PDA

View Full Version : Is it against the rules to have 2 scores at 8 in the 4th edition point buy system?



realbombchu
2010-03-23, 01:54 PM
I noticed that every time I used the DnD character builder for 4th edition, it marks my character as a house-ruled creation if I lower 2 stats to 8. I'm allowed to have one stat at 8, but not two of them. But I don't see where this is written. Am I breaking the RPGA rules somehow?

This array looks good to me: 18, 13, 13, 10, 10, 8, except that I'd rather have 18, 13, 13, 12, 8, 8.

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-23, 01:57 PM
In D&D 4e point buy, your stats start at 8 10 10 10 10 10. You can only have one 8.

And considering nothing has an ability penalty anymore, it is absolutely impossible to get more than one 8 unless you roll for your ability scores.

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-23, 02:07 PM
Yeah, it not "against the rules" so much as "not how the point buy system is set up to work." Just see what your DM thinks.

LibraryOgre
2010-03-23, 03:00 PM
Personally, I'd like the ability to have two 9s instead of an 8 and a 10. Usually inconsequential, but a nice benefit for hitting Paragon.

kc0bbq
2010-03-23, 03:24 PM
Personally, I'd like the ability to have two 9s instead of an 8 and a 10. Usually inconsequential, but a nice benefit for hitting Paragon.Then they're both 11s at epic and you haven't really gained anything over two 8s.

LibraryOgre
2010-03-23, 03:29 PM
Then they're both 11s at epic and you haven't really gained anything over two 8s.

Except you've gained that nothing ten levels earlier.

Rixx
2010-03-23, 03:40 PM
You're... you're not allowed to have low stats!?

Tengu_temp
2010-03-23, 03:46 PM
One dump stat is enough stat min-maxing anyway.

Faleldir
2010-03-23, 03:52 PM
But having two 8s gives you three 16s! I refuse to follow that rule!

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-23, 04:59 PM
You're... you're not allowed to have low stats!?

There's always going to be at least two ways to play. The official way, and the way that somebody likes better for reason X. No one's telling you which way to choose.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-23, 05:53 PM
You're... you're not allowed to have low stats!?

That's correct. It is a design feature of 4E that your character can never be below the average competence level for more than a few minutes.

Swordgleam
2010-03-23, 07:01 PM
There's always going to be at least two ways to play. The official way, and the way that somebody likes better for reason X. No one's telling you which way to choose.

What is this madness? When other people play wrong, the universe inches slightly closer to total entropy. Respecting other play styles? Bah.


That's correct. It is a design feature of 4E that your character can never be below the average competence level for more than a few minutes.

Now that's more like it!


The above is entirely sarcasm, for those who can't tell.

I'm guessing that it marks it as "house-ruled" because there's no way to get there by adding to the standard arrays, and not because there's a rule against it. It just checks for "is this exactly what the book says" and if not, toggles house-ruled.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-03-23, 07:06 PM
Yes. PHB pages 17 and 18. They describe how the point-buy system works. Just one 8, because if you had two, that would let you put all three of your most important stats at 16, and that would be uber-powerful. 4e is about balance.

Zaq
2010-03-23, 07:09 PM
Yes. PHB pages 17 and 18. They describe how the point-buy system works. Just one 8, because if you had two, that would let you put all three of your most important stats at 16, and that would be uber-powerful. 4e is about balance.

Honest question here: Was that meant to be funny? Perhaps I don't know enough about how 4e really works (I've only been playing for a month or so), but it struck me as supremely comical. How far off the mark am I?

Kesnit
2010-03-23, 07:12 PM
Honest question here: Was that meant to be funny? Perhaps I don't know enough about how 4e really works (I've only been playing for a month or so), but it struck me as supremely comical. How far off the mark am I?

While I think there was some intended humor, the general idea is valid. While some classes are better / worse than others, 4e tries to keep everyone on a semi-level field. Being able to boost 3 stats (rather than the normal 2) would give the character in question an advantage over other character.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-03-23, 07:14 PM
While I think there was some intended humor, the general idea is valid. While some classes are better / worse than others, 4e tries to keep everyone on a semi-level field. Being able to boost 3 stats (rather than the normal 2) would give the character in question an advantage over other character.

This. The extra boost wouldn't actually make you "uber powerful" as I said, but it would give you an extra edge that others wouldn't have.

Swordgleam
2010-03-23, 07:17 PM
Yes. PHB pages 17 and 18. They describe how the point-buy system works. Just one 8, because if you had two, that would let you put all three of your most important stats at 16, and that would be uber-powerful. 4e is about balance.

I'm looking at those rules now, and I don't see where they say that. They do say that you start with 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and add to them under method 2 (point-buy), and that method 3, rolling, isn't allowed at RPGA events. It doesn't say anything about subtracting in point-buy, and the table caption mentions scores below 8 (though only in the context of raising them) sometimes I have trouble reading words.

So I think it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't." I'm not sure I'd interpret character builder flags as being official rulings.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-03-23, 07:45 PM
I'm looking at those rules now, and I don't see where they say that. They do say that you start with 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and add to them under method 2 (point-buy), and that method 3, rolling, isn't allowed at RPGA events. It doesn't say anything about subtracting in point-buy, and the table caption mentions scores below 8 (though only in the context of raising them) sometimes I have trouble reading words.

So I think it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't." I'm not sure I'd interpret character builder flags as being official rulings.

Right. The first part was the RAW for this scenario, (he said he didn't see where it said that), and the second part was my explanation for the rules. But yes, they do say you start with one 8 and five 10s, and add. No subtracting is allowed by the rules. If they don't say you can do something in something this number-crunch-ey, I'd say you can't do it.

Swordgleam
2010-03-23, 08:29 PM
No subtracting is allowed by the rules. If they don't say you can do something in something this number-crunch-ey, I'd say you can't do it.

That's just your interpretation, though. Again, the "if the rules don't say you can't, you can" vs "if the rules don't say you can, you can't" thing is never-ending. I would allow subtraction. The rules don't prevent it.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-24, 03:29 AM
Honest question here: Was that meant to be funny? Perhaps I don't know enough about how 4e really works (I've only been playing for a month or so), but it struck me as supremely comical. How far off the mark am I?

Not sure. On the one hand, practically every class has two or three ability scores that matter to it, and the rest are mostly irrelevant. On the other hand, sticking all three of them at 16 is really not all that great a build. More useful would be 18/15/15 if you have three relevant scores, or 20/14 if you have two. Both require racial synergy, of course.

(edit) yes, this is a case of Rules-Don't-Say-You-Can(not). However, before allowing subtraction, consider what the impact would be for a character to lower his ability scores to one. If, for instance, a wizard drops his strength and charisma to one each, this will not impair the character at all. It doesn't affect his defenses, since they key off con and wis, respectively. It doesn't affect attacks or hit points or riders, since those key off int, con and wis, again. It only affects opportunity attacks (which wizards suck at anyway, and can be fixed with Melee Training) and a few skills that he'll never use in the first place.

So it's not just that playing a character who's bad at something is Not Fun; it's also that having the ability to take flaws that don't actually impair your character is Unbalanced.

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 08:22 AM
and a few skills that he'll never use in the first place.

Eh. Some official skill challenges have suggestions along the lines of, "each party member must succeed at one [whatever] check." For example, using athletics to climb out of a crumbling dungeon or endurance to make it through a storm. If you have a player who's min-maxing abusively (not just one who thinks it's an interesting character trait to have one insanely low score) just throw a bunch of skill challenges like that at them.

Or even don't do that - just put the character in a situation where it would be useful to have those skills. Charisma-based skills are always going to be useful. If I had a character with a charisma of 1, I'd make sure that any time they talked, whatever NPC the party was interacting with would get very insulted, and just having that character around would make NPCs trust/like the party much less. Having a strength of 1 would also mean the character could barely carry their clothes and spellbook, let alone a pack - too bad about all those nice, but rather heavy, magic items.

You might be able to make a character super-optimized for combat by making a stat or two absurdly low. But I really don't think it's a sustainable decision. An even slightly creative DM can make the negatives more than outweigh the positives of getting your to-hit and damage a few points higher.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-24, 08:33 AM
Eh. Some official skill challenges have suggestions along the lines of, "each party member must succeed at one [whatever] check."
Yes, but that's considered bad design for an SC because some characters just don't have that skill. For instance, asking fighters to roll stealth is just asking for a failure anyway. Besides, you can take Arcane Muttering as your L2 utility power.

But yeah, you are correct that a competent DM can deal with abusive players. Nevertheless, one of the reasons why low ability scores aren't allowed by the PHB character generation is because they can be abused in this fashion. The way the rules work, to most characters three ability scores really are completely irrelevant.

Indon
2010-03-24, 10:02 AM
Am I breaking the RPGA rules somehow?

Yes.

The RPGA plays by strict rules as written, and you can only ever have one 8.

To the rest of you, pay attention, here, it sounds like he's talking about an official RPGA game, in which a DM can't just change the rules.

tcrudisi
2010-03-24, 10:04 AM
...You might be able to make a character super-optimized for combat by making a stat or two absurdly low. But I really don't think it's a sustainable decision. An even slightly creative DM can make the negatives more than outweigh the positives of getting your to-hit and damage a few points higher.

Yes, but look at what is being discussed in the broader terms. This is about LFR/RPGA vs. home games. The character builder is just saying, "Hey, this isn't legal per the normal rules, so it's a house rule."

Going off this, we have to look at why it's bad. Is it bad for home games? Not completely, for the reasons you outlined. Is it bad for RPGA? Definitely, considering the DM doesn't have the flexibility required to modify the module to make those negative scores be impactful. As such, it is unbalancing and makes one character stronger than the others right out of the gate: something that 4e is against.

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 05:31 PM
I certainly can't speak to RPGA rules. I thought the original question had two different parts: is this the RAW in the PHB, and is this the RPGA rule? To which I would respond that it's not necessarily the RAW in the PHB based on the "rules say you can/can't" argument. It makes sense that it would be against the RPGA rules.

It's funny that you guys mention there are some useless stats in 4e, because to me, 4e is the edition that finally eliminated dump stats. But I suppose I've always taken a more skill-focused view. I was mostly thrilled that fighters can no longer ignore wisdom.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-24, 06:23 PM
It's funny that you guys mention there are some useless stats in 4e, because to me, 4e is the edition that finally eliminated dump stats.
I wonder what makes you think that, because it seems to me that 4E has way more dump stats than earlier editions. In 3E, there were some SAD classes but most of them weren't, and everybody had to look at con for hit points, and int for skill points. 4E has eliminated most of that: pretty much every class is very well playable with as many as four dump stats.


But I suppose I've always taken a more skill-focused view. I was mostly thrilled that fighters can no longer ignore wisdom.
...but they can, easily. For instance, you can make a hammer fighter based on str and con, ignoring the rest, or a two-blade fighter focusing on str and dex, ignoring the rest. Fighters get zero benefit from intelligence or charisma, making for two other obvious dump stats. Similarly, a rogue focuses on either dex/str or dex/cha (or dex/int with MP2) and can safely ignore all four other stats. Benefit from e.g. wisdom is, again, pretty much zero.

Thing is, you might want cha or int for the skills - but the problem is that in order to make a non-neglegible difference in those skills, (1) you end up making a noticeably larger negative difference in your primary and/or secondary stat, and (2) you still end up sucking in those skills anyway.

greenknight
2010-03-24, 06:46 PM
That's correct. It is a design feature of 4E that your character can never be below the average competence level for more than a few minutes.

Given that "average" for an adventurer in 4e is a score of between 12 and 13, and you can have a score of 8 through the entire Heroic Tier, I'd have to disagree with you.

If you're referring to skills, it's even worse, because most skills are untrained and the difference between a skill a character is good at (trained in, and frequently also with ability score synergy) and the average skill level for that character is quite significant.

I realize that the book says that Humans have an average score of between 10 and 11, but the Human entry in the MM doesn't support that. Even Human Rabble have an average of 11 (the upper end of that "average"), and the average score of all the other Humans is significantly higher than that. For example, the Human Bandit has an average of 12.5, and the Human Guard has an average of 13. Maybe if you factor in the ability scores of the non-Adult population the Human average would be between 10 and 11, but I'd expect the Adult Human average to be higher than 11.


Eh. Some official skill challenges have suggestions along the lines of, "each party member must succeed at one [whatever] check." For example, using athletics to climb out of a crumbling dungeon or endurance to make it through a storm. If you have a player who's min-maxing abusively (not just one who thinks it's an interesting character trait to have one insanely low score) just throw a bunch of skill challenges like that at them.

See above. No character is good at everything, so this kind of challenge is guaranteed to produce failures even under normal circumstances. Particularly if you use them a lot.

Alternatively, this might lead to players spamming the "aid another" tactic, which would effectively make these skill challenges useless, unless you make the DCs so high that we go back to scenario #1.


Again, the "if the rules don't say you can't, you can" vs "if the rules don't say you can, you can't" thing is never-ending. I would allow subtraction. The rules don't prevent it.

The rules don't prevent you from playing a Zax either. Zax is a race I just made up which gives +100 to each ability score and has an encounter power called "I win" that kills every enemy within 10,000 squares. So by that argument, the Zax aren't a house rule.

The rules generally just tell you the things you can do, not the things you can't. On that basis, subtraction in point buy isn't possible. And looking at the Character Builder, which is published by WotC, having 2 scores less than 10, or any score less than 8, is a house rule. Which pretty much confirms the point.

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 07:07 PM
I wonder what makes you think that, because it seems to me that 4E has way more dump stats than earlier editions. In 3E, there were some SAD classes but most of them weren't, and everybody had to look at con for hit points, and int for skill points. 4E has eliminated most of that: pretty much every class is very well playable with as many as four dump stats.


I don't remember what initially gave me that impression. I think part of it is that all stats now have useful skills based on them, and part is that each class has three main stats, plus everyone likes Con and you want your defenses covered. Sure you could only focus on two stats for a lot of the classes, but that's boring. You'd be stuck only taking powers from one build, with no real chance to hit with any other ones.

I don't really think about min-maxing optimizers when I form my opinions. (I don't mean that disparagingly, I just don't game with anyone like that.) To me, there's less reason for the "average player" to have a dump stat in 4e than in previous editions.


Given that "average" for an adventurer in 4e is a score of between 12 and 13, and you can have a score of 8 through the entire Heroic Tier, I'd have to disagree with you.

He was being sarcastic.



The rules don't prevent you from playing a Zax either. Zax is a race I just made up which gives +100 to each ability score and has an encounter power called "I win" that kills every enemy within 10,000 squares. So by that argument, the Zax aren't a house rule.

The rules also don't say that characters require air, just the effects of failing to hold your breath underwater. So by that argument, characters don't need to breathe unless they're attempting to swim. In fact, they can't, because there are no rules for it.

I don't want to get into a "rules say you can/can't" argument with you. I'm just astonished that you've never seen it before. It's the sort of thing where all parties involved have to agree to disagree.

Kesnit
2010-03-24, 07:12 PM
...but they can, easily. For instance, you can make a hammer fighter based on str and con, ignoring the rest, or a two-blade fighter focusing on str and dex, ignoring the rest.

In both cases, Will save will be poor. Yes, Will will lag behind anyway, but if you completely dump WIS and CHA, it will be even worse.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-03-24, 07:36 PM
No subtracting is allowed by the rules. If they don't say you can do something in something this number-crunch-ey, I'd say you can't do it.
+1

Normally I'm all for taking rule omissions as "Yes you can do it, just be reasonable about it." Heck, I break "No you can't" rulebook statements all the time (Yes you can move through enemy spaces, if you really want to risk the pain, even though RAW says you can't.)

But I'm perfectly happy with the 'Only one 8' thing. The standard point buy allows a comfortable level of min/max potential, so I feel no need to add more.

greenknight
2010-03-24, 07:53 PM
He was being sarcastic.

I've seen too many people argue that 4e characters have no weaknesses to be confident of that. The problem is that some people just look at raw numbers without putting them into proper context.


The rules also don't say that characters require air, just the effects of failing to hold your breath underwater.

You're right. D&D assumes that characters normally have access to air, so the rules only point out situations which might come up where that won't happen. If you want more rules about air breathing, try playing a game set in space.

More to the point, the character builder made by WotC says that scores below 8, or two scores below 10, is a house rule. Since the Character Builder is as official as any other WotC product, that means the rules do say you can't do that.


So by that argument, characters don't need to breathe unless they're attempting to swim. In fact, they can't, because there are no rules for it.

And by that logic, the Zax I created isn't a house rule. You can't just make your own stuff up and call that the official rule. At best, you can say the official rules aren't clear on the issue, although the Character Builder pretty much puts this particular issue to rest.


I don't want to get into a "rules say you can/can't" argument with you. I'm just astonished that you've never seen it before. It's the sort of thing where all parties involved have to agree to disagree.

It's really very simple. The rules say what you can do, and point out some specific prohibitions. Anything else is either unclear or unstated - you can't make something up and call it an official rule.

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 07:57 PM
It's really very simple. The rules say what you can do, and point out some specific prohibitions. Anything else is either unclear or unstated - you can't make something up and call it an official rule.

All of what you say is true. But none of what you say means that doing something that the rules don't explicitly allow is not fully intended by the game.

The RPGA is of course a different story.

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-24, 08:22 PM
If it was fully intended by the game it would actually be stated.

Intentional design decisions tend to be, you know, stated outright.

greenknight
2010-03-24, 08:26 PM
But none of what you say means that doing something that the rules don't explicitly allow is not fully intended by the game.

Which is why we have DMs and houserules, and also why there's an eternal debate over RAW and RAI. But once again, the bedrock here is that if the rules explicitly allows you to do something, you're fine. Anything else must be viewed as a house rule.

And that's exactly how it should be. I wouldn't want the game designers to release a document of thousands of pages which covers all the possible situations they can imagine. Not only would it waste the developer's time and be horribly expensive, it would be almost impossible to find the rule for a particular situation, much less remember it. But that's not a problem provided DMs exercise common sense and rule for the good of the game.

Thajocoth
2010-03-24, 08:51 PM
Standard point is, simply: 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, which you assign to any scores. Then you have 22 points to spend.

8->9 costs 1 point
8->10 costs 2 points
10->11 costs 1 point
10->12 costs 2 points
10->13 costs 3 points
10->14 costs 5 points
10->15 costs 7 points
10->16 costs 9 points
10->17 costs 12 points
10->18 costs 16 points

There are no conversions from any other numbers to any other numbers. It's a clear one-way chart.

You CAN do things many other ways. Those ways are all houserules. This is the RAW as seen in the PHB.

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 09:00 PM
If it was fully intended by the game it would actually be stated.

Intentional design decisions tend to be, you know, stated outright.

And that's why game books are thousands of pages long. Because they intend for you to only ever take actions or encounter situations that the rules cover. :smalltongue:


Which is why we have DMs and houserules, and also why there's an eternal debate over RAW and RAI. But once again, the bedrock here is that if the rules explicitly allows you to do something, you're fine. Anything else must be viewed as a house rule.

There's a difference between saying, "There is no rule for using Mage Hand to move an object that counts as difficult terrain, so I'm going to say it requires an Arcana check to pull off but you get an extra action point due to your creativity," which would be a house rule, and "There is no rule for or against using Mage Hand to do that, so I'm going to assume you can." Which is not a house rule, but neither is there a rule for it.

lesser_minion
2010-03-24, 09:15 PM
By RAW, you are allowed to roll scores, so you could end up with two or more 8s that way.

However, the RPGA rules forbid you from using rolled stats, and the two methods you are allowed to use don't allow more than one 8 by default. That's why your character is being marked as 'house rules'.

taltamir
2010-03-24, 10:16 PM
You're... you're not allowed to have low stats!?

an 8 is like a "flaw"... it has a misleading name.
you take 8s and flaws because they make you vastly more powerful... because you put them in worthless stuff and instead boost what you actually use.
: example, meet minmax http://goblins.keenspot.com/d/20050710.html - minmax traded his ability to read to get another +1 to hit... he has dodge and combat reflexes (Among many others) in level one... he traded his ability to rhyme on purpose for "improved unarmed strike". thats pretty much what low attribute scores and flaws are. (not to mention some of the cool ACFs out there)

4e bans having more than one 8, it is not different then a DM banning 3e "flaws".
Note that I am sure your DM would allow you to drop a 10 to an 8 WITHOUT getting points to spend elsewhere if you tell him its because of <insert stormwind here>

greenknight
2010-03-25, 02:39 AM
And that's why game books are thousands of pages long.

I haven't noticed any D&D rulebooks that big lately. For the most part the 4e books are only around 200 - 300 pages, and again, most of that is used for things other than describing how the rules address specific situations.


There's a difference between saying, "There is no rule for using Mage Hand to move an object that counts as difficult terrain, so I'm going to say it requires an Arcana check to pull off but you get an extra action point due to your creativity," which would be a house rule, and "There is no rule for or against using Mage Hand to do that, so I'm going to assume you can." Which is not a house rule, but neither is there a rule for it.

As a matter of fact, scenario two is indeed a house rule. And a bad one at that. There are plenty of things which aren't explicitly covered by the rules, and simply allowing them because they aren't covered will lead to disaster.

Once again, the bedrock here is that if the rules explicitly allows you to do something, you're fine. Anything else must be viewed as a house rule. In some cases, the house rule is simple and obvious. In others, you could be causing some major headaches for yourself, or you could just be solving an issue caused by the existing rules.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-25, 06:58 AM
I don't remember what initially gave me that impression. I think part of it is that all stats now have useful skills based on them,
That's not exactly new, though. Ever since skills existed, each stat has had useful skills based on it. However, a character cannot be good in all or even most skills. You can only be good in a handful; and it's really okay if your fighter is bad at arcana, that's what the party wizard is for. Likewise, if your wizard is bad at diplomacy, you'll just ask the party bard to do the talking. Indeed, most characters pick skills which they would be good at.

The point is this: adjusting your ability scores will not make you good in more skills. The best it can do is give a +1 somewhere, which you won't notice in practice; anything more than that, and you end up eroding your more important attributes. A friend of mine tried that, and ended up with a fighter with only 14 strength: the hazard here is that this means you end up noticeably worse at combat, and you still suck at diplomacy anyway.

This is not even heavy optimization: it's not part of the fighter's role to be good at social skills, and as a result, making a fighter focused on social skills is likely to end up being mediocre at both.


and part is that each class has three main stats, plus everyone likes Con and you want your defenses covered. Sure you could only focus on two stats for a lot of the classes, but that's boring.
Okay, granted that a class with three stats is more interesting than a class with two, that still leaves us three dump stats for every class. Using three stats also means you have your defenses covered.

This leaves us with e.g. a str/dex/wis fighter, a con/int/wis wizard, and a str/dex/cha rogue. Each of which has all defenses covered, a range of powers to choose from, and three dump stats. Overall, it is fair to say that pretty much every character in 4E has three dump stats. That is a good thing, because given the way pointbuy works (and the boosts every 4th level), you can't actually keep four stats at a reasonable level.

That does mean that most characters have more dump stats than in earlier editions.


In both cases, Will save will be poor. Yes, Will will lag behind anyway, but if you completely dump WIS and CHA, it will be even worse.
Two things. First, completely dumping wis and cha does not make the "lag behind" significantly worse, because at least one of the stats will be 10 (or 12 with racial boost) anyway.
Second, it's a tradeoff: if as a fighter you reduce your dexterity score to improve your cha score, then yes, that's +1 to your will defense. However, it's also -1 to your ref defense. This means that overall, you will end up being hit by the same number of attacks! Statistically, it makes no difference whether you have two defenses at 15, or you have one at 13 and the other at 17.


an 8 is like a "flaw"... it has a misleading name.
you take 8s and flaws because they make you vastly more powerful... because you put them in worthless stuff and instead boost what you actually use.
That's precisely the point, yes. The most common munchkin trick in any RPG is to take flaws that don't actually impair your character, and use the extra points to take bonuses that do improve your character. As I have been pointing out, having three low ability scores doesn't actually impair your character, so using those for bonuses would be unfair. And that is why 4E forbids you from having three low ability scores.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-25, 07:08 AM
Let me give a concrete example. I am creating an elf rogue, as an example, although the example holds equally for other races and classes.

As an elf, I get +2 dex. I want a good dex, so I start with a 16, with +2 bonus for 18. I'm an artful dodger, which means I need charisma. Okay, I want to be good at my role so let's put a 16 here as well. None of this is optimizing so far.
To get a healing surge and cover my defenses slightly better, I'll take a 12 in constitution, because I can't afford a 14 any more. Now I have two points remaining, and where I put them won't boost any defense. Essentially I can get a +1 to athletics, or perception, or knowledge skills. But only a +1. And I have three dump stats, arguably four since my con isn't impressive either.

So here's the thing: after picking my primary and secondary stats, I'm pretty much out of points already. I cannot fix my low fort defense, or my low perception score, and still be a charismatic rogue. Incidentally, if I were optimizing, I would probably put a 17 or 18 in dexterity before racial bonuses, which leaves me even less room.

Swordgleam
2010-03-25, 10:54 AM
This leaves us with e.g. a str/dex/wis fighter

But you can't have con as a dump stat for a fighter. Fighters are defenders and need HP and healing surges. And if your int/cha are both low, your will defense sucks, so those can't be dump stats either. Edit: Actually, I don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

I think the problem is we have a different definition of "dump stat." I barely consider an 8 to be a dump stat; it's only a -1 penalty. To me, a dump stat isn't a stat you can ignore, it's a stat you deliberately lower beyond what is reasonable. A fighter with a 6 Con would have Con as a dump stat, and I think we can both agree that that's a really bad idea. So Con is not a dump stat, at least by my definition.



I haven't noticed any D&D rulebooks that big lately. For the most part the 4e books are only around 200 - 300 pages, and again, most of that is used for things other than describing how the rules address specific situations.

I was being sarcastic. I even used an emoticon to help get that across.





As a matter of fact, scenario two is indeed a house rule. And a bad one at that.


No, it isn't. Mage Hand can move certain kinds of objects. Some of those kinds of objects might also count as difficult terrain if they are on a battlefield. It is not a house rule to say that if Mage Hand moves an object that counts as difficult terrain, the square of difficult terrain moves. It is a logical conclusion based on the rules, and there is not rule against it. It simply isn't explicitly stated that it's possible.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.. and never, ever play in games with one another.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-25, 10:59 AM
Actually, a STR DEX WIS fighter has all three defences covered. Int is paired with Dex.

Otherwise You're not a million miles wide, Swordgleam. :smallsmile:

Swordgleam
2010-03-25, 11:01 AM
Oh, right. I mix those two up all the time. :smalltongue: Secondary defenses is the one thing I always have to look at the book for when I'm building characters.

I sometimes miss tri-stat dX, where I could build a high-power character from scratch in under 15 minutes without even looking at the book.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-25, 11:20 AM
I think the problem is we have a different definition of "dump stat." I barely consider an 8 to be a dump stat; it's only a -1 penalty. To me, a dump stat isn't a stat you can ignore, it's a stat you deliberately lower beyond what is reasonable.
It a stat can truly be ignored, then it doesn't matter if you deliberately lower it beyond what is reasonable. It is therefore not a bad idea for a game to set minimum limits to stats; this prevents people from lowering dump stats beyond what is reasonable.

If we assume that the minimum value for each stat is 1, then you have a good point that constitution can never be a dump stat, because it affects healing surges. Also, in this scenario, dumping dex is iffy, because it affects initiative (but note that initiative tends to be overrated on D&D forums, and that you can make a character with many out-of-turn powers).

If we assume that the DM enforces that the minimum values are 8,10,10,10,10,10, then any stat that can safely be left at that absolute minimum is a dump stat. In this, constitution can be a dump stat, and so can dexterity. Sure, an extra surge can be nice, but several builds can do without.

Other stats can be a dump stat in either case: int for fighters literally does nothing except affect a few skills. These are skills that (1) fighters can easily do without, and (2) fighters will suck at even if they don't dump their intelligence. You can easily fulfill your role as a fighter without ever succeeding on a bluff check. The same applies to e.g. str for wizards (only OAs).

Compare this to 3E: every character needs a modicum of str for carrying capacity, a bit of dex/con/wis for the relevant saving throws, con for hit points, dex for init, and int for skill points. Dropping your wis in 3E is a bad idea because it nukes your will save; in 4E, you can always base your will defense on cha.

Of course, this is purely crunch: many people will want a higher charisma for fluff reasons, because they don't want an ugly fighter that everybody hates. Nothing wrong with that, of course. However, fluff is always mutable.

Swordgleam
2010-03-25, 11:29 AM
If we assume that the DM enforces that the minimum values are 8,10,10,10,10,10, then any stat that can safely be left at that absolute minimum is a dump stat. In this, constitution can be a dump stat, and so can dexterity. Sure, an extra surge can be nice, but several builds can do without.

See, this is exactly where our definitions disagree. I don't consider a 10 to be a dump stat, because it isn't actively decreasing from your capabilities. You simply aren't focused on boosting it to add to anything important. And a 10 Con is reasonable, if not great. That's what I mean by "ignore" - a stat you don't care about boosting.

So we don't disagree on how important stats are, just on where the number needs to be to reflect that. To me, if a stat is truly unimportant to you - a dump stat - you drop it as low as your DM will let you get away with - 6, 4, whatever. Whereas a stat that's useful but not the focal point of your build - Con for a fighter - you would never drop that low, you just wouldn't spend points on increasing it. So not a dump stat.