balance it to minimise body strain.

Charisma is harder to justify- the only likely way Charisma would affect carrying stuff, is using it to persuade other people to carry your stuff.

Hmm... you can know yourself so well that-

...Yeah, I got nothin'

oxybe
2010-02-11, 08:38 AM
right, because by default, the wizard can swing a weapon as good as a fight... wait... no he can't. it requires a feat (melee training: int) or he puts a lot of points into str only to try to keep up.

that's why i said "in a void" this talk of categories is ridiculous. yes, you are so totally right, just because you can use str or int on the most basic of combat techniques (basic melee attack) both stats are irrelevant, since nothing but attacking matters (cause your defenses, skills, lifting, ect... aren't used in 4th is. 4th is nothing but a combat game with no RP. AMIRITE?:smalltongue:)

big picture people. big picture. stop looking only one thing and look around it and what it encompasses. you're missing quite a lot.

Barbarian MD
2010-03-18, 08:22 PM
Here's an idea:

Rather than assigning different attributes to different tasks, why don't we skip the middleman and jump straight to the end product.

You could have a bunch of attributes: attack, damage, dodge, HP, skills, casting, etc.

From there, you point buy (or I suppose you could roll). So if you want a bard that stabs you in the face, you put points into face stabbing. And if you want to cast spells, you put points into spell casting. Viola. You're done, and you have exactly the character you want.

Would that be feasible?

Colmarr
2010-03-18, 09:06 PM
Hmm... you can know yourself so well that-

...Yeah, I got nothin'

I thought Charisma was generally considered to include force of will. If so, Charisma is how you tell yourself to keep carrying that object even though your arms and legs are really tired.

In fact, I'd split it this way:

Str - the ease with which you actually lift and carry the object;
Con - the ease with which you continue to carry the object, and the amount of strength you have left from your earlier exertions in the day;
Dex - your ability to balance the object and yourself if something goes wrong;
Int - your ability to plan the lift and carry to minimise the effort needed;
Wis - your ability to spot obstacles that might cause you to trip and/or drop the box.
Cha - your mental fortitude and ability to keep carrying long after your muscles are telling you to stop.

But all that talk is a massive herring because the ability to swap attributes is actually quite limited. You can't use Dex to lift and carry a box. You can use Dex (and Cha and Wis etc) for attacks, but it's much easier to explain that than the specific examples that are being thrown out here.

Yakk
2010-03-19, 09:19 AM
Here's an idea:

Rather than assigning different attributes to different tasks, why don't we skip the middleman and jump straight to the end product.

You could have a bunch of attributes: attack, damage, dodge, HP, skills, casting, etc.

From there, you point buy (or I suppose you could roll). So if you want a bard that stabs you in the face, you put points into face stabbing. And if you want to cast spells, you put points into spell casting. Viola. You're done, and you have exactly the character you want.

Would that be feasible?

Early designs of 4e actually dropped the number of attributes down to 3.

Reflex, Fortitude and Will.

You can see the remnants of it leaking through in some spots.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-19, 09:25 AM
It's possible to find a justification, albeit a dubious one, of how any other attribute could aid in carrying a box, or in swinging a sword. However, this doesn't explain how said ability replaces strength in doing so.

If your muscles have atrophied, then you can be Helen of Troy for all I care, but all your beauty still won't carry that box for you (it'll launch a thousand ships to do it for you, but that's another story)

Early designs of 4e actually dropped the number of attributes down to 3.
Got a source for that? Because it strikes me that the design principles for 3E, 4E, Alternity and so forth have always been that you may change anything you like, as long as you keep classes, levels and the Six Ability Scores.

Theodoric
2010-03-19, 09:30 AM
Got a source for that? Because it strikes me that the design principles for 3E, 4E, Alternity and so forth have always been that you may change anything you like, as long as you keep classes, levels and the Six Ability Scores.
Nah, it's not that unbelievable. Coming up with radical ideas is quite common in the very initial stages of development of nearly everything; more as a mental excercise than anything.

Optimystik
2010-03-19, 11:01 AM
I thought Charisma was generally considered to include force of will. If so, Charisma is how you tell yourself to keep carrying that object even though your arms and legs are really tired.

But what about when you're not tired? When you're perfectly well-rested and just not plain strong enough?

Talk to myself all I want, I'm probably not going to be able to lift up a taxi, but a bard with Cha to carrying capacity could.

Also, concerning Int to reflex saves from earlier in the thread, I found this quote from 3.5 Rules Compendium:



Reflex

Reflex saves reflect physical (and sometimes mental) agility. They incorporate quickness, nimbleness, hand-eye coordination, overall coordination, speed, and reaction time. If an effect seems like something that an agile person would be good at avoiding, it’s a Reflex save.

Emphasis mine. To me, it indicates that they were considering allowing Int to affect reflex even back then, and only got around to codifying it in 4e when they doubled up all the stats.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-19, 11:06 AM
Emphasis mine. To me, it indicates that they were considering allowing Int to affect reflex even back then, and only got around to codifying it in 4e when they doubled up all the stats.
Or conversely, that the dex score governs mental reaction speed, whereas int governs several other mental aspects but not reaction speed.

Traditionally, dexterity has covered a range of topics, not all of them physical. For instance, "balance" is much more physical than "aim", and dex tends to be closer to the latter. In White Wolf, two primary mental scores are intelligence (mental power) and wits (mental speed); in D&D, these appear to correspond to intelligence and dexterity, respectively.

Optimystik
2010-03-19, 11:14 AM
In 4e, Int is definitely "mental speed" now.

And it makes sense - if Intelligence is defined as "ability to analyze information" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#wisdomWis) then being able to analyze more information means you will react more quickly to danger. Knowing someone is wiggling their fingers to cast a spell is not as helpful as knowing that they are about to cast a fireball and that you should duck behind that table, for instance.

Yakk
2010-03-19, 02:41 PM
Nope: it was some quote by some 4e designer in some blog somewhere, I think. :)